Search

The impending IPO of Google, which is making noises all over Silicon Valley and Wall Street has gotten everyone thinking about search, including me.

There are a lot of people who think that digital media is a pull model, not a push model, and that search is the ultimate user interface for a pull media model. The data certainly bears that out. I just came from a meeting with a person who runs a large digital media business and i heard that a survey they did showed that search was the number one way that people access digital media.

My experience as a consumer of digital media bears that out. I use Google to search like most everyone else. I also use Yahoo! to search since its still my start page (because the My Yahoo service is still better than any other start page i've ever found). But even more importantly, when i use Amazon, i always start with a search. When i use Moviephone or Fandango, i always start with a search. Even when i go to the New York Times, i generally do a search after scanning the front page (and the New York Times' search is the worst i've found on the internet for a major site). So I do a lot of searching when i am on the Internet.

I also use search as the primary way i access TV shows on my DVR. I use search as the primary way i access music on iTunes. And i use search as the primary way i access files on my laptop.

But i don't totally buy the push model argument. You would always need to know exactly what you want to find in a pure pull model. So the push model where media companies have editors determine what's likely to be of interest still has relevance to me. And i bet it does to most Internet users.

I also think we've only seen the beginning of what search can do. Google, which is arguably the best search on the Internet, is still pretty bad. If you are a librarian or know how to write really good search queries, you can get pretty decent results. But most people don't. And the ecommerce aspects of Google still aren't that great. If you type in a product that is available widely on the Internet, the first links you see are rarely to the most popular sites (Amazon, Walmart, Best Buy, etc). They are usually to some no name ecommerce site you've never used.

So a lot needs to be done in the search world. Maybe Google will continue to innovate and deliver better and more relevant search. Maybe Yahoo! will come screaming back and start to roll out stuff that's better than Google. I am sure that's their plan. But i wonder if someone else may come into this search business with something new and different and change the game. Amazon and eBay clearly have the opportunity to do more with ecommerce. And the traditional media companies, particularly the newspapers, could do something interesting if they wanted to take some big risks. Certainly, they have a lot to loose if they don't. And maybe Microsoft has something up their sleeve that is game changing. They have done that a lot in the past when they were late to a market.

I also think social software (blogging, social networking, etc) has something to add to this mix. Self publishing is an important filter that could add something to the way users find relevance in the digital media world.

Audience management also has the possibility to add something. The more a search service knows about each user and what their behavior has been in the past, the easier it will be to deliver relevance to them.

So i think that search is a big deal. And that we are going to see a lot more innovation around search going forward. But i do not think search is the only thing that matters in a digital media world. I think editorial still matters. I think audience management matters. I think one to one communication via email, IM, or some other communications medium matters. And I think social software and self publishing matters. Which is to say that search isn't the only thing i am thinking about. And i think it shouldn't be the only thing on the Internet that wall street, silicon valley, the digital media companies, and VCs should be thinking about either.

Comments

[Nathaniel McNamara]

Search is an interesting tool that many have played with and where few have succeeded. I thought it might be helpful to point out a few successes (both current and historical) to complement your article:

==Collaborative Filtering:
The earliest large scale example of this was seen with Firefly which would recommend movies, books, and music based on a users interest and how it compared to interests of other members in the community. For example, if I am interested in Star Wars and Empire Strikes Back, it may recommend Blade Runner or Return of the Jedi.

Firefly was bought up by Microsoft a number of years ago, but unfortunately its collaborative filtering capabilities never came to life again. Amazon, on the other hand uses this same concept on its site to much success.

When doing a search, Amazon not only presents the results for your keyword, but shows related books based on your expressed interest.

==Site Interest Models:
Google made this methodology famous with its PageRank technology. The initial search engine of Google ranked sites based on the popularity as determined by the number of other sites linked to it.

The pagerank methodology has undergone some adjustments due to copyright restrictions (Scientology), attempts at manipulation, and increased number of cross linkied bloggers.

==Paid links
Overture and Google are two of the biggest players in this market, allowing both companies and individuals to purchase premium space on results pages for searches based on the keyword entered by the user.

Companies have experimented with how to show these links, sometimes showing them as highlighted boxes to the side or above the standard links (as Google does) or with a sponsored link label (as Overture does). In some instances, the price to be paid for the click can also be shown.

The automation of this feature and likely relevance to the consumer makes this a benefit for the advertiser, the consumer, and the search site.

==Other search alternatives
There are many other developments that have been in the works, including geographical listings (ala White/Yellow pages, which is an incredibly profitable business), category listings (such as Yahoo's extensive directory), and date relevance (as on Google's news search). Many variations exist, and many more will emerge, as the habits and interests of consumers evolove along with the technology.

[Babak Nivi]

1. Intelligent search is the next interface for email as well. Apple is already doing this. Forget about putting things in folders. See

http://www.alwayson-network.com/comments.php?id=P1310_0_3_0_C

2. Push is not dead. For example, iTunes celebrity playlists where you get recommendations or filtering from Billy Corgan or Micheal Stipe.

[scotty the body]

Don't forget Microsoft's recently-declared attack into the search space. It'll be important, regardless of how "good" their implementation turns out to be. The desktop ubiquity is something easily leveraged in a pull OR push model.

And remember, Windows Active Desktop had RSS feeds before anyone even knew what they were...

[Jeremy]

Search is always the next big thing, and we all know that there's some coder in a garage in Russia that's making something better than Google.

As for push, I get your blog on FeedDemon. And, the whole XML / RSS thing seems to be picking up steam. Then again, I loved Pointcast.

Check out Gutterman's column today on Amazon versus Google; he offers some interesting points.

[Rauno]

From my perspective, i'll use whatever technology gives me the best information. Currently, the absolutely best information on a wide variety of topics is found in blogs. Reading an old media version of information on a topic only leaves me wanting the blogged version, which lots of writers understand and (wink, wink) provide for with their personal blogs.

I get to blogged information via other blogs or Google. I do not use "Social Software."

The only context in which I see Blogging lumped in with "Social Software" is from Venture Capitalists. See the Tony Perkins moderated event hosted by the MIT/Stanford Venture Lab, titled: "Social Networking: Is There 'Really' a Business Model?" I'd just suggest looking at this lumping a little more closely; maybe it makes sense from your perspective -- makes absolutely no sense from mine.

If you're still having discussions about "push" and "pull" and, in a way, "search," I think you're back in some 1990's discussions. Concentrate on getting me the best information. How you do that will probably depend on the information I'm looking for.

Thanks for posting your Venture Capitalist perspective on information tools.

[hugh macleod]

I'm an artist, and I draw cartoons on the back of business cards. I get about 1,000 people a month coming to my site just from people who typed in "business cards" on Google. I have no idea what that means, but I do find the number rather high.

About 50% of the people I now do business with I first met on the internet. That surprises me- I'm not even in a particularly internet-enabled industry. So for someone like me to say that, I imagine networking software will succeed. The only thing I will say against it is, compared to blogs, what websites I've seen (Friendster, LinkedIn etc) all seem seem very hurried and hucksterish, like classified ads. I'd much rather hear about somebody via a good blog referral.

[Wombell]

Computer security recourse: [ Secure Root ]

[veau]

veau - vegetarienne - verseau - viande - - video comique - - videos comiques - virus - voiture - voitures - wallpaper - wallpapers - winamp

[Aparaty cyfrowe]

I am very interested this theme, with attention I will read following informations.
Notebooki , Telewizory Plazmowe , Telewizory Lcd , dvd , kino domowe , Kamery Cyfrowe , kuchnie , ekspresy do kawy , acer , lg , samsung , siemens , panasonic , toshiba , amica .