• wfzimmerman

    Two words: work product.

    I am tired of having search as an intermediate step between me and my goal. I want the computer to accomplish my goal for me.

  • JPsmith

    What about the Jaguar conference room? There’s one in a building down the road.

    Very Friday comment perhaps, but true story.

  • c

    What if I want my search to bring up items not based upon my own narrow assumptions; results that may surprise, delight or even educate me about other perspectives? Will there be the equivalent of an “antonym” search result list?

  • http://b2bformula.com davidhrosen

    I wonder if certain industries would benefit from the “Master Intent” approach before the “I’m having a baby” types were tackled. The RFP process in the business world works a lot like the “parcels,” when what a company is really looking for is a good vendor. (Not that the business world’s problems would be looked at first, snarf, snarf.)

  • http://www.adaptiveconsultancy.com Adaptive Consultancy

    Thanks for the post. It’s very interesting to know where leading digital experts think search is headed. I especailly like the refernce to the economic colonization of the web, and the commercial value of data. I do often worry about the manipulation of search and quite agree with what Stefan Weitz had to say about unsuccessfully trying to find a hospital. Knowing how reliant people have become on search engines, there is a major responsibility there to ensure that the best information is ranking the highest and not just the most optimised.

  • http://www.howtomakemoneyonlines.org/how-to-make-money-online-blog/ James Sanders

    Hello Danny,

    The problem I see relates to state, whereas some things just do not change as quickly as others. Take for instance, information on a chicken. It’s shape and size, although random and unique, mostly does not change that quickly throughout time. It may be slightly larger or slightly smaller from day to day, but I the end, it’s still a chicken, and the same information relates to it from day to day. Over thousands or millions of year, evolution might change the chicken, but that’s not happening tomorrow.

    The danger is when they start to use state and apply it the same way to all information online. State implies timeline and trying to link some relevance to creation date. At that point, we’re stuck with an internet littering scenario again just like article marketing was. In order to keep ranking, we’ll have to continue writing the same or similar content in order to keep up with state. This is not a good thing in my opinion.

  • http://www.howtomakemoneyonlines.org/how-to-make-money-online-blog/ James Sanders

    Sorry, Hello Gord =) Dang, just commented on one of Danny’s posts and forgot to change the intro =)

  • http://webliquidgroup Paul Burani

    Gord, your notion of the “cultural contract,” I believe, might be getting us close to the true catalyst in the future of search discussion. We need to be asking ourselves, do we in 2011 have the algorithmic wherewithal to make meaningful cultural inferences, on a large enough scale to be marketable? And while we’re at it: can we really make a blanket statement that there isn’t someone out there who specifically needs a jaguar conference room?

    I think that with the launch of Google +1, Google is basically telling the world that they don’t have the mojo — or the desire — to map out this so-called cultural contract. At least not within the next few years. And so they’re relying on people to submit a binary vote of confidence for items of cultural relevance. You pivot that against the other profile data they’re collecting, and you’ve got something interesting.

  • pureau

    The paragraph in which John Batelle described the Holy Grail of Search sounds very much like “User agents (personal agents)” in Artificial Intelligence research. What is different though is these agents are software “robots” that runs on your own personal computer like other software you have installed on your PC and your personal information is protected within that computing environment.

    However, with the advent of cloud computing and with software no longer installed on your PC, I would argue that just because your applications (and data) are now hosted on the cloud, your personal software agent and your search datasets can still be subjected to the security mechanisms now used to protect your online privacy.

    Unless we are not given that choice, why should personal software agents be any different from emails, calendars and other applications hosted on cloud infrastructure?

  • http://www.kameir.com kameir

    Google claims that its mission is to organize the world‘s information and make it universally accessible and useful. At first look this seems to be a valuable goal. However, it is important to keep in mind that this mission is subordinant to the primary goal of any company which is to increase the wealth of its owners (shareholders) by paying dividends and/or causing the stock price to increase. Plagued by this paradigm Google adapted a business model (AdWords; AdSense) that in its consequence led to the development of an entirely new industry: Search Engine Optimization (SEO) which in its various forms – such as content farms – has caused an explosion of digital content that is essentially marketing copy disguised as information. In short: Google consequently organizes mostly the world’s ad copy rather than the world’s information. It is hence an utterly failed attempt to effectively organize information. Unless the “search giant’ is willing to radically change its business model there seems no way out of the corner the company painted itself into.
    I am working on an concept that addresses the inherent conflict while attempting to put the challenge of information organization into a wider scope than simply ‘search’ and hope to push out a minimum viable product out soon.