homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.146.190.193
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: Robert Charlton & aakk9999 & brotherhood of lan & goodroi

Google SEO News and Discussion Forum

This 98 message thread spans 4 pages: < < 98 ( 1 2 [3] 4 > >     
Eric Schmidt on the Future of Google Search
tedster

WebmasterWorld Senior Member tedster us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3984839 posted 9:00 pm on Sep 5, 2009 (gmt 0)

Michael Arrington at TechCrunch published an interview with Google's CEO Eric Schmidt [techcrunch.com], under the sensational headline "Google CEO Eric Schmidt On The Future Of Search: Connect It Straight To Your Brain."

Long-term Borg ideation aside, the interview also contained Schmidt's comment about where he sees Google in ten years.

So I don't know how to characterize the next 10 years except to say that we'll get to the point - the long-term goal is to be able to give you one answer, which is exactly the right answer over time.

I am struck nearly dumb by that statement. The absurdity of thinking that there can even BE "the right answer" just jumped out at me. Has he been living with data so long that he lost touch with the real human world?

Organize the world's information? Maybe a bit grandiose, but an OK mission statement. Give us a tool to explore the world's information? That's more what I want from Google.

But tell us "the right answer" for any query? I shudder at the Orwellian vision. I am not having any of that, thank you very much.

I can only hope that he misspoke or his remarks were poorly reported.

 

BeeDeeDubbleU

WebmasterWorld Senior Member beedeedubbleu us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3984839 posted 9:15 am on Sep 8, 2009 (gmt 0)

Seriously, if one receives a desired and acceptable answer to a query, won't they then feel less of a need to click on an advertisement? How will Google make a profit from that approach?

Very good point. I wonder if Schmidt has though of this? :)

Badcol



 
Msg#: 3984839 posted 9:18 am on Sep 8, 2009 (gmt 0)

Maybe we're making too much out of it. At the end of the day G. must be able to convert its results into cash. If there is a holy grail in SERPs it's profit.

However, in reality, no one would be writing about this subject if Eric Schmidt had just said "We'd quite like to get more accuracy in our results". All publicity is good publicity .. so he says that he's looking for the answer to life, the universe and everything ;-)

Keep aiming for the stars Eric.

BC

santapaws

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3984839 posted 10:00 am on Sep 8, 2009 (gmt 0)

"Very good point. I wonder if Schmidt has though of this? :) "

pay by impressions

aleksl



 
Msg#: 3984839 posted 1:16 pm on Sep 8, 2009 (gmt 0)

youfoundjake: I would presume that Eric is coming from a place mathematically, where there is only one real answer, something that can be defined and verified by it's peers.

not so, in fact having studied higher math both of them should know Gödel's incompleteness theorems - that any system based on axioms - i.e. Google - can't possibly have the right answers to everything. And evenmore, there should be always more wrong answers than right.

whitenight:
I don't know what's more disappointing...
That Eric wants to turn Goog into a Borg-like entity
or
that he wants to "reinvent the Wikipedia" and turn Goog into (it)

I do know what's most disappointing here. It is one more G$$gle's quest for content, so they can keep users on G$$gle instead of sending them of to our sites. So G$$gle can make more money via Adwords rather than Adsense. YEAH, THAT WOULD HELP USERS. A LOT.

But, if G could 'provide the right answer' via 'summary' or some other means, and only sent visitors to adwords advertisers, would they make more money? Only G mgmt can answer the question

You have a $1. In case of Adsense, you have to give 30 cents to advertiser. In case of Adwords you don't. See, that was an easy answer.

Seriously, if one receives a desired and acceptable answer to a query, won't they then feel less of a need to click on an advertisement? How will Google make a profit from that approach?

If there possibly ever is a right answer to this user's question, it is very likely to be a non-commercial query, and hence Google would unlikely make any profit on it regardless. But if you keep a user on G-property, you will increase chances of her hitting Adwords ad.

esllou

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3984839 posted 2:17 pm on Sep 8, 2009 (gmt 0)

Great, I'm finally going to find out if a boy that can swim faster than a shark will ever be born?

off to celebrate...

BeeDeeDubbleU

WebmasterWorld Senior Member beedeedubbleu us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3984839 posted 2:24 pm on Sep 8, 2009 (gmt 0)

Seriously, if one receives a desired and acceptable answer to a query, won't they then feel less of a need to click on an advertisement? How will Google make a profit from that approach?
If there possibly ever is a right answer to this user's question, it is very likely to be a non-commercial query, and hence Google would unlikely make any profit on it regardless. But if you keep a user on G-property, you will increase chances of her hitting Adwords ad.

Actually the answer to this is that they can place the sponsored results anywhere they like and they will. In other words there will always be a sponsored result above the actual results. People will still click them.

Shaddows

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3984839 posted 2:28 pm on Sep 8, 2009 (gmt 0)

There could be a page of Adwords with a single tiny Neo-Organic (cyborganic?) result at the bottom, pale on white.

signor_john



 
Msg#: 3984839 posted 2:56 pm on Sep 8, 2009 (gmt 0)

There could be a page of Adwords with a single tiny Neo-Organic (cyborganic?) result at the bottom, pale on white.

Sure, or Google's SERPs could consist of 30-minute video infomercials with organic results available only by clicking off to a new page. That doesn't mean it'll happen, though, any more than Google is likely to follow the examples of shortsighted competitors who have tried to make money through PFI.

Shaddows

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3984839 posted 3:57 pm on Sep 8, 2009 (gmt 0)

Google's SERPs could consist of 30-minute video infomercials with organic results available only by clicking off to a new page

I can see it now:
Disambiguation- did you mean to get an answer?

randle

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3984839 posted 4:26 pm on Sep 8, 2009 (gmt 0)

Maybe we're making too much out of it. At the end of the day G. must be able to convert its results into cash. If there is a holy grail in SERPs it's profit.

You got that right, way to much philosophical debate here. I like Google, but let’s be real; they have taken the concept of greed to such a whole new level most people just can’t comprehend it (including me, especially when I’m wrestling with “quality score” issues). The Industrial giants of the 1800’s have absolutely nothing on these guys. Every single thing they do is specifically aimed at maximizing profit, long term. Most companies get fixated on quick returns. Not these guys, they always see things in a different light.

Why a goal of just “one answer”? To make more money; period. Our jobs are to figure the mechanics of how their going to do that, and try and get in there, exploit it and grab a little piece. (which they have been allowing us to do all along fortunately)

BeeDeeDubbleU

WebmasterWorld Senior Member beedeedubbleu us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3984839 posted 4:29 pm on Sep 8, 2009 (gmt 0)

Don't do evil ;)

signor_john



 
Msg#: 3984839 posted 5:28 pm on Sep 8, 2009 (gmt 0)

You got that right, way to much philosophical debate here. I like Google, but let’s be real; they have taken the concept of greed to such a whole new level most people just can’t comprehend it...

Actually, their greed has been remarkably restrained. They've resisted the temptation to offer PFI, for example, and most of the ads on Google's SERPs are over on the right where, according to Google's own AdSense heat map, users are least likely to see and click them. Why the self-restraint? Because Google's honchos are smart enough to know that letting greed get in the way of product quality is the quickest way to turn off users. (Remember LookSmart? Now, there's an example of self-destructive greed.)

freejung

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3984839 posted 9:54 pm on Sep 8, 2009 (gmt 0)

I agree that this indicates a disturbing mindset.

The relevant question, as it always is for issues that affect the shape of society, is "who decides?"

If you believe in democratic ideals at all, then the answer should never be a single organized entity.

I've been doing a lot of political searches lately, and this is already becoming a problem. There are issues for which the vast majority of the top ten results reflect a single viewpoint. It's not always the majority viewpoint either, but even if it were the overwhelming majority viewpoint, it would still be a problem (perhaps even more so).

Google may have started out with vaguely democratic ideals -- the original PR algo is vaguely democratic -- but this is one among many signals that their view has changed. The democratic answer would be to aim for as much diversity of opinion in the top ten as possible. As has been pointed out, even the idea that there is one single answer to any question (even mathematical ones) reflects a disturbingly totalitarian mindset.

tedster

WebmasterWorld Senior Member tedster us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3984839 posted 12:51 am on Sep 9, 2009 (gmt 0)

There's a fledgling branch of Information Retrieval known as "sentiment analysis." It's not ready for prime time yet, at least not on the scale of the entire web. But it is already in use by several companies for reputation monitoring across social media - very deep data mining.

If any single organization ever becomes the gatekeeper to all the world's "information" and that organization uses a sentiment analysis algorithm to understand whether content is pro, anti or neutral on a topic, then that organization would have a lot of power.

Used ethically, a well developed sentiment analysis algorithm could be very helpful. For one thing, content could be analyzed and rated for it's degree of objectivity. Pro and con subjectivity could be presented in a balanced manner. Minority views could be surfaced.

However, if there is only one source for sentiment-analyzed data, that could definitely skew humankind's understanding of any topic by biasing search results. It could be done intentionally, or unintentionally via some butterfly effect. And if some heavy-handed Big Brother leaned on the organization hard enough, then a bias could be enforced, unknown to the common person.

This is just one reason why competition in search is a good thing for the future. Monolithic control of the world's information flow is not a good thing. And except for almost trivial results (e.g. where's the nearest Chinese take-out), the idea of one correct answer is anathema to the human spirit.

Competing with Google is a huge job. I hope MS is up to the task, since Y! has decided that they are not a search company. And I also hope that at least one more very serious player shows up soon.

And I also wish Google well, within these limits. My own experience during the Google years is that they have been pretty benign, compared to many large organizations. But before they lift any lid, they'd better be sure what kind of spirits are trapped in the box they are opening.

BeeDeeDubbleU

WebmasterWorld Senior Member beedeedubbleu us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3984839 posted 4:48 am on Sep 9, 2009 (gmt 0)

the idea of one correct answer is anathema to the human spirit.

Precisely.

My own experience during the Google years is that they have been pretty benign, compared to many large organizations.

They have indeed but I believe that the writing was on the wall for them the moment they floated. Isn't it the case that they are becoming more and more profit driven and that this, inevitably, will have to continue at the expense of the overall quality of the results being delivered?

As they do so the public's love affair with Google may start to cool off.

And I also hope that at least one more very serious player shows up soon.

I agree, real competition for G would be great but unfortunately any competitor will also be driven by profit as opposed to what is best for the Internet and hence the World. Takes me back to my old crusade for a non profit search engine whose only interest is in delivering quality, untarnished results.

steveb

WebmasterWorld Senior Member steveb us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3984839 posted 10:32 am on Sep 9, 2009 (gmt 0)

"the idea of one correct answer is anathema to the human spirit"

What? That's could be the most bizarre thing I've ever read on WebmasterWorld, which is saying a lot.

I don't have time to go through 23 million results for a query, but if I did, I could carve out 1000 results, in order, that is right for ME. It's utterly absurd to think that is "anathema to the human spirit"!

There is absolutely zero logic in not wanting Google to produce the 1000 best results for ME when I search. I can't even imagine what argument anyone could make to object to that half of the deal.

It's the other half of the deal that is the issue, which is they can only produce such results by intercepting my brainwaves and translating them into an algorithm for ME.

I can't even imagine the chaotic business practices of some here if they think it is "anathema to the human spirit" to produce the best possible product/thing for each of their individual customers!

The best possible results for everyone is a fine utopian goal which they should be trying to get *close to*. To be perfect at that though they would have to invade everyone's privacy to a degree no one would want.

Shaddows

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3984839 posted 11:24 am on Sep 9, 2009 (gmt 0)

Best 1000 results is not the same as the best single result. For most queries, even 10 results would be fine, and would (for me, anyway) relieve the worst worries.

But for an algo to effectively decide there IS one single answer to a non-trivial query is absurd.

But yes, its the privacy thing that seals the deal for me.

I find Google pervasive today, and dread to think how they might expand. You know loyalty cards? Imagine Google running one of those, or being a substantive partner in a scheme such as Nectar (UK cross-shop loyalty scheme). Imagine the data. Especially if married with a credit card (such as Tesco is now doing).

Then there will be netbooks with embedded 3G, running GoogleOS. Even without GPS, triangulation of cells would be possible.

A world where someone could approximate a tailored "correct" answer based my unintentionally revealed habits is scarey.

One other question, who owns this theoretical data collected about my habits? Me, or the collector. I know its me, as long as I GIVE the data. But id the data is inferred indirectly, would Google own it?

BeeDeeDubbleU

WebmasterWorld Senior Member beedeedubbleu us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3984839 posted 12:27 pm on Sep 9, 2009 (gmt 0)

I can't even imagine the chaotic business practices of some here if they think it is "anathema to the human spirit" to produce the best possible product/thing for each of their individual customers!

That is NOT what is being discussed here and there is no need to twist this into something it isn't. I am sure that Ted's business practices are anything but chaotic but I still don't see why you make this connection?

I don't have time to go through 23 million results for a query, but if I did, I could carve out 1000 results, in order, that is right for ME.

You've lost me now. What has 1000 results got to do with a single result?

Try to answer in an amicable way. After all it's only a hypothetical discussion, not life or death.

signor_john



 
Msg#: 3984839 posted 2:05 pm on Sep 9, 2009 (gmt 0)

The best possible results for everyone is a fine utopian goal which they should be trying to get *close to*.

Yep. And kudos to them for trying to be the best they can be.

To be perfect at that though they would have to invade everyone's privacy to a degree no one would want.

Even the folks at Google know they can't come up with a single perfect search result, even if they know your shoe size, your annual income, your favorite political sites, and the fact that you've looked up "Natalie Portman" and "rehab" and "crystal meth" at least once a week for the last year. Why? Because when you search on "ford," there's no way a search engine can know for certain that you're a Republican with a fondness for dead U.S. presidents who has no interest at that moment in a Focus, a Taurus, or an F150 pickup.

Of course, it's possible that Mr. Schmidt's dream of perfection is based on a scenario that doesn't require mindreading, such as answering questions like "How do I get from Charles de Gaulle to the Paris city center by train" or "I need help with a stuffy nose." In Mr. Schmidt's perfect world, users may not be forced to search on keywords or keyphrases, and search engines may not be forced to make judgments about what people are really searching for.

Shaddows

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3984839 posted 2:26 pm on Sep 9, 2009 (gmt 0)

The best possible results for everyone is a fine utopian goal which they should be trying to get *close to*.
Yep. And kudos to them for trying to be the best they can be.

Since its been lamentably absent in this thread so far, let me be the first to ask where that leave us webmasters. Eh?

How can we manipulate our google rankings when literally no one has the same rankings? What happens to all those running thin affilliates that no one wants? Are we now expected to somehow cater to our customers needs and desires, rather than engage in pure algorithmic exploitation?

Maybe that should be my first question on Googborg<-- Why wont borg and google concatenate nicely?.
How can money be made while continuing to ignore users?

Tongue firmly in cheek throughout

On a slightly more serious note, will we have to add demography to the growing raft of skills required to be a successful SEO? I mean, knowing your target audience has always been key to running a business, including an online business- but this would be specifically SEO related demographic targeting.

freejung

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3984839 posted 3:08 pm on Sep 9, 2009 (gmt 0)

"the idea of one correct answer is anathema to the human spirit"
What? That's could be the most bizarre thing I've ever read on WebmasterWorld, which is saying a lot.

Steveb, I'm not sure you're following the problem. You're thinking of product searches or pure informational searches (the problem extends to those too, but it's less obvious). Think about political searches, and it becomes quite stark.

Do you really not have a problem with Google serving up only one answer to a political question? Or even a thousand answers -- if they all reflect the same political position, that's still a problem. It's even more of a problem if they are customized to the political views of the searcher.

As an example, consider the issue of global warming. Now, there is in fact a vast majority scientific viewpoint on that issue, and it corresponds to a much weaker majority viewpoint among the general population. I happen to agree with that viewpoint, I think it is in some sense factually correct as it is supported by scientific evidence. It has all the makings of a "one right answer." So suppose I do a search for it, and the only websites that come up are ones that support my view.

The problem is, a dissenting view does exist. It's not very credible, IMO, but it exists and in fact has a surprisingly large minority following. It is crucial that people be aware of the dissenting view, if nothing else so that they can prepare themselves to argue against it when their crazy uncle-in-law brings it up over dinner. In general, it is good for people to be aware that others differ from their opinions.

In Google's "one answer" utopia, however, I would never know that from searching Google. I would search and get the "one right answer" which happens to be the correct scientific answer and also the answer corresponding to my personal opinion, and I would never know that some people believe otherwise. That's wrong, it is as tedster stated "anathema to the human spirit," and if you can't see why I'm not sure how much more clearly I can explain it.

santapaws

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3984839 posted 5:21 pm on Sep 9, 2009 (gmt 0)

i think he calls that one right answer with multiple options.

webdude

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3984839 posted 6:47 pm on Sep 9, 2009 (gmt 0)

Google 2012

Right Brain search...
I have a headache

Right Brain result...
Have you tried aromatherapy? Eucalyptus and Sweet Marjoram are nice. You really don't have any pleasing aromas in your living space and it might help you relieve tension. You might want to try yoga too. Being on the computer for over 10 hours a day leaves little time for you to exercise. In fact, ayurveda would probably do you well, it employs diet, herbal remedies, meditation, gentle exercise, and yoga to maintain a state of optimal wellness. You may also want to try vitamin, mineral, and herbal supplements. magnesium might be nice. Feverfew and butterbur along with coenzyme Q10 might be just the ticket. You should really get out more and exercise a bit.

Left Brain search...
I have a headache

Left Brain result...
You have a Subarachnoid Hemorrhage. We noticed this when you searched for neck stiffness, low back pain and bilateral leg pain yesterday. The location is in the Tranverse-sigmoid. It is less then 1.25 cm in diameter. It is recommended you do a CT scan immediately. If the CT scan shows no subarachnoid hemorrhage, an LP needs to be performed to evaluate the cerebrospinal fluid for the presence of RBCs and xanthochromia. Would you like us to connect you to your doctor?

Sponsored Links
Cheap Meds
On-line Meds
Get your Meds Here

whitenight

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3984839 posted 8:24 pm on Sep 9, 2009 (gmt 0)

To give Schmidt a pass on the "one right answer" as benign is foolhardy.

I'm wondering if people here realize the explanations given above ALREADY in exist, both in potentia and in practice?

** There are companies that one can "text/call" a question with and the answer is given

Downfall? (in Goog's eyes) - It's obvious that a person gives the answer and is using that UNIQUELY human attribute of guessing intention and responding appropriately.

** Again, in potentia, Google, TODAY, could create an "answer engine" very much like the one in the movie AI. (more on this)

A combination of voice recognition and text-to-speech software backed by Wikipedia or Yahoo answers or Google Map, creates an interactive program where one asks banal questions such as:

"How do I get from Charles de Gaulle to the Paris city center by train"

Answer - Just like a talking GPS device in a car.

OR

"What's the cure for the stuffy nose?"

Answer - Speech recognition software "searches" on appropriate engine.
Text-to-speech software repeats the first (or first 3) SERP in Goog. Asks
"is this sufficient?"
"New Search? or
"Further explore into SERP #1, #2, #3. Say/Press 1, 2, or 3"

----------

One could make THAT 2nd company TODAY.
(feel free to take this idea, if it's successful enough, I'll have my lawyers contact you) ;)

That's NOT a "10 years for now" idea.


In one form it already exist (text answering service, talking GPS devices)
In the more advanced form, it's only 1-3 years away. (A vocal recognition "answer engine")

--------------

As illustrated in the movie AI when the AI-boy David ask the answer engine "Where's the blue fairy?"
There's still that crucial element of understanding intention, values, deductive and inductive reasoning and INTUITION that only a HUMAN could answer correctly.

ONE CORRECT ANSWER to David the-almost-thinking-and-feeling-like-a-human robot was:

"There is NO answer, David. At least, not how you are perceiving that reality. The blue fairy is a product of HUMAN IMAGINATION and ONLY exists in the shared consensus of HUMAN creative thinking."

This is no small endeavor that we, humans, have yet to "figure out" with the "right" technology.
It is the very basis of the mystery known as humanity itself

So again I wonder, what exactly is Goog Exec #1 envisioning that's going to take 10 years to create/perfect?!

He's either a complete naive neophyte who has no understanding of the basics of the human mind
(or even what's available in the current marketplace),
and therefore has no sniff of the necessary thinking processi needed to lead a company with Goog's power and influence

OR.

He's going the more predictable route of many, many people throughout the repeated history of humanity in that he wishes for a day when Goog will TELL US THE ONE TRUE CORRECT ANSWER.

Anyone who's taken a basic class in human psychology knows that one often says aloud what is foremost in one's subconscious mind.
In an advanced class, one would learn that the brain keeps similar information in the same parts of the mind. Ie. It's why parents often call their kids by their brother's/sister's names accidentally

So why are the topics "Google's future" and "Borg" (even in a laughing matter) so closely related in Goog Exec #1's mind, subconsciously or consciously?!

Does the prime minister of Germany/Japan make joking references to "expanding their territory" in public interviews for sh*f and giggles?

"Are we havin' a laugh?!"

steveb

WebmasterWorld Senior Member steveb us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3984839 posted 10:45 pm on Sep 9, 2009 (gmt 0)

"Best 1000 results is not the same as the best single result."

Of course it is. Seriously some of you guys are simply talking about some nonsensical idea that has nothing to do with what Google does, tries to do, or what Schmidt is talking about.

And this pure nonsense that it is somehow bad that Google returning the best results for each customer is anethema to the human spirit is ridiculous at best.

"That is NOT what is being discussed here and there is no need to twist this into something it isn't."

You a few of you are twisting Schmidt's words into a fully illogical, silly bit of FUD. The thread started with a quote from Schmidt and now you are saying "that is NOT" what is being discussed here... but THAT IS WHAT HE SAID!

All this FUD over Schmidt stating the freaking obvious is so far over the top it boggles the mind.

"Do you really not have a problem with Google serving up only one answer to a political question?"

Honest to god, forget the FUD being spread by some of the posters here. Of course there is ONE result, and ONE group of results that Google could serve up to ME that answers the query that *I* type the best.

That ONE group of results would be DIFFERENT FOR EVERY PERSON ALIVE. This fuddy nonsense that seems to be pretending that what Schmidt said is that every single person would see the exact _same_ result is absurd and insulting. It's as if some of you guys haven't been paying attention for the past decade of Google gathering data every freaking way it can, and working to personalize their results.

Wake the heck up and stop talking about this crazy stuff and realize the issue here is the invasion of privacy needed to accomplish the goal of serving up the best results possible to each searcher.

"In Google's 'one answer' utopia, however, I would never know that from searching Google"

Why would you say something so ridicuous? By definition if YOU want dissenting viewpoints in the results, as you are saying here, then the ONE group of results for YOU would include them! If *I* don't want dissenting results, then my ONE group would not have any. If some crackpot ONLY wanted dissenting results, then his ONE, best-for-him results would include only dissenting results.

Get it?

If 563 people search [global warming] on September 10, 2019, Schmidt wants to return 563 different groups of 1000 results, with each person getting the ONE set of results for themselves that is perfect for THEM, and NOT anyone else (except by coincidence).

Let's focus on the correct borg, that they want to suck every bit of data about all of us into their algo and servers to deliver the best one set of results for every searcher, not this silly FUD.

Shaddows

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3984839 posted 9:15 am on Sep 10, 2009 (gmt 0)

I cannot agree with you that one answer (which by definition gives one view) is not qualitatively as well as quantatively different from a menu of options which represents a range of views (even if they are all syncophantic, or however you prefer your results). I broadly agree with you otherwise, but such agreement is predicated on the menu of options, because frankly I do not think one result can fulfil a query.

For example, if I was to learn a subject from scratch, I might start searching for that topic. I would need a basic starter, then progressively more detailed material. Crucially, the SE would need to determine my rate of learning to judge how much more advanced the next item should be. That's not possible (unless he really meant it about that Borg thing).

Now, one result is what Schmidt said. One result WILL NOT WORK. 10, 100 or 1000 results certainly would. Its different.

Regrettably, from experience, I know you will not join in an actual discussion about that, you'll merely state how completely irrational I'm being.

Where we are in broad agreement is the fact that a tailored menu would suite everyone without complaint. I may think that Climate Change deniers should be force fed results that prove the fallacy of their view point. But they don't want that, and their results would be full of syncophantic false 'science' that supports their view, and they would be happy for it.

I would always want dissenting views in my results. Most just want their view of the world confirmed- ideally by 'proving' the dissenters wrong. But everyones results would be right for them.

Where we are in complete agreement is that this entire argument is a sideshow. Who cares how Google choses to present their results, apart from adsense publishers. Its not world changing, its not really important, and there are other SEs out there, hopefully catering to your needs.

What is critically important is the data collection required to meet this vision, along with all the vectors for data acquisition that is becoming available. From gmail to android, from search habits to GoogleOS, the data sources are wide and varied, and are expanding. Forget the presentation, its just for show. Look behind the curtain.

BeeDeeDubbleU

WebmasterWorld Senior Member beedeedubbleu us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3984839 posted 10:10 am on Sep 10, 2009 (gmt 0)

some nonsensical idea
ridiculous
pure nonsense
fully illogical
This fuddy nonsense
absurd and insulting
Wake the heck up and stop talking about this crazy stuff
Why would you say something so ridicuous

;) How to win friends and influence people? :)

m0thman

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3984839 posted 10:26 am on Sep 10, 2009 (gmt 0)

Now I'm educating my users about BING instead.

Distur - bing

Went there this morning, all I saw was butterflies. Great idea, let's make them forget what they were searching for and they won't mind what's in the results.

sem4u

WebmasterWorld Senior Member sem4u us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3984839 posted 11:27 am on Sep 10, 2009 (gmt 0)

Don't forget the hi-res images on the Bing homepage! :)

Search, social media, online advertising is about to go through a sea change, thanks to Google & Microsoft. This will also impact everyday life for people; think of the apps you can already get for your phone. Search marketers, developers, CEOs, designers....need to get ready....

BeeDeeDubbleU

WebmasterWorld Senior Member beedeedubbleu us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3984839 posted 11:59 am on Sep 10, 2009 (gmt 0)

designers....need to get ready....

Nah ... I think I'll just retire. ;)

sem4u

WebmasterWorld Senior Member sem4u us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3984839 posted 12:17 pm on Sep 10, 2009 (gmt 0)

haha - good plan! :)

This 98 message thread spans 4 pages: < < 98 ( 1 2 [3] 4 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved