Google is hoping that the service will get more and more accurate as usage grows, but for the time being some of the searches are more amusing than scientifically accurate.
The images that are populated for each of the items can be a little confused, for instance, Cheshire in the counties list was a picture of the Cheshire Cat and Devon a picture of Devon Aoki.
The roughness was also obvious in the moons search in which Jupiter was included (surely a planet) and was apparently discovered in 2003.
BY JUPITER! Discovered in 2003?
But Google being Google, tweaks and refinements are already being made, and as the service arrives in Labs, joining a host of other recent improvements to the search product, it is likely to become more and more
There has inevitably been parallels drawn with the recently released Wolfram Alpha search engine – and at first look you can see why.
Google Squared and Wolfram Alpha both draw in data rather than merely serving as a conduit to it, the information is assembled in a more logical fashion and drawn from a more specific set of sources.
However, in truth, comparing the two products is like comparing apples and oranges. Google Squared does its best to provide a best fit regardless of what is asked of it, which can lead to some of the aforementioned quirks, but – as many have noted – Wolfram Alpha is more binary in its responses; it either knows how to respond to your query or it does not.
In summation, Google Squared is an interesting experiment in displaying data, but, in truth, is still at a stage where it is difficult to look beyond its problems in terms of use.
However, this will be in Google Labs long before it arrives for most users who do not dabble in the more cutting edge and raw products, and you wouldn't bet against it being incredibly useful when the quirks are ironed away.
