Internet Search Company Execs Disagree on Future Search Technology
Posted by
ryuzaki0
on from the 4-people-with-5-opinions dept.
Techie writes A panel of search engine executives at the Supernova 2006 conference in San Francisco agreed that there is still much that can be done to enhance the user's search experience, but seemed unable to agree on much else.
This just in. A panel met, and failed to come up with anything! More on that after sports.
-:sigma.SB
-- WARN THERE IS ANOTHER SYSTEM
searching is already good, content, "maybe"
by
yagu
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Warning, jargon-speak: From the article:
The biggest challenge is how the industry and the
providers take search "beyond the box and provide you with a
'delight experience.' That is the future and where we are trying
to go," Sifry said.
I get goosebumps, but not of delight when I hear executives
talking about "delight experience". Maybe his heart is in the
right place but language like that is fingernails on my
chalkboard.
Interesting to me, I think internet search has matured nicely
and my overall experience is high on the satisfaction scale. I
rely heavily on Google and use Ask occasionally and virtually
always find links and information germaine to my keywords. I
think more important than refining searches is maturing content.
As often as not, I get to the links I expected to find from
search only to find poorly implemented sites that offer no value
to my quest. Mostly my experiences of internet-search
deficiencies occur at the endpoint (the found links), not the
transport (the search engines).
Only moments ago I had just one such episode. I recently
moved back to Illinois and am in the process of getting my legal
stuff in order, in this case vehicle registration, license
plates, and drivers license.
I easily found the Illinois web sites, but
that has done little to move me further in the task at hand. The
DOV Illinois sites are confusing, convoluted, obfuscated, and
have been little help in understanding exactly all I must do to
complete my responsibilities. Thankfully the most important
piece of information is included on their site,
the dreaded toll free phone number to call. Sigh.
(In the article Sifry did hit on something I'd like in
internet searching, though he tied it to mobile devices
The notion of "location" would be nice. I would point out that
Google does a pretty good job of wiring location into their
search simply by prefixing any search with a zip code (sorry
non-USAers)... and the resulting search will preamble the results
with some zip code specific results.)
(I still have no inclination to want or need mobile
presentation and ergonomics... while it will always be nice to
get some info on a mobile device I am always close enough and not
desparate enough to get to some land-based internet access.
Besides, when you desperately do need mobile
access to information, you're unlikely to get it! Don't even get
me started on my cross country Verizon debacle, and complete
radio-cell silence from Billings Montana to past Mitchell, SD!)
So for me, bottom line,
internet searching: already good and getting better, internet
content: not so good and seemingly slow to improve. The biggest
return on investment would seem to be better content everywhere
but that would also be a huge distributed (and nigh impossible)
effort.
Re:searching is already good, content, "maybe"
by
alfrin
·
· Score: 4, Funny
I easily found the Illinois web sites, but that has done little to move me further in the task at hand. The DOV Illinois sites are confusing, convoluted, obfuscated, and have been little help in understanding exactly all I must do to complete my responsibilities. Thankfully the most important piece of information is included on their site, the dreaded toll free phone number to call. Sigh.
I'm amazed, I didn't think it was possible to mimic the experience of a real DMV office on a website!
Re:searching is already good, content, "maybe"
by
sapgau
·
· Score: 3, Informative
I agree 100%. What seems to happen is for web owners and designers is to be a little more aware (i.e. less arrogant) of their user's needs and follow common accepted practices. Some of these recommendations have been around since the beginning of the internet.
1) Lots of execs from the online search engine industry met
2) They agree that noone is doing it well and there's lots of room for improvement
3) ???
4) Profit!
Well, if there's one thing I'd wish for...
by
TheNoxx
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
It'd be an option to search for only legitimate websites that are on topic with my search and filter out bullshit entries trying to make a quick buck from ads with no real content; perhaps something that uses a wiki or other list, if only a bit more controlled and less freely-edited, combined with clicks out and recommendations. Similarly, an option to filter out forum posts and the like wouldn't be amiss either.
-- Ex nihilo nihil fit.
Re:Well, if there's one thing I'd wish for...
by
doti
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Well, if there's one thing I'd wish for... It'd be an operator to test for the age of the document I'm searching. If I already searched for something a month ago, and to search again to check for something new, I could search for "something age:-30d".
But I don't know if would make much sense, as file date info are generally not very reliable (ex, cp --preserve-timestamps is not the default).
-- factor 966971: 966971
Lazy Customers
by
neonprimetime
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Technorati's Sifry said people want devices to be more aware of factors such as location, so if they were in San Francisco searching for, say, a store, they would not have to specify their location.
But what loop holes will I have to jump thru if I'm in SF and want to search for a store in LA? How frickin' hard is it to type in... "San Fransisco Store"... as opposed to just "Store"?
Re:Lazy Customers
by
neonprimetime
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Wouldn't the premise be then that if you type "Los Angeles Store"... it would search the San Fransisco stores for something named "Los Angeles Store?"... which brings up the question, how does it know if "Los Angeles" if the name of the city you're searching in, or the name of the product / store you're searching for?
Example: While in SF... use this technology to search for "Texas Roadhouse Steaks"... will it search for "Roadhouse Steaks" in Texas?... or "Texas Roadhouse Steaks" in SF?
Oh boy, I'm confused.
The Dog That Didn't Bark.
by
Tackhead
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Here we are, the conference agenda, and the talk...
4:30pm Panel: From Search to Eternity
[Moderator: Chris Shipley (Guidewire Group), Kapenda Thomas (Jookster), David Sifry (Technorati), Jim Lanzone (Ask.com), Leila Boujnane (Idee)]
Search engines are the dominant interface for the Web today, and a huge force in driving economic activity online. What's next for search? It seems unlikely that we have reached the end-point of significant technical or business evolution in this incredibly active area.
I can think of... one company that's 10^100 (a googol) times more likely to have something meaningful to say when it comes to "what's next for search", but which wasn't represented on this panel.
Not that I'm naming names or anything. But who's missing from this panel?
Re:The Dog That Didn't Bark.
by
aleksiel
·
· Score: 3, Funny
hmmm....lycos?
The future is spam
by
MikeRT
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Unless these companies get the ability to sue the "SEO companies" and others that spam them, they will just get cluttered to the point that nothing short of SkyNet will be able to be useful.
Technorati? Ask.com? Idee? Jookster? That is not much representation for an expert panel. No offense, but I prefer to know what is stirring around in Larry's and Sergey's little noggins. At least throw in a lackey from one of the top three engines.
Independent Engines
by
Doc+Ruby
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Disagreement among competitors is good: that's competition. Worry when they all agree: that's a cartel.
--
--
make install -not war
Re:Agree?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Ah, no.
What the parent was saying is that when I search for "clutch Ferrari explosion diagram", I don't want ads for fucking mechanic's shops. I want an explosion diagram - NOT FUCKING ADS TO SELL ME SHIT IN THE SEARCH RESULTS! On the side is Ok. I just REALLY hate it when I need information and I click on a (seemingly) related link and all I get is a sales spiel.
Bullshit!
Re:Just off the top of my head....
by
saddino
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
The free search agent CQ web uses this exact strategy, but programatically rather than via human modding. For example, if you search for "tom cruise" in Google via CQ web, it will ingest the content of the first 100 results and then use all that data to determine a baseline of statistically significant keywords and phrases (e.g. "mission impossible", "katie holmes", "chuch of scientology"). Then, CQ web re-evaluates the relevance of each result based on its "closeness" to the baseline. This generally moves spam pages out of the way and pushes up content rich sites. Plus, a quick glance of key words and phrases allows you to get "good results up front" by allowing you to decide what subcategory to dig into for more information.
Slashdot Mirror
This just in. A panel met, and failed to come up with anything! More on that after sports.
-:sigma.SB
WARN
THERE IS ANOTHER SYSTEM
Warning, jargon-speak: From the article:
I get goosebumps, but not of delight when I hear executives talking about "delight experience". Maybe his heart is in the right place but language like that is fingernails on my chalkboard.Interesting to me, I think internet search has matured nicely and my overall experience is high on the satisfaction scale. I rely heavily on Google and use Ask occasionally and virtually always find links and information germaine to my keywords. I think more important than refining searches is maturing content.
As often as not, I get to the links I expected to find from search only to find poorly implemented sites that offer no value to my quest. Mostly my experiences of internet-search deficiencies occur at the endpoint (the found links), not the transport (the search engines).
Only moments ago I had just one such episode. I recently moved back to Illinois and am in the process of getting my legal stuff in order, in this case vehicle registration, license plates, and drivers license.
I easily found the Illinois web sites, but that has done little to move me further in the task at hand. The DOV Illinois sites are confusing, convoluted, obfuscated, and have been little help in understanding exactly all I must do to complete my responsibilities. Thankfully the most important piece of information is included on their site, the dreaded toll free phone number to call. Sigh.
(In the article Sifry did hit on something I'd like in internet searching, though he tied it to mobile devices The notion of "location" would be nice. I would point out that Google does a pretty good job of wiring location into their search simply by prefixing any search with a zip code (sorry non-USAers)... and the resulting search will preamble the results with some zip code specific results.) (I still have no inclination to want or need mobile presentation and ergonomics... while it will always be nice to get some info on a mobile device I am always close enough and not desparate enough to get to some land-based internet access. Besides, when you desperately do need mobile access to information, you're unlikely to get it! Don't even get me started on my cross country Verizon debacle, and complete radio-cell silence from Billings Montana to past Mitchell, SD!)
So for me, bottom line, internet searching: already good and getting better, internet content: not so good and seemingly slow to improve. The biggest return on investment would seem to be better content everywhere but that would also be a huge distributed (and nigh impossible) effort.
1) Lots of execs from the online search engine industry met
2) They agree that noone is doing it well and there's lots of room for improvement
3) ???
4) Profit!
It'd be an option to search for only legitimate websites that are on topic with my search and filter out bullshit entries trying to make a quick buck from ads with no real content; perhaps something that uses a wiki or other list, if only a bit more controlled and less freely-edited, combined with clicks out and recommendations. Similarly, an option to filter out forum posts and the like wouldn't be amiss either.
Ex nihilo nihil fit.
Technorati's Sifry said people want devices to be more aware of factors such as location, so if they were in San Francisco searching for, say, a store, they would not have to specify their location.
... "San Fransisco Store" ... as opposed to just "Store"?
But what loop holes will I have to jump thru if I'm in SF and want to search for a store in LA? How frickin' hard is it to type in
I can think of... one company that's 10^100 (a googol) times more likely to have something meaningful to say when it comes to "what's next for search", but which wasn't represented on this panel.
Not that I'm naming names or anything. But who's missing from this panel?
Unless these companies get the ability to sue the "SEO companies" and others that spam them, they will just get cluttered to the point that nothing short of SkyNet will be able to be useful.
"A panel of search engine executives"
Technorati? Ask.com? Idee? Jookster? That is not much representation for an expert panel. No offense, but I prefer to know what is stirring around in Larry's and Sergey's little noggins. At least throw in a lackey from one of the top three engines.
Get information related to search results show less garbage on Yahoo!
Register your search results show less garbage at Register.com!
Download music by search results show less garbage at iTunes!
Search results show less garbage breasts!
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
Disagreement among competitors is good: that's competition.
Worry when they all agree: that's a cartel.
--
make install -not war
What the parent was saying is that when I search for "clutch Ferrari explosion diagram", I don't want ads for fucking mechanic's shops. I want an explosion diagram - NOT FUCKING ADS TO SELL ME SHIT IN THE SEARCH RESULTS! On the side is Ok. I just REALLY hate it when I need information and I click on a (seemingly) related link and all I get is a sales spiel.
Bullshit!
The free search agent CQ web uses this exact strategy, but programatically rather than via human modding. For example, if you search for "tom cruise" in Google via CQ web, it will ingest the content of the first 100 results and then use all that data to determine a baseline of statistically significant keywords and phrases (e.g. "mission impossible", "katie holmes", "chuch of scientology"). Then, CQ web re-evaluates the relevance of each result based on its "closeness" to the baseline. This generally moves spam pages out of the way and pushes up content rich sites. Plus, a quick glance of key words and phrases allows you to get "good results up front" by allowing you to decide what subcategory to dig into for more information.
Thing is that shit works. I just clicked on the "breasts!" link, I couldn't help myself :).
Oh no... it's the future.