I think this is a clever idea - one assumes that if people are getting sick with the flu, that they would start "Googling" information on the web about the flu. So, use the frequency of such searches to track the spread of the flu!

Here is a CNN.com story about it.

And here is the Google site

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple

They do?
Has anyone done any kind of a study to show how many computers actually use a provider connected to the web in state?
It might be true for home or small business. It's not necessarily true for some major companies. For instance, mine appears in the New York area.

__________________
Numbers are not case sensitive. (me)

It's a good idea. From what I could tell from their site, it seems to work. They've also collaborated with the CDC.

My only gripe is work related. This is yet another Google service that's smart and wonderful, but makes no money whatsoever.

Why, do you work for Google, or own stock?

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple

From their FAQ page, here is what they say:
But I don't know how they deal with the issue you bring up. Maybe just by shear numbers of requests and that most servers are at least in the same state.

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple

Right... "best guess".
I would imagine it's not much of a factor, but it would be interesting to know the margin of error anyway.
Of course, the whole concept probably has a larger margin of error. I guess, over time, we can see how good it is.

Here's another thought.
In some climates, there's a large percentage of the population that have already experienced some kind of flu and know the symptons. They wouldn't be googling, so the numbers in those areas might be low.

__________________
Numbers are not case sensitive. (me)

Stock, Swift. But I wasn't griping about the stock price, rather their lack of focus. Lately they've gone a bit 'project happy', coming up with really 'cool' products that add very little to revenue.

Of course it's hard to blame them. If you have such an awesome cash-cow as the search engine, the temptation for unfocused spending must be huge. I just don't like seeing all those clever engineers spreading themselves too thin. I guess I'm hoping for more of an Apple-type approach.

Coming back to the OP product, I've been through their data and charts. I'm upgrading good idea to a really good idea. We're entering flu season. Hopefully this will pass with flying colours.

Well, I'll drag the thread a little more off-course (hey! I started it ).

I actually appreciate that semi-unfocused model of R&D. Of course, I'm biased, I'm in R&D (chemistry). But, from personal experience, I think too many companies have a too focused R&D program, just looking for what will make them money in the next Quarter.

There are several problems with a too focused methods, but I think the biggest is that you miss out on those unexpected opportunities. Sure, there is a small success rate, but I think many of those big advances come from out of the main focus.

And who knows, maybe Google can make money off of this (Swift grabs the Thread Wheel and fights to put it back on course). I suspect that such a methodology has aspects of interest to such people as Marketing. Instead of using it to predict where the flu is breaking out, use it to predict.... well, where the flu is breaking out, and sell that info to drug companies so that they can do targeted regional advertising of their products!

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple

I like Google's approach to research; searching for cool new ideas instead of just evolutionary improvements to what we've got. In the OP case, there may not be revenue involved (though government grants sometimes fund research like this), but I can easily see the technology being applicable to much more profitable data mining--like identifying the next big Christmas Must-Buy Toy a few weeks early. That is information that retailers would kill for.

__________________
Do try not to take me too seriously.

Keeping the thread wheel straight, I'd say that last point is a pretty good idea. Of course, Google have gone and put all their data on a website, but still...perhaps a more detailed presentation to drug companies? A greater breakdown of the figures? District by district, town by town?

I agree with you about R&D. I think that there's a happy medium somewhere between sitting on your laurels, and the shotgun approach. I just wish that Google wouldn't give me the impression that it just doesn't care!

Oh well. What will happen, will happen. If their search engine turns out to be market-share proof, then all will be well. If they get blind-sided by another 'Google' a few years down the line, they'll be crying. Lets hope it's the former.

Actually, I think the happy medium is not achieved by having the whole research department plot a middle course. I think it is achieved by having a distribution of projects, some tightly focused on near-term, some "out-there", most in the middle. As a researcher, I actually like this on a personal basis and have worked in research groups like this, where you are allowed something like 5 or 10% of your time to basically work on anything you like (within some broad categories of reasonable). It makes for a nice break from the "must-stay-on-schedule-two-months-behind" projects.

But, there have also been research departments where there were the "near-term" guys and the "out-on-a-limb" guys. Sometimes that works better, given peoples personalities and skill sets (that ability to think out of the box, for example).

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple

That seems to be a middle way Swift!

Google (and some other companies) actually do do what you mention, as far as I recall. Allot a percentage of 'free wheeling research' time. ~20% with Goggle? I'm not fully sure.

But just take a look at this: List of Google products. Too many, Swift. Far too many. ~90% of their revenue comes from advertising, most of that comes through their search engine. The hugely popular Youtube, only brings in a fraction of revenue. And it it wasn't even their product. They bought it to keep financial whingers like me happy.

Anyway, like I said, it's hard to blame them. Their main product is so successful that they're rolling in cash. They don't have same scale of pressure that say, you or I do. At this stage of the game, they can afford to make 'cool' products and maintain a campus atmosphere. But in my opinion, a bit too laid back. I don't want to see them get blind-sided. And I'm still hanging on to their stock...

I've got mixed feelings on this. I'm not crazy about search sites keeping *any* logs except for short term debugging purposes. They can still offer most of their services without analyzing all this data they are collecting behind the scenes.

This is an example of it being applied for good, but it's not hard to see ways it could be applied for not so good purposes.

Want to plot racism? How about religious inquiries? Political leanings? Viewpoints on policy? Which government agencies, or private parties, would Google decide to give that information to?

Could a(the) government be freely given and use information that would be illegal for them to acquire themselves without court order?