These are comments that I found particularly resonating in the follow up Moodle dialogue to Essential Question One. 9/15-9/21   Back to Essential Questions

Jason: Again i have to say both.I think both emphasize individual learning and social learning. Google started out more individual but is growing into more arenas than its predecessor yahoo and both are pushing the other to grow and be better.  I think any of these online one stop shop types like craigslist, yahoo, soon to be google originally offer individual services, but as anything grows as do video games into an online community, they become more community and social based.  Yahoo is social already, google is growing to be more social.  We all use them for individual purposes, but not once you go there often,  once you are there alot you start to see the communal nature of it all. In some ways hiding behind the computer screen makes it easier to be communal for those not so out going and chat rooms, online games and discussion boards all promote social interaction. 

Christine: I have to agree with Jason on this one. Google was originally geared towards individual learning but has expanded beyond to support social learning with items such as google groups, blogger, and talk (IM). Yahoo offers many opportunities for social learning, such as multiplayer games and online groups, but is also conducive to solitary learning. I've used Yahoo! Web Directories often to look up information on various districts and universities. As technology develops, the line between social/solitary learning will blur to a point where there will be no distinction. 

Julia: Did Google really start out as more individual? If you think in terms of offering "tools" for people to connect and socialize with one another, then perhaps Yahoo has the edge.  But if you look at how Google's search engine works, their page rank algorithm not only ranks hits with keyword relevance, but also gives weight to how many links point to that page from other pages. Wouldn't that be considered a form of social interaction (using hyperlinks on a page to point to additional information/knowledge on another page)?

Isabel:I am so old that I struggle with the idea of a search engine as an example of social learning. I really have to come into the 21st Cent. here. I still think that learning is individual, and the application of knowledge is social. The Greeks had different words for knowledge, one was intellectual knowledge, and the other was knowledge that can only be acquired through experience. In Spanish we have "saber" and "conocer," the same idea. One is intellectual, and the other is experiential. If we separate the two kinds of knowledge as the Greek, we could arguee that we are talking about two completely different things; therefore, learning is different depending of the kind of knowledge being acquired.  

Micheal S. Google = access information I think they learned the information was a powerful tool in the online communities-hence they are now an actual word in the dictionary as a noun and verb. Google:  http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=google . However, I also think they realized they were missing out on the social aspects of learning and got into the total communications aspects. That is why we are seeing this growth into email, groups, and voice over internet chat systems.
Yahoo = access groups I love the yahoo groups and they were the only one of its kind as far as I know for quite awhile. They seem to have always been about a more social way of learning.  Neither of these really intend to be one or the other but give the learned of engaging how they are most comfortable.  

Bridgette: I find this track of thinking pretty nifty. One of the most interesting things, for me that has happened in these two groups is Googles shift to record a huge, searchable library of important documents. This is impressive for many reasons but what strikes me the most is the aspect of service to a greater group in this endeavor. Connected people, world wide, can make use of this library and in doing so share a commonality of knowledge. Pretty cool!  

Doc Sue: And it's very interesting to realize that imbedded in Google is the very essence of communities learning together. The Google search algorithms calculate which sites have been searched the most...and those sites rise to the top because the thinking is this denotes the most interest on the part of the community based on this type of search. Very interesting that even "accessing information" ....which on the surface seems to be a solitary activity....now is deeply imbedded with all of this social learning stuff without us even having to think about it The same thing is true for the advertising that appears on the right-hand column. Advertisers determine....based on the kind of customer whose eyeballs they want to see their products....which hits should see their ads in that column. Yet another community to community sort of activity, a very social networking thing, that we take very much for granted.

Pam:This is interesting and a little confusing to me.  A lot of people have said that they feel that the internet is a very social experience, where as I have always thought that it was a little isolating.  I think in the OMET program, I learning how to make it a more socialable, and, in turn, more effective tool for me.  However, prior to that, I don't think I would have said that either yahoo or google was particularly social.  I have used yahoo groups, and I can see how the interface itself leads to more human to human interaction, instead of human to information.  Yahoo has all kinds of features that connect people to each other.  Google seems more information oriented.  Just the interface itself is stark.  All avenues lead to the information.  Yahoo's is a busy, cluttered but friendly room in comparison. So, I suppose my answer is, I don't see either as particularly social, but yes, yahoo seems more social. 

Eric: I started using Yahoo and Google at about the same time, several years ago.  Yahoo was almost entirely a social experience...online dating, online chat, sometimes purchasing products, online interest groups, and the like.  Google was the search engine of choice, better than the others I used, such as Webcrawler, Lycos, Alta Vista, and Excite.  I used it to browse documents at work, resolve software issues, for technical support, software updates, and knowledgebase searches. Now, the line between the two has blurred quite a bit.  I have to profess that I hadn't used Google for anything but a search engine until I started OMET.  I saw no reason to.  It remains one of the more comprehensive and user-friendly search engines.  But now I have a gmail account, I belong to two google groups for OMET.  Yahoo has improved its search engine a great deal, and has a lot more to offer than it did in the old days in the way of information access. They are becoming more and more similar.  Whereas Google was much more of a solitary learning experience and Yahoo quite the opposite, now I would say they are both social learning experiences, and Yahoo is employing a great deal more research capability in its offerings. 

Julio: First things first, the technical stuff:  1I like both Google and Yahoo, but if I had to choose only one of them, I would go with Google.  Both of them are great sites to do [almost] everything, but of course, there are major differences.  One of the best features of Yahoo is the ability to have one account to access all of their "departments" or areas of interest.  For example, I use their Calendar daily, but whenever I need to do a search, I always use Google.  Google has a great email system (still in Beta version), but has all of the features that  you want and need, specially all the space that you can possible need (almost).  Yahoo's finance section is great, up to date, Google lacks one.  Google has other great features such as translations, ads, groups, etc. Now, the "real" stuff going on behind these two great companies.  I don't think that neither one of these companies emphasizes individuality or social involvement, but basically offers the public what they really need and want.  What is this?  Well, as I said earlier, whatever  you're looking for, you'll find it in both places, it's up to you to make the final decision.  I've read some stories about the "makers" of those of these companies and if you have ever read one of these stories, you'll see that both were created from the need to invent something that was still not available, or was not being utilized to its maximum potential. 

Julio: I believe the market (for both sites) is definitively allowing the user to interact socially, but doesn't have to, that's the beauty of it.  About Craigslist, I think it's doing the job of a newspapers, it allows individuals to take a look at the world out there, and they can get involved, but don't have to.