Perhaps, but I still consider it a poor choice of words at best, and insulting at worst.

Look how long it took the average non-technical user to figure out how to use the web in the first place.  Heck, I *STILL* know people who think you have to double-click on links on a webpage!  The fact is, most people online are very much morons when it comes to anything more complex than shopping online or sending an e-mail.

The average user is pretty dumb... Go to your local mall, watch the people milling about.  Those are "average users"  Sad, but true.

While I have seen my fair share of people using computers who are not very knowledgeable about computer use, I would tend to go with "not computer literate".

From my observations, many people become disinterested in the inner workings of the operating system, hardware, and programs based on one of the following:

1 - being intimidated by the apparent complexity of the system.

2 - only use the computer because they are - to some degree - forced to use today's technology.

The smart leader would see that educating the users, which requires an instructor who knows how to present information in ways that can be digested by the various learning styles of said users, is the most efficient way of improving the lack of knowledge and/or interest in computer use.

I have noticed that good instructors/teachers have the innate ability to convey information, and that successful business leaders do not necessarily have this talent. Usually, they (successful business leaders) have learned to delegate responsibilities in an efficient mannor.

For my part, I simply help someone set-up their desktop with simple, easy to understand shortcuts to the programs and functions they understand, and then wait until they request more functionality (which tends to occur once the user has begun to feel comfortable with the current set-up).

Has anyone read the article? He's not talking about the average computer user, or even the end-user using Google search products, rather the incompetent web designers that don't know how to use HTML that their engine has to deal with. It you quote the rest of that part:

"What I get a lot is: 'Why are you against the Semantic Web?' I am not against the Semantic Web. But from Google's point of view, there are a few things you need to overcome, incompetence being the first," Norvig said. Norvig clarified that it was not Berners-Lee or his group that he was referring to as incompetent, but the general user. "We deal with millions of Web masters who can't configure a server, can't write HTML. It's hard for them to go to the next step. The second problem is competition. Some commercial providers say, 'I'm the leader. Why should I standardize?' The third problem is one of deception. We deal every day with people who try to rank higher in the results and then try to sell someone Viagra when that's not what they are looking for. With less human oversight with the Semantic Web, we are worried about it being easier to be deceptive," Norvig said."

It seems obvious to me that the exec is saying that it is pretty starry-eyed to think a semantic standard for web development would be helpful when the average site doesn't even use HTML correctly. He also goes on to point out how all standards end up being abused or used for leverage between big companies. I'm not seeing where he said anything about you guys, so it seems odd you'd take offense.

rather the incompetent web designers that don't know how to use HTML that their engine has to deal with

I did read the article and I don't think he was referring only to the Webmasters. Yes, he mentions webmasters who can't write HTML, or configure a server, but in referring to the *general user* as incompetent he isn't speaking only of Webmasters.

I actually agree about the webmaster bit though, as I tried to post a couple days ago but the new forums ate my post..

It sounds more like a bad choice of words by the CNet reporter to me.

Possible to be sure, but this is where I started:

"Google Director of Search and AAAI Fellow Peter Norvig was the first to the microphone during the Q&A session, and he took the opportunity to raise a few points."

This seems to set up the next 3 paragraphs in the report as individual 'points' that Mr. Norvig made.

The first paragraph ends with "Norvig clarified that it was not Berners-Lee or his group that he was referring to as incompetent, but the general user."

I have a hard time categorizing web designers as "general users", but as you say, it may be so.   

The fact is, most people online are very much morons when it comes to anything more complex than shopping online or sending an e-mail. The average user is pretty dumb... Go to your local mall, watch the people milling about. Those are "average users" Sad, but true.

wow Zomba, I like you! so was surprised to read this comment that was rude, arrogant and ignorant. Different people are talented in different areas! Some are doctors, ( not talking about you BluDev, even tho you're a doc!) and perhaps you might not know what Cholesterolosis with cholesterol polyps is, however a doctor does! Truck drivers have to learn a lot about semi-driving and could confuse us not so much with their lingo, however with their the things they have to learn to be licensed! Mason's post about his work just blew me away.

I don't believe for a second that the "average user" is incompetent! We might not have a couple of years or even a year to become tech great at this stuff, however we do pretty darn good.

You're ok Zoomba, just think your comment was really uncalled for, judging people that are just walking around a mall, based on their looks, is....not very nice and you know, not smart.

"I would, but as Corky_O stated there is no direct quote attributing the statement to either of the Google execs. However, the author of the article states that Norvig later clarified his statement, and stated that it was not Berners-Lee or his group that was incompetent but the *average user*.."

And the 'later' part of that quote follows that statement by the CNet reporter, wherein he points at web developers and network administrators. It may seem like splitting hairs, but the whole point of your article is that a Google exec was dogging general computer users as incompetent.

I just think that when you accuse someone of saying something you ought to at least be able to point to where they said it. You have to read articles with the intent of seeing the bias of the person who wrote it, dividing the reporter's words, and bias, from the quotes.

It may seem like no big deal on an out-of-the-way forum on a relatively out-of-the-way website, but when you type (Norvig incompetent) into Google, this is the third link that comes up.

A lot of us 'grew up' with computers more than others. I showed a website I made to my grandma, and she had no clue what she was looking at. She thought I made the whole computer itself. My mom is unable to distinguish the difference between signing onto AOL and logging onto Windows.

A lot of computer users are 'morons' to some, but in some ways it would be like Stephen Hawking saying we're morons for not knowing what the heck he's talking about. There would be no, or very little viruses, spyware, worms, etc. if most computer users were 'competent,' but it's unrealistic and insulting to dismiss the 'general user' as incompetent.

Well I have to agree, most computer users are incompetent from my observations. They think that since they can log into myspace and maaaaaybe edit their myspace, they are master computer users. Just my two cents