Search: The Dead Cat Bounces
October 6, 2016
I read two articles about the future of search. The first was a series of remarks in a podcast by Christopher Issac Stone, aka Biz. In a nutshell, one finds information by asking people.
The other write up was “If I Ran Google (Why the Future of Search Will Diverge from Its Present and Past.” The author of this article is a “multi time bestselling author.” The “A” was capitalized.
The two views of the future of search underscores the perception that keyword search is dead. Text is uninteresting. Search systems are bouncing like a dead cat; that is, typing words in a search box and looking for germane information is not where the world of users wants to go. Hence, search is going to change.
 |
 |
Left clay tablet from the 4th millennium BCE. Right. clay tablets from 2016. Not much change it seems.
Here’s a statement which hits at the future of search. The quote comes from the multi time bestselling “Author”:
A lot of younger people don’t use Google as much as we might expect. They find things on YouTube (an Alphabet company), Snapchat, Facebook, Instagram or the like.
I agree. Pizza, cat videos, and even information about the future of search by many people will be sought and found using something other than the digital equivalent of a library card catalog. Thump. That’s the sound of the dead cat bouncing or hitting the pavement.
The thump means Google, the game changer, is going to have the game changed for itself.
The future is actionable intelligence. Ask a question and get an answer. Then order a pizza or watch a living cat video. Dead cats are not interesting.
Several thoughts:
First, there are numerous ways to look for information needed to answer a question. There are search boxes when one presumably is working on a research paper or maybe an article destined for publication. That is the old fashioned work which requires attention, note taking, and thinking about a topic and how to answer questions for which there is no single journal article or reliable data set. This type of research will not appeal to some people.
Second, there is the convenience of asking others for information. This is a useful type of information collection. Sometimes it works, and other times it forces the questioner to drag himself or herself back to the old fashioned method described in item one above.
Third, there is smart software which looks at behaviors and makes a best guess about what the person needs to know. When I drive to the airport, I want my GPS to show me which parking garage has an open space. No typing and no talking, please. Just the map with the answer.
In each of these broad categories of access — typing keywords, asking via text or voice, or smart software making best guesses — useful information can be located.
Most of the folks with whom I interact are not happy with search, a broad term used to describe a remarkable range of information access systems.
The problem with the future is that it is not going to bounce like the dead cat of the present.
If I have learned one thing in my years in the information access sector it is:
Information access methods do not die. Options become available.
Regardless of the future, some reading is necessary. Some talking to humans is necessary. Some smart software inputs are necessary.
Heck, here in Harrod’s Creek, people still use clay tablets to communicate. The message about the future is that “good enough” information access is more important than old fashioned checkpoints like precision, recall, provenance, and understanding.
Stephen E Arnold, October 6, 2016
Comments
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
