Slashdot Mirror
How Social Networks May Kill Search as We Know It
mattnyc99 writes "Recently we discussed a startup that's blending social networking with traditional Web search. But now high geek Glenn Derene takes it one step further, pronouncing that our increasingly traceable online footprints will transform Google's dominant algorithm and open up the world of Web search for the 21st century. Speaking to a tuned-in VC guy and scoring a rare interview with Google's VP of search, Derene may have some meat behind his newly-coined term: 'faceboogle.' From the article: 'As we each carve out our individual niche on the Web, the logic of search may well flip inside out. Since we are essentially meta-tagging ourselves through our social networking memberships, shopping habits and surfing addictions, it's conceivable that the information could attempt to find us — the old concept of push media, but in a far more refined way.'"
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Not sure how google will outlive the threat from human-tagged information, both from social networks and Wiki's.
Ever notice Wiki is in the top three hits to EVERY SEARCH in Google?
"the old concept of push media, but in a far more refined way.'"
You push it! You push it real good!
All joking aside, I have serious doubts that push media could account for my eclectic tastes. My friends can't even figure me out, how is a stupid computer going to?
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
The Faceboogle concept assumes that I want to search just for those things which already match my existing online footprint.
When I search, however, it's usually because I want to find information on something NEW.
Can it possibly be true that most searching is just for the same old topics--teenagers looking for the latest gossip on their favorite celebrity? Perhaps. But that sure doesn't describe how I--and most of the folks I know--use search.
This will never happen. For myself and most people I know, the internet is about acquiring information about things we aren't familiar with, not about rehashing information which we already know. Whether that information be used for personal enjoyment - learning something new for the sake of learning something new - or for personal research, like say looking up probable diseases you may have based on symptoms. For anything like this, social networking information will never provide you with what you need.
The only realm where such a thing were to exist is in adolescents. Your friend discovered an new Naruto website with awesome backgrounds and your interest in Naruto, which is listed in your profile, allows the network to make the connection.
Let's refine this a bit. *Perhaps* there is a use for boolg'ling web search content toward consumer taste. But it's likely that not many of my friends are researching topics similar to my own.
So, social tags would be relevant only for - let's pretend, here, c'mon - consumer taste. Everything else - like scholarly research, etc - I'm afraid has to be done the hard, old way - by knowing how and where to search.
--Dave
Not sure how google will outlive the threat from human-tagged information, both from social networks and Wiki's.
Ever notice Wiki is in the top three hits to EVERY SEARCH in Google?
Did you ever notice you are on Google, and not the Wiki search page, when you make that observation?
Obviously there's a reason. Wiki's (esp. Wkipedia which I'm sure is what you were really referring to) are great resources but are certainly not the only link I look at in search results - even if they are the top hits in many searches.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Facebook alone is enough to put me in a rage. But I guess I must grudgingly accept the fact that I am apparently one of only four computer-literate people left in the English speaking world who doesn't live and die by their facebook page. Ridiculous. My unborn children will hate me for sure.
A-Bomb
Since we are essentially meta-tagging ourselves through our social networking memberships...
Speak for yourself, writer person. I don't use "social networking." I don't care what my friends had for lunch, and I don't want my ex to know who my next ex is going to be by virtually sitting them down next to each other. That's bananas.
I really should write a form letter to politely decline Plaxo, LinkedIn, Orkut, Facebook, Myspace, etc. invitations that well intentioned people keep sending me.
I even avoid IM, because hey, why do I want to let 20 people know I am at the computer RIGHT NOW? SOMEONE always wants to talk. And if I spend most of my time pretending to be away or invisible, then IM has become a burden and not a help to me.
Old fashioned methods of communication like email still work great for me. I do not want to be transparent. If you do, you mystify me.
I would argue that google won in the ad industry by not pushing. Whilst all its competitors continue to cram ads on their top page and infultrate their own search results, google has done its best to stay out of the way, and to push oh so slightly. Google may be pushing ads on their search results, but they do their best to push what is pulled, keep it to the side, and not spam you or get in your way.
Google's success has everything to do with them recognizing the internet is a pull medium.
I don't agree, though I wish I could.
The desire for privacy is fading fast. Those of us over the age of 25 still care about it for the most part, but the youngest generation doesn't. This can be clearly seen in their wholehearted adoption of myspace and facebook, putting all the intimate details of their personal lives on the web for anyone to see. I predict that, within 30 years, the whole notion of "privacy" as a right will be completely forgotten, simply because the younger generations aren't interested in it.
Haven't you ever wondered what happened to your best friend from Elementary school? Your favorite acquaintances from college? It's not about chat. It is about keeping a link to people that would otherwise get left behind. As (at least in the U.S.) society becomes more mobile there is a strong desire to keep those ties. There's a lot of lonely people out there who treasure reading the blogs, hearing the music, and looking at pictures of former in-the-flesh friends.
"who do you think will get the job"
;).
;) ).
;).
Depends on which company they are applying to and probably what else they have online ( OSS projects with great code etc those are all also part of the "plumage").
While it means that those people have a higher chance of not being hired by "holier than thou" companies, they probably won't be a good fit in those companies anyway - might not have as much fun in those companies too
A fun company to join wouldn't care if prospective employees have photos of themself drunk wearing a silly party hat scattered amongst the social networks.
Nude beer bongs, smoking grass? I'm sure there are many bosses who have done that stuff before, and didn't think it was that bad. People hire people who are like them.
I've never done all of that, but I don't see that stuff as a huge problem, unless that person comes in smelling of grass/alcohol and looking doped/drunk then that's a very bad sign (you can always call up a bit earlier and say you can't make it for the appointment
It will hurt them if the job market is really tight, but otherwise, I don't think it's as bad as people think. Furthermore when these younger generation become CEOs and HR people, a fair number of them are probably going to think it's normal to have such pics, and might even view negatively/with suspicion people who don't let it all hang out
Now if there's evidence of them doing something vicious or malicious, in a manner where the context is hard to deny, then I think companies should think twice (esp if the culprit is the one posting it on his/her own page, unless maybe it's as an apology or something, but still...). It's kind of scary to have someone who might "snap" and bash colleagues/employees/staff, or do that just for amusement, and those traits will probably show up in other areas of their worklife.
I personally don't care if people link my posts with me. Ever since I've post stuff on the internet (more then a decade ago), I have assumed what I post can and will be linked to me. Google has thousands of hits of my posts etc.
Wouldn't you like to work with someone who was smart, not too lazy, competent AND _fun_? Maybe you can't have too many clowns around, but heck even a staid but wise HR dept might hire a "company clown" or two to brighten things up.