Part 2: Since There Is No Objective Way To Gauge Search . . . Brand Will Win
By Tom Foremski - April 5, 2008
Take a look at this study. OK, it is a small sample size, but ask yourself: do you search the Internet based on brand? Do you believe that GOOG has the best search results?
It seems that some people do...and maybe it is more than some.
I believe that GOOG has the best results, that's why I use it. But I don't know for sure. GOOG doesn't publish its algorithm so I don't know if it is making the best choices for me, I trust in the brand.
Study: Good Brand Can Make Search Seem More Relevant
The study showed that when a searcher was given an identical result set across Google, Yahoo, Windows Live Search and an in house search engine, Google and Yahoo came out as more relevant. Why? Because of the brand of the search engine. Despite the results pages being identical in content and presentation, participants indicated that Yahoo! and Google outperformed MSN Live Search and the in-house search engine.
If this is the case, that we are influenced by brand more than we are willing to admit, then the search market is wide open to some of the biggest brands in the mediasphere: Apple, Virgin, Coca-Cola, Gucci etc. Why not?
I remember that it used to be quite common to switch to the newest, hottest search engine. Infoseek, Excite, Hotbot, AltaVista, etc. Loyalty was easily compromised, new search was always just a click away.
GOOG has done very well in brand management. But, I have no way of telling that Google is better. There is no objective way to measure search engine performance. There are only subjective studies out there.
Search has become a commodity. There is no right answer to any single search query, multiple answers can be produced. Why not a Hugo Boss slant or an Apple slant to my search results?
So, how will GOOG stay ahead?
I have an answer...
- - -
Please see: Part 1: Is Apple About To Launch Apple Search?
« Is Apple About To Launch Apple Search? | Main | BookWatch: Zero Day Threat and Jump Point... »
Posted to Saturday Post
April 5, 2008 | Permalink | Comment | Subscribe to SVW
- Top Stories:
- Silicon Valley Goes To Paris... Le Web '09
- Turkey's Search Engine And The Backlash Against The Internet's 'Wal-Marts'
- A Saturday Post: Media In Crisis: I'm Thankful For Being Here Right Now...
- Guest Post: Social Media Marketing is Swiss Cheese
- A Single Search Index Would Speed Up The Entire Internet - A Zero Carbon Speed Boost
- The Dark Matter Of Internet Commerce - A Towering Pile of Scams - $1.4Bn And Counting...
- Groovy: Real-Time Data Could Aid Media Companies
- Tech Awards For Humanity: "Cash Prizes" Galore And Al Gore's Meaningless Speech . . . And Amazing Laureates!
- The Death Of The Search Algorithm? Techmeme Has Six Editors
- TEDxSF - Little TED Just Like The Big TED
- What's Next? Beyond Real-Time...
- PearlTrees: A Novel Approach To Human Mapping Of The Internet
Comments (2)
That report from Penn State was published in 2007, and reflects work done in 2007. For about the first half of 2007, Yahoo search was better than Google search. Yahoo had implemented special-purpose search systems for popular categories: sports, celebrities, movies, stocks, and such. Google has now copied that capability, but for half a year or so, Yahoo was ahead. Not that it affected Yahoo's market share.
There are some objective criteria for evaluating search engines. We look at the number of "bottom-feeders" who slip through. Query for some heavily-spammed term, like "London hotels", and see how many results come back from web sites that don't have an identifiable real-world business behind them. (See "www.sitetruth.com", and our blog at "www.sitetruth.net".) So some objective measurements are quite possible.
This turns out to be interesting when looking at ads rather than organic search results. Paid search results and ads are of measurably lower site quality than organic results in the major search engines. But that's another story.
Posted: April 12, 2008 9:08 AM
John: Thanks, that's useful to know...
Posted: April 12, 2008 2:36 PM