Universal: The New Information Baloney
May 23, 2009
English does not have enough words to keep parvenus, azure chip consultants, and newly minted experts happy. The terminology of search has reached a critical point. Everyone knows how to search. In meetings last week, I learned that “search is a been there, done that” experience. I also learned that “search is not interesting”. One bright young engineer told me and others in the group, “Our employees are basically search experts”.
In such an environment, I concluded that words like “universal”, “unified” and “user experience” define the search landscape. Toss in the notion of a “social experience”, a “community”, and “real time” and we have a new way to make information available.
Search has been thrown from the marketers’ bandwagon. Out of sight, search is no longer a problem. This seems now to be a universal truth.
What’s happening is the poeticization of search. The people whom I have been encountering have adopted a weird language that does little to resolve challenges in finding information. Let’s look at several examples and see if there is a message in this linguistic information baloney.
First, read “Yahoo Eyes Acquisitions, Social Media” here. The story exists without much context, which is understandable in a short write up. The language regarding search illustrates the baloney to which I have referred. The author Alexei Oreskovic offered me this statement: “Yahoo will introduce new products this fall that will give users a more unified experience across its network of websites and showcase the company’s strategy to grow again, after much of 2008 was marred by the failed deal talks with Microsoft Corp.” A “unified experience” is a phrase that seemed to suggest Yahoo’s making or becoming a single unit. Yahoo is not a single unit. When I go to the Yahoo splash page, enter search terms, and get a result list, I get one thing. When I navigate to my Yahoo Mail account and enter search terms in one of the * two * search boxes, I don’t get unity. I get a list that may or may not be what I expected. Forget relevance. The user interface offers me two search boxes instead of one box with a way to indicate which collection I wish to search. Make a goof and you don’t get unification. If you are like me, you get what’s unexpected. The relevance and precision of the results are lost in the “experience”. On a very fundamental level, Yahoo has quite a bit of work to do across and within its high traffic services. A “unified experience” does not mean very much. The reality is the opposite of unity.
Second, in 2007, Google rolled out “universal search”. You can refresh your memory of this notion here. Two years later, there is no “universal” in Google search. Look at the main page at Google.com. You have to select a specific collection or index and then run your query within that collection. Universal means run separate queries and then glue together the results. I don’t see much “universal” in this approach. i see separate tasks and lots of manual grunt work. Other vendors have adopted the word “universal” in a lemming like response to Google’s own baloney. What other search vendors trot out universal search recently? Kosmix here. Search Cowboys and the search engine optimization crowd here. And many others. The phrase “universal search” connotes some magic land where information is available in a form that goes down like a child’s breakfast of Fruity Pebbles.
Third, Microsoft has been on the “unified” and “universal” bandwagon for several years. On one hand, Microsoft is pushing the “unified experience”. One example is here. In this use, the idea is that Microsoft provides users with one consistent computing event. My experience with Microsoft is that there are significant differences within and among Microsoft applications. Within the new Office 2007, the interface varies from application to application. Microsoft also touts the “unified communications” idea. For an example, click here. This phrase suggests that human messaging will be of a seamless piece of digital fabric. The illustration is quite interesting:
Microsoft wants, if I understand this figure, to be a 21st century Ma Bell. Google, in my opinion, also wants to play this part in the communication drama now unfolding. The idea is that Microsoft will bundle various communication methods together in one big and lumpy ball.
Let’s step back?
What’s going on in my opinion is an effort by companies and pundits of myriad shapes and sizes to explain that the future of computing is homogeneity. If an experience is universal, that experience is a categorical affirmative. The idea is that everyone or everything is sucked into the concept. The argument based on “all” tolerates no exception. In my view, the use of these assertions about universality suggest:
- A lack of precision. The broader the assertion, the easier it is for the writer, speaker, and listener to avoid defining exactly what is meant. The generalization is sufficiently broad to be meaningless.
- The idea connotated is a “feel good” notion to which an uncritical thinker is invited to agree. After all, what person would disagree with the statement, “Moms are wonderful.” Sounds fine until one has to cope with infanticide practiced by some moms.
- A clear willingness of those involved in the information sector to say exactly what is meant. The obfuscation leads to confusion and a situation in which few know what is under discussion.
I think this problem in language use contributes to problems in search and retrieval. In the aftermath of the financial meltdown, the blather used to describe information services does not disguise the desperation companies face. For example, in enterprise search, there is considerable dissatisfaction with existing solutions. In Web search, one company enjoys a de facto monopoly. In real time search, there is one player overshadowing other vendors’ systems.
The language used attempts to justify the emergence of what may be monocultures. The search environment looks healthy and diverse, but inspection reveals a paucity of choices. New services such as Cuil.com or Wolfram Alpha attract attention but face a steep climb to widespread use. Companies like Microsoft and Yahoo use terms such as “universal” and “unified” to give investors hope that new revenues await. Words are not revenues.
The “universal baloney” underscores the erosion clear, forthright discussion of search and information services. By talking big, vendors and azure chip consultants are talking about nothing. Little wonder that users are often dissatisfied, confused, and willing to use what’s easy and somewhat reliable. Hyperbole and metaphorical baloney are instruments giving us a pulse reading for the post-Google world.
What’s after “universal”? Ineffable? Vendors and consultants may borrow John Milton’s description of Satan and apply that to the brave new world of information retrieval with apologies to John Milton:
…who overcomes By baloney, hath overcome but half his foe.
Stephen Arnold, May 23, 2009
Comments
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
