Comments on: Will the Search for Search ever end?

By: Pinks

Pinks — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 10:34:36 +0000

Great post on Search..I feel Google can provide a much better interface instead of what it has now!

By: Jason

Jason — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 10:04:45 +0000

great, in-depth analysis…looking ahead, i am getting excited for the future of semantic web search that integrates with pizza delivery so that i can type in “Im hungry” while thinking about pizza and the keyboard reads my pulse and the printer spits out a Hawaiian pizza.

By: Lars Teigen

Lars Teigen — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 09:22:27 +0000

I also agree that Google’s interface is good. It’s efficient and it works. If someone is going to compete with Google on search, they need to compete on search results, increasing the relevancy. It will be hard to do that in general search, so I’d probably focus on some verticals.

By: Kristen Nicole

Kristen Nicole — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 09:17:30 +0000

I suppose Google will be toppled eventually–everyone is at some point. Of course, Google’s current success rides on the fact that it changed the way in which search results became relevant, and in many ways certain populations in the world are ready for the next generation of a revised format for relevant search results. And as Dan mentioned, Google will likely be the one to provide the format that’s most widely adopted in its current demographics over which it already has a stronghold. We’ve seen hints of this with some of Google’s developments over the past few years, and more readily with its admission of intended world domination, which has revealed itself through Chrome. Google had the help of Yahoo so many years ago, and there aren’t too many search startups that have caught such a break since. Then again, the environment isn’t the same. But no, I don’t think the search for search will ever end. Ever.

By: Joey

Joey — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 09:04:43 +0000

I honestly don’t see Google being supplanted any time soon. They keep the freshest and most forward thinking minds working their company. Although their design is almost non-existent I think that that is also partially why they are winning the search engine race. They get relevant results fast and without clutter. If there was away to achieve a search engine with the same speed, relevance and simplicity of Google that brought in more visual elements I would be all over it. Great analysis!

By: Yang

Yang — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 15:50:28 +0000

I’m no internet marketing guru myself but powerset does look charming in regards to the idea. Though it has no words like ’scraping’ on any of its pages but it is in essence a scraper. Or remixer for a little decency?

The story of creators and remixers goes ever on and on…………

By: Svetlana Gladkova

Svetlana Gladkova — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 14:59:48 +0000

I’m sorry Phil but I disagree that Google’s search interface can be callsed ugly at all. It is simple and minimalist but I do think that it is the best user interface ever – simple, uncluttered and clean. And while I do think all the efforts applied by competitive search engines to make search results more relevant and actually understanding what the user is looking for and bringing exactly that, I don’t think visual presentation of search results is what matters now and what will determine the future of the search world. Instead, relevancy and user friendliness will tell who will win the game – and I think any company that innovates fast enough will have chances to win, unless Google decides to apply all its own efforts to semantic search because in this case Google will win anyway. But whatever it is, innovation is hardly about how many columns an engine uses to display results or how they integrate images – innovation is well beyond that and it will need major needs of a consumer to be helpful.

By: Dan

Dan — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 14:59:13 +0000

I’ve long wondered what it would actually take to one-up Google, and I think it’s clear that incremental improvements in presentation and relevance (which you rightly point out is nebulous to begin with) will not do it. I think it would take a truly jaw-dropping experience. My guess is that the Google “killer” is more likely to come from Google itself than even a well capitalized start-up.

Perhaps if Cuil had actually lived up to the hype (probably an impossible task), it might have had a chance. A whole lot of people were willing to give it a shot those first couple of days. I think that only jaws that dropped were attached to the faces of the company’s investors when they realized they’d dropped $30+ million on what looks to be a dog.

Someone will just have to build an AI that comprehends human language.

Any takers?

By: Mihaela Lica

Mihaela Lica — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 14:58:04 +0000

Money, it’s all about money, Maggie. The interest of these entities – all of them, including the so called “altruistic” ones is financial. The fight for search domination is similar with the fight and struggles of any webmaster. We all know that traffic means users, users mean more profits. How these profits come (ads or any other way) and how they are spent it’s not the matter. What we should all finally understand is that behind each of these search entities there are investors who expect the tools they sponsor to grab a part of the search market for their own profit. The “care” for the user and relevance is not even really there. The search engines care about “relevant results” as long as these attract more users.

By: Maggie

Maggie — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 14:37:34 +0000

An interesting analysis Phil. I wonder what the real strategy behind the search race is