Hakia: How credible is their credible sources?

I just read Erick Schonfeld’s (from TechCrunch) post on Hakia earlier today and it prompted me to think and ask a lot of questions about Hakia’s so called credible search results.

Hakia in my opinion is a very funny semantic search engine since it defined quality search results as:

1. Credible sources that are recommended by librarians,
   
2. Something that have recent information and
   
3. Relevant to search queries.
   

Well, there’s nothing wrong with providing quality search results but I would like to ask Hakia the following questions:

1. Why picked librarians as their Quality Controllers?
   
2. How credible is their chosen librarians?
   
3. Where do their chosen librarians come from?
   
4. How internet savvy is their chosen librarians?
   

You see, the World Wide Web is enormous, much bigger than well known search engines such as Yahoo and Google. I certainly don’t like the idea of Hakia barging into the scene claiming that they can provide quality search results when they are relying upon librarians (they do little online readings) to do the work for them.

We also have to ask where those librarians came from in the first place. If they are coming from American libraries, Hakia might as well get lost. The World Wide Web is much bigger than Uncle Sam. Let’s assume that Hakia’s librarians are coming from American libraries, would I be wrong to say that they might be biased in their recommendations?

By the way, correct me if I’m wrong but aren’t librarians are more familiar with printed materials such as books and journals than web pages?

Sorry but I’m not impressed with Hakia. I’ll stick with Google and Yahoo for the time being.

Related Link:
Semantic Search Engine Hakia Now Says It Can Filter Results By How Credible They Are