Search seems to be broken...part 2
By Tom Foremski - March 5, 2007
(Thank you all for your comments on this topic of search...)
The holy grail within search is to be able to serve up the right search result from one user click.
The "I'm Feeling Lucky" button next to the "Google Search" button constantly tests this ability. One day it might very well be the only button found there because the underlying search technologies will be hugely improved.
And researchers within the search engine communities will be widely recognized for their groundbreaking work--I'm certain that there will be future Nobel prize winners among them.
But improvements in search, through the development of better algorithms and IT architectures, will very likely be of lesser value over the next few years compared with what can be achieved developing "people-powered" search technologies.
It can be seen in sites such as Digg, which is a better news aggregator using people-powered technologies, than machine-powered Google News, which states near the bottom of its page:
"The selection and placement of stories on this page were determined automatically by a computer program."
It is not just at Digg, there are "people-powered" search efforts all across the globe, involving tens of millions of people, laboring every day to help improve the search experience. This is done by adding tags, site maps, headlines, etc, -- they are creating ever larger amounts of valuable search metadata about content.
And we are just at the beginning of this trend. It is a markedly new phase in the development of search, one best described as "people-powered and technology-enabled." As opposed to mostly "machine-powered" through algorithms and servers.
What will be interesting to see if the people-powered component outweighs the value the machine-powered component of a search service. Because that would determine where the competitive edge is to be found. Is it in the algorithms or in the people?
And it begs questions such as: Is GOOG's lead in machine-powered search technologies large enough to keep it ahead of competitors harnessing people-powered search?
Share with Bit.ly
March 5, 2007 | Permalink | Comment | Category: Search Watch | Subscribe to SVW
- Top Stories:
- Socialbrite: Helping Non-Profits Master Social Tools For Social Change
- The Pressure Is On When Every Company Is Now A Media Company...
- Vinod Khosla: How To Succeed In Silicon Valley By Bumbling And Failing...
- Saturday Post: If You Are In The Path Of A Disruptive Technology You Are Toast - Goodbye Newspaper Companies
- SDForum Garden Party Notes: Vinod Khosla is the Antichrist; Jim Clark has a size problem; Silicon Valley Trophies - Hot women and large yachts...
- Traveling Geeks Trip Next Week ... Join Us In London!
- Bitten and Smitten: Why Journalism Is Like Falling For The Wrong Person
- Year One: The Lessons Of The Intel Insider Media Advisory Program
- UberCEO Survey: CEOs Of Fortune 100 Snub Social Media - None Blog, Only 2 Twitter
- From Big Blue To Big Brown - IBM Launches Green Services In Smart Sewage And Beyond
- Keeping It Real: PR's Real-Time Web Challenge
- A Saturday Post: The Internet Devalues Everything It Touches, Anything That Can Be Digitized
Comments (3)
Algorithms and people power aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive -- we may end up with a blended combination of the two. Algorithms that base search relevance on links (a skewed form of people-power) are usually a good first step for info organization purposes. The next step is creating a way for large numbers of people to help sift/rank information without changing their current behavior or imposing too much extra work on them. Collarity (primarily focused on better site search and content discovery) believes the way to get to “one-click-search-relevance” is to add personalization (my interests, my personal filter) and collaborative filtering (advice from defined communities-of-interest), distilled from the anonymous activity of visitors on a site.
Posted: March 5, 2007 8:07 AM
Rob, certainly, people and algorithms are not mutually exclusive. Each will make the other better--what will differentiate search in the future is how well search engines can harness both.
The difference is in where search engines focus their resources, in improving the machine search or people-powered search. I think some companies have a company culture that favors one over the other.
Posted: March 5, 2007 2:40 PM
Have you given any thought to search v. research? I find Google (and other search) technology to be nothing more than glorified directory assistance...great if I'm looking for a site or location...terrible if I'm trying to conduct any serious research. I would be interested in extending traditional search technologies to conduct some sort of analysis for me so I do not have to sift and sort through thousands of optimized results that, quite frankly, are not helpful to my research.
Posted: March 20, 2007 5:04 PM