As Chief Scientist of Endeca, I spend a lot of my time explaining to people why they should not be satisfied with an information seekin interface that only offers them keyword search as an input mechanism and a ranked list of results as output. I tell them about query clarification dialogs, faceted navigation, and set analysis. More broadly, I evangelize exploratory search and human computer information retrieval as critical to addressing the inherent weakness of conventional ranked retrieval. If you haven't heard me expound on the subject, feel free to check out this slide show on Is Search Broken?.
But today I wanted to put my ideology aside and ask the the simple question: Is Google good enough? Here is a good faith attempt to make the case for the status quo. I'll focus on web search, since, as I've discussed before on this blog, enterprise search is different.
1) Google does well enough on result quality, enough of the time.
While Google doesn't publish statistics about user satisfaction, it's commonplace that Google usually succeeds in returning results that users find relevant. Granted, so do all of the major search engines: you can compare Google and Yahoo graphically at this site. But the question is not whether other search engines are also good enough--or even whether they are better. The point is that Google is good enough.
2) Google doesn't support exploratory search. But it often leads you to a tool that does.
The classic instance of this synergy is when Google leads you to a Wikipedia entry. For example, I look up Daniel Kahneman on Google. The top results is his Wikipedia entry. From there, I can traverse links to learn about his research areas, his colleagues, etc.
3) Google is a benign monopoly that mitigates choice overload.
Many people, myself includes, have concerns about Google's increasing role in mediating our access to information. But it's hard to ignore the upside of a single portal that gives you access to everything in one place: web pages, blogs, maps, email, etc, And it's all "free"--at least in so far as ad-supported services can be said to be free.
In summary, Google sets the bar pretty high. There are places where Google performs poorly (e.g., shopping) or doesn't even try to compete (e.g., travel). But when I see the series of companies lining up to challenge Google, I have to wonder how many of them have identified and addressed clear consumer needs for which Google isn't good enough as a solution. Given Google's near-monopoly in web search, parity or even incremental advantage isn't enough.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Is Google Good Enough?
As Chief Scientist of Endeca, I spend a lot of my time explaining to people why they should not be satisfied with an information seekin interface that only offers them keyword search as an input mechanism and a ranked list of results as output. I tell them about query clarification dialogs, faceted navigation, and set analysis. More broadly, I evangelize exploratory search and human computer information retrieval as critical to addressing the inherent weakness of conventional ranked retrieval. If you haven't heard me expound on the subject, feel free to check out this slide show on Is Search Broken?.
But today I wanted to put my ideology aside and ask the the simple question: Is Google good enough? Here is a good faith attempt to make the case for the status quo. I'll focus on web search, since, as I've discussed before on this blog, enterprise search is different.
1) Google does well enough on result quality, enough of the time.
While Google doesn't publish statistics about user satisfaction, it's commonplace that Google usually succeeds in returning results that users find relevant. Granted, so do all of the major search engines: you can compare Google and Yahoo graphically at this site. But the question is not whether other search engines are also good enough--or even whether they are better. The point is that Google is good enough.
2) Google doesn't support exploratory search. But it often leads you to a tool that does.
The classic instance of this synergy is when Google leads you to a Wikipedia entry. For example, I look up Daniel Kahneman on Google. The top results is his Wikipedia entry. From there, I can traverse links to learn about his research areas, his colleagues, etc.
3) Google is a benign monopoly that mitigates choice overload.
Many people, myself includes, have concerns about Google's increasing role in mediating our access to information. But it's hard to ignore the upside of a single portal that gives you access to everything in one place: web pages, blogs, maps, email, etc, And it's all "free"--at least in so far as ad-supported services can be said to be free.
In summary, Google sets the bar pretty high. There are places where Google performs poorly (e.g., shopping) or doesn't even try to compete (e.g., travel). But when I see the series of companies lining up to challenge Google, I have to wonder how many of them have identified and addressed clear consumer needs for which Google isn't good enough as a solution. Given Google's near-monopoly in web search, parity or even incremental advantage isn't enough.
But today I wanted to put my ideology aside and ask the the simple question: Is Google good enough? Here is a good faith attempt to make the case for the status quo. I'll focus on web search, since, as I've discussed before on this blog, enterprise search is different.
1) Google does well enough on result quality, enough of the time.
While Google doesn't publish statistics about user satisfaction, it's commonplace that Google usually succeeds in returning results that users find relevant. Granted, so do all of the major search engines: you can compare Google and Yahoo graphically at this site. But the question is not whether other search engines are also good enough--or even whether they are better. The point is that Google is good enough.
2) Google doesn't support exploratory search. But it often leads you to a tool that does.
The classic instance of this synergy is when Google leads you to a Wikipedia entry. For example, I look up Daniel Kahneman on Google. The top results is his Wikipedia entry. From there, I can traverse links to learn about his research areas, his colleagues, etc.
3) Google is a benign monopoly that mitigates choice overload.
Many people, myself includes, have concerns about Google's increasing role in mediating our access to information. But it's hard to ignore the upside of a single portal that gives you access to everything in one place: web pages, blogs, maps, email, etc, And it's all "free"--at least in so far as ad-supported services can be said to be free.
In summary, Google sets the bar pretty high. There are places where Google performs poorly (e.g., shopping) or doesn't even try to compete (e.g., travel). But when I see the series of companies lining up to challenge Google, I have to wonder how many of them have identified and addressed clear consumer needs for which Google isn't good enough as a solution. Given Google's near-monopoly in web search, parity or even incremental advantage isn't enough.
3 comments:
-
Daniel Tunkelang said...
-
Due to technical difficulties with Blogger, I've re-posted this, and it may appear as a duplicate in your feeds.
-
August 8, 2008 at 11:42 AM
-
Daniel Tunkelang said...
-
Here is a re-posted comment from Paul Dovydaitis:
Hi Daniel, interesting post. Do you think that by being just "good enough" Google is stagnating innovation in web search?
I think you hit the nail on the head with your comment that "Given Google's near-monopoly in web search, parity or even incremental advantage isn't enough", and that is especially evident in the wake of the relatively unsuccessful launch of Cuil.
Given that Google itself seems reluctant to push the envelope much, it looks as though we're in this limbo where the people with the interesting ideas can't get them successfully productized, and the company that has the elbow room to try some new stuff isn't interested. -
August 8, 2008 at 11:42 AM
-
Anonymous said...
-
When Google came into the market search results sucked. It's a lot easier to displace the dominant competitors if something really sucks. Now that search results are much better, sufficient that most people can find what they're searching for most of the time within a few seconds or at most minutes, it's very hard for another company to come along and displace Google. It's probably a better strategy to ask what really still sucks with Google's solutions?
The companies that have tackled this problem seem to think the answer is natural language search rather than keyword search or the visual display of contextual information. The former strikes me as untrue unless you're talking about voice recognition on a mobile device; keywords are more efficient to type and most people have gotten really used to using them. The latter seems like an insufficiently improved solution. But whoever does successfully answer the question "what does Google suck at?" will reap tremendous rewards. -
August 8, 2008 at 3:06 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Is Google Good Enough?
As Chief Scientist of Endeca, I spend a lot of my time explaining to people why they should not be satisfied with an information seekin interface that only offers them keyword search as an input mechanism and a ranked list of results as output. I tell them about query clarification dialogs, faceted navigation, and set analysis. More broadly, I evangelize exploratory search and human computer information retrieval as critical to addressing the inherent weakness of conventional ranked retrieval. If you haven't heard me expound on the subject, feel free to check out this slide show on Is Search Broken?.
But today I wanted to put my ideology aside and ask the the simple question: Is Google good enough? Here is a good faith attempt to make the case for the status quo. I'll focus on web search, since, as I've discussed before on this blog, enterprise search is different.
1) Google does well enough on result quality, enough of the time.
While Google doesn't publish statistics about user satisfaction, it's commonplace that Google usually succeeds in returning results that users find relevant. Granted, so do all of the major search engines: you can compare Google and Yahoo graphically at this site. But the question is not whether other search engines are also good enough--or even whether they are better. The point is that Google is good enough.
2) Google doesn't support exploratory search. But it often leads you to a tool that does.
The classic instance of this synergy is when Google leads you to a Wikipedia entry. For example, I look up Daniel Kahneman on Google. The top results is his Wikipedia entry. From there, I can traverse links to learn about his research areas, his colleagues, etc.
3) Google is a benign monopoly that mitigates choice overload.
Many people, myself includes, have concerns about Google's increasing role in mediating our access to information. But it's hard to ignore the upside of a single portal that gives you access to everything in one place: web pages, blogs, maps, email, etc, And it's all "free"--at least in so far as ad-supported services can be said to be free.
In summary, Google sets the bar pretty high. There are places where Google performs poorly (e.g., shopping) or doesn't even try to compete (e.g., travel). But when I see the series of companies lining up to challenge Google, I have to wonder how many of them have identified and addressed clear consumer needs for which Google isn't good enough as a solution. Given Google's near-monopoly in web search, parity or even incremental advantage isn't enough.
But today I wanted to put my ideology aside and ask the the simple question: Is Google good enough? Here is a good faith attempt to make the case for the status quo. I'll focus on web search, since, as I've discussed before on this blog, enterprise search is different.
1) Google does well enough on result quality, enough of the time.
While Google doesn't publish statistics about user satisfaction, it's commonplace that Google usually succeeds in returning results that users find relevant. Granted, so do all of the major search engines: you can compare Google and Yahoo graphically at this site. But the question is not whether other search engines are also good enough--or even whether they are better. The point is that Google is good enough.
2) Google doesn't support exploratory search. But it often leads you to a tool that does.
The classic instance of this synergy is when Google leads you to a Wikipedia entry. For example, I look up Daniel Kahneman on Google. The top results is his Wikipedia entry. From there, I can traverse links to learn about his research areas, his colleagues, etc.
3) Google is a benign monopoly that mitigates choice overload.
Many people, myself includes, have concerns about Google's increasing role in mediating our access to information. But it's hard to ignore the upside of a single portal that gives you access to everything in one place: web pages, blogs, maps, email, etc, And it's all "free"--at least in so far as ad-supported services can be said to be free.
In summary, Google sets the bar pretty high. There are places where Google performs poorly (e.g., shopping) or doesn't even try to compete (e.g., travel). But when I see the series of companies lining up to challenge Google, I have to wonder how many of them have identified and addressed clear consumer needs for which Google isn't good enough as a solution. Given Google's near-monopoly in web search, parity or even incremental advantage isn't enough.
3 comments:
-
Daniel Tunkelang said...
-
Due to technical difficulties with Blogger, I've re-posted this, and it may appear as a duplicate in your feeds.
-
August 8, 2008 at 11:42 AM
-
Daniel Tunkelang said...
-
Here is a re-posted comment from Paul Dovydaitis:
Hi Daniel, interesting post. Do you think that by being just "good enough" Google is stagnating innovation in web search?
I think you hit the nail on the head with your comment that "Given Google's near-monopoly in web search, parity or even incremental advantage isn't enough", and that is especially evident in the wake of the relatively unsuccessful launch of Cuil.
Given that Google itself seems reluctant to push the envelope much, it looks as though we're in this limbo where the people with the interesting ideas can't get them successfully productized, and the company that has the elbow room to try some new stuff isn't interested. -
August 8, 2008 at 11:42 AM
-
Anonymous said...
-
When Google came into the market search results sucked. It's a lot easier to displace the dominant competitors if something really sucks. Now that search results are much better, sufficient that most people can find what they're searching for most of the time within a few seconds or at most minutes, it's very hard for another company to come along and displace Google. It's probably a better strategy to ask what really still sucks with Google's solutions?
The companies that have tackled this problem seem to think the answer is natural language search rather than keyword search or the visual display of contextual information. The former strikes me as untrue unless you're talking about voice recognition on a mobile device; keywords are more efficient to type and most people have gotten really used to using them. The latter seems like an insufficiently improved solution. But whoever does successfully answer the question "what does Google suck at?" will reap tremendous rewards. -
August 8, 2008 at 3:06 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Due to technical difficulties with Blogger, I've re-posted this, and it may appear as a duplicate in your feeds.
Here is a re-posted comment from Paul Dovydaitis:
Hi Daniel, interesting post. Do you think that by being just "good enough" Google is stagnating innovation in web search?
I think you hit the nail on the head with your comment that "Given Google's near-monopoly in web search, parity or even incremental advantage isn't enough", and that is especially evident in the wake of the relatively unsuccessful launch of Cuil.
Given that Google itself seems reluctant to push the envelope much, it looks as though we're in this limbo where the people with the interesting ideas can't get them successfully productized, and the company that has the elbow room to try some new stuff isn't interested.
When Google came into the market search results sucked. It's a lot easier to displace the dominant competitors if something really sucks. Now that search results are much better, sufficient that most people can find what they're searching for most of the time within a few seconds or at most minutes, it's very hard for another company to come along and displace Google. It's probably a better strategy to ask what really still sucks with Google's solutions?
The companies that have tackled this problem seem to think the answer is natural language search rather than keyword search or the visual display of contextual information. The former strikes me as untrue unless you're talking about voice recognition on a mobile device; keywords are more efficient to type and most people have gotten really used to using them. The latter seems like an insufficiently improved solution. But whoever does successfully answer the question "what does Google suck at?" will reap tremendous rewards.
Post a Comment