Search Options: Betting in a Down Economy
August 5, 2008
Paula Hane, who writes for Information Today, the same outfit paying me for my KMWorld column, has a very interesting run down of search engine options here. I agree with most of her points, and I think highly of the search systems which she has flagged as an option to Google.
But I want to take another look at search options and, true to my rhetorical approach, I want to take the opposite side of the argument. Ms. Hane who knows me has remarked about this aspect of my way of looking at information. Keep in mind I am not critical of her or Information Today. I want to be paid for my most recent column about Google’s geospatial services, the subject of the next column for KMWorld.
Here goes. Let’s get ready to rumble.
First, search is no longer “about search”. Search has become an umbrella term to refer to what I see as the next supra national monopoly. If you are looking for information, you probably use search less than 20 percent of the time. Most people locate information by asking someone or browsing through whatever sources are at hand. Search seems to be the number one way to get information, but people navigate directly to sites where the answer (an answer) may be found. I routinely field phone calls from sharp MBAs who prefer to be told something, not hunt for it.
Second, fancy technology is neither new nor fancy. Google has some rocket science in its bakery. The flour and the yeast date from 1993. Most of the zippy “new” search systems are built on “algorithms”. Some of Autonomy reaches back to the 18th century. Other companies just recycle functions that appear in books of algorithms. What makes something “new” is putting pieces together in a delightful way. Fresh, yes. New, no. Software lags algorithms and hardware. With fast and cheap processors, some “old” algorithms can be used in the types of systems Ms. Hane identifies; for example, Hakia, Powerset, etc. Google is not inventing “new” things; Google is cleverly assembling bits and pieces that are often well known to college juniors taking a third year math class.
Third, semantics–like natural language processing–is a hot notion. My view is that semantics work best in the plumbing. Language is slippery, and the semantic tools in use today add some value, but often the systems need human baby sitters. No one–including me–types well formed questions into a search box. I type two or three words, hit enter, and start looking at hits in the result list.
Fourth, social search sounds great. Get 200 smart people to be your pals and you can ask them for information. We do this now, or at least well connected people do. As soon as you open up a group to anyone, the social content can be spoofed. I understand the wisdom of crowds, and I think the idea of averaging guesses for the number of jelly beans in a jar is a great use of collective intelligence. For specialized work, let me ask a trusted expert in the subject. I don’t count jelly beans too often, and I don’t think you do either. Social = spoof.
Fifth, use a search system because a company pays you. Sorry, I don’t think this is a sustainable business model. Search is difficult. Search requires that a habit be formed. If the pay angle worked, the company would find that it becomes too expensive. The reason pay for search works is that not too many people search to get paid. When a person searches, there’s a reason. Getting a few pennies is not going to make me change my habits.
What’s this mean for Google competitors?
My contrarian analysis implies:
- Competitors have to leap frog Google. So far no one has been able to pull this off. Maybe some day. Just not today or for the foreseeable future.
- Google is not a search system. It’s an application platform. Search with the search box is just one application of the broader Google construct.
- Google will be lose its grip on search. As companies get larger, those companies lose their edge. This is happening to Google now. Look at how many of its services have no focus. Talk to a company that wants to get customer support. Google is losing its luster, and this means that the “next big thing” could come from a person who is Googley, just not working at Google.
So, Ms. Hane, what are we going to do with lame duck search solutions in a world dominated by a monopolistic supra national corporation that’s working on its digital arteriosclerosis. Dear reader, what do you say? Agree with me? Agree with Ms. Hane? Have another angle? Let me know.
Stephen Arnold, August 5, 2008
Comments
One Response to “Search Options: Betting in a Down Economy”
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
[…] with all this “new thing” in online search engines. Over at the Beyond Search blog, Stephen Arnold wrote about the problem with the thinking about search technology: … fancy technology is neither […]