Future Of Search
The future of search, and of searching online, could be drastically different, and better, from what we have now. If you only wanted to.
Photo credit: Eyeball
As we head further into the future, search engines, as we know them today, will increasingly play an important and critical role for society as they invisibly determine which world views, information and references we should look at and rely on when in need to make important decisions.
Consider for example the fact that Google defines itself now as a semantic search engine. In simple words, this means that Google attempts to interpret what you really want instead of just serving you with a list of web pages that contain specific keywords.
The risky consequence of this is that Google, and any other search engine taking the same approach, will increasingly try to guess what you want and what is right for you, without ever letting you have a direct hand into this decision-making process.
But for a company (Google) that is also the market leader in search advertising, establishing a high level of credibility when providing search results could become an uphill effort. When in fact commercial advertising objectives do not match up with search user expectations and requests for greater transparency, it becomes a natural possibility that, if alternatives emerge, users will start to test and consider them.
But what alternatives and options do we really have?
What can we do to move the quality of search to a whole new level of granularity, transparency and effectiveness while shredding off any attempts to influence or altogether manipulate search results for specific business interests?
In my view, the best solution(s) could likely be found exactly where we could less likely look.
Let me explain why.
1) What's Wrong with Google Search
To identify a new road and possible alternatives, I think it is necessary to put in good focus, what is wrong in the present search system, so that it becomes easier to identify solutions that address and resolve those specific limitations.
Here a short list of what I see as the main issues with the existing search system.
1. Quality of Search Results
Depending on the topic or industry you happen to be searching in, your mileage may vary, but in my personal experience the quality of Google search results cannot really be rated as ideal.
Often results are representative more of big brands and companies operating in the space, rather than being a true collection of the best resources on the topic.
Here some relevant comments and opinions:
"...higher quality sites are often further down in the search results because they're not as popular as the sites that are ranked higher".
"...This is part of why I think I've developed a reflex, after searching Google, to skip over the first few results after the sponsored links and start looking near the middle of the page. W3Schools, Wikipedia, and a few others. And it's a great example of the central failure of the pagerank idea: if the strongest signal is popularity measured through linkage, the highest quality results will rarely be at or even near the top".
"Google ranks results by popularity (by how many sites link to each result). This isn't necessarily the same as quality.
Google individualizes search results and may connect you to information that fits with your past searches rather than providing a balanced view of a topic."
"...what is authority to the Google algo, is not what is authoritative to a human, and what its measure of quality is not human either".
"The search engine may or may not come up with the best site...
Google are delivering what will satisfy the majority of searchers and not the most accurate, practical or relevant information".
"It really doesn't matter whether Google can measure quality or not, because it's only a very minor factor in their current ranking system. They had to de-emphasize it because it was preventing them from getting big brands and big organizations to the top of their search results."
Source: Authority and Quality: Google Definitions vs Common Sense , July 2013 - WebMasterWorld
2. Ads Intrusion
The number of "paid for" ads inside Google search results, as well as the amount of other Google information blocks complementing the basic results has significantly increased, to dominate under certain circumstances, most of the search result page real estate.
Ads have also become somewhat less distinguishable from the "organic" search results, reducing immediate recognition and differentiation between "paid for" results and organic ones even more.
3. Credibilitya) Automation
Google relies heavily on automation, and algorithms to index, organize and rank search results or it would not be possible for it to scale with the amount of content existing online.
At the same time, automation and algorithms are generally considered of a lower quality when compared to human analysis, especially when it comes to evaluating the quality and credibility of an information object. In this respect, Google may have already reached the peak of what can be done by solely automating the organization and ranking of search results.
And one of the reasons of why the Google superpower may be soon losing its mojo is because
people are increasingly much less interested in pure listings of relevant web pages created by an algorithm that tries to guess what's best, and much more in finding bundles of selected resources suggested to them by trusted references. Possibly human beings, they know (directly or not).
b) Conflict of Interest
Google is in control of what information you see when you search for something and how this information bits are ranked and organized. Wheter you like it or not it helps you build a world view and may influence it by selecting for you criteria by which to rank its results.
My question then is:
How can Google remain credible if,a) It is totally secretive about it, even in the face of its own mistakes?
b) It is the world dominant search advertising platform, which pivots 100% around Google search engine, and which makes the majority of Google earnings?
That is: if you have a monopoly of the search market and control the search results, whether for the good or the bad, you can control the advertising market to your own benefit.
Then, while you could be saintest of the saints, how credible can you then be in such situation?
"The world's dominant search engine has been the focus of a European commission investigation since November 2010, after more than a dozen complainants across Europe accused the company of promoting its own services at their expense."
Source: Google Offers Further Search Result Concessions in EU Anti-trust Case by Foo Yun Chee, September 2013 - Reuters
- Authority and Quality: Google Definitions vs Common Sense
- Does Google Know What's Authoritative to a Human?
- Is Google Search Manipulation Hurting Consumers?
- Why does Google Search Suck so Bad Now?
Google has always been very secretive about its search ranking algorithm to avoid unscrupulous marketers to exploit it to gain visibility in search results. While one can understand the logic of this approach, the results of undertaking it are also in front of everyone.
a) There are probably more people investing very significant time and resources to game Google than those who do not.
b) Google search results do not offer a qualitative search experience as they are often dominated by big brands and not by sites and pages that provide true, valuable information.
c) Google keeps investing large amount of resources to counter this gigantic and ever-increasing effort to spam and "game the system" with limited (in my opinion) results so far.
d) Due to the above listed items, and due to the vast damage done to quality content web sites, and the limited results in improving the quality of search results, public trust in Google's ability to truly distinguish high-value content from spam and web site scrapers is generally quite low.
"While this is presumably done to prevent people from gaming the system (or competitors from copying features), it makes it a lot harder to determine whether Google is unfairly penalizing websites..."
"As the Electronic Frontier Foundation points out in a blog post criticizing the move, Google's search algorithms are opaque by design, and so there is no way of knowing what kind of criteria they will be using to decide which sites to penalize and which to leave untouched."
Source: Should We Trust Google When It Comes to Piracy and Search? by Mathew Ingram, August 2012 - Gigaom
When so much of our life depends on having instant access to the right information, don't you think it would be very risky to depend on a centralized and secret system, driven exclusively by financial gains, to continuously influence how information is organized, ranked and classified?
In my view everything should be transparent. No company or brand should be able to game the system without being vulnerable to everyone seeing it.
5. Controls, Features
Easy access to valuable functions like search according to type of sources, timing, visual search, preview of search pages, have easily come and gone from Google in favor of providing a search solution that adapts itself to the minimum common denominator, while silently imposing a de facto rigidity in restricting user search abilities.
Shouldn't Google offer me more search options rather than deciding for me the ones that I really need?
6. Fast Food Answers
One thing is to have a full meal, one other is to fill yourself with edible stuff.
Google's background and strength is in providing you with a ranked list of web pages that contain the set of keywords you have specified. But between a set of keyword-matched web pages ranked according to secret rules, and a well-reviewed round-up of the best resources on a specific topic, there is quite some distance.
One does not just search for finding the closest Pizza place.
Search is increasingly a vehicle through which find out, discover and learn about most things that one is not familiar with. A new topic or subject in which one wants to become more competent.
And when this is the situation, we definitely need something more than a list of popular web sites ranked by a secret algo.
If Google wants to customize search results in order for me to have a better user experience, why doesn't it allow me also to tweak and tune how those results are calculated and also how they are presented to me?
Google has demonstrated over time, with multiple public tests and versions of Google Search that integrated some of these functionalities, that it can indeed develop them effectively. Why then instead of removing altogether many such functionalities, doesn't it let the user (when the user wants to) to decide how results should be ranked, formatted and presented?
If Google's ultimate goal is to help me find easily what I am looking for, why not let me (if I want to) decide which are the variables and criteria I want to utilize to rank results instead of imposing a secret set of them on me? Why doesn't it let me choose how to view, display, browse, scan or navigate search results?
Google rigidness in providing search results exclusively in a top-down linear, page by page, text-based list offers little or no opportunity to support different modes to search and declares that there must be one solution fitting everyone.
All of this is in stark contrast with Google search personalization strategy, where search results are customized for each search user depending on its past history, preferences and network of contacts.
See also: Escape Your Search Engine Filter Bubble
When you search on Google, or other major search engines, are you actually providing personal private data to commercial companies and possibly to intelligence agencies of different countries or are you just conducting a truly "private" search, where no data is tracked, stored and associated to your name, IP and hardware setup?
See also: Don't Track Us
Robin Good -
blog comments powered by Disqus