• Kevin Chamberlin

    Nathan,

    Excellent insight on this and I agree with your “What Now Bing” section. It really simplifies
    what Microsoft has not done in nearly 20 years, make me have that holy
    sh&*! moment.

  • http://blog.clayburngriffin.com/ Clayburn Griffin

    Duck Duck Go should hire you! This looks like a great search engine, but I’m sure there are many hurdles to getting there. I’m just frustrated by all the horrible attempts at extra features. (I’m mostly looking at you, Bing.)

  • ScottyMack

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Limit the number of search results to exactly one listing for each website, and you’ll finally have something better than everyone else. All of these search engines boast about how well they can rank results for a query; how hard can it be to pick a single page on any given website that best matches a user’s search? If it truly IS a good website, it will have a decent enough navigation structure that users can take it from there.

    I’m tired of sifting through all of the duplicate listings!

  • http://twitter.com/Nathan_Safran Nathan Safran

    Ha! Thanks Clayburn. I definitely agree that there’s frustration with what has been done thus far–seems like its mostly cram things into the SERPS rather than a thoughtful melding of the elements. (And for sure on the hurdles, which is why it was fun to think outside the hurdles and consider what *could be)

  • http://twitter.com/Nathan_Safran Nathan Safran

    Thanks!

  • daveintheuk

    The fact that Google renamed the ‘Search Quality’ team to the ‘Knowledge Team’ is telling that they are no longer focused on the quality of organic search results (and boy does that show!).

    I do wish they’d stop using the word ‘knowledge’ too – knowledge isn’t algorithmic or scalable. It is what comes from a deep understanding of a topic – something possessed by the creators of the small, specialist websites that Google are squeezing out of their results in favour of their auto-generated, thin “content”.

  • http://www.facebook.com/drdadman Dan Roberts

    The next big shift in search, i.e. the next ‘Google’, will not be an innovation in what the SERPs contain, or how results are ranked, it will be in how the data is presented – think beyond the 2-dimensional flat page construct. It will be the intersection of search and discovery. Google and Bing are flirting with it, but they’re constrained by the paradigm
    they’ve built.

  • http://twitter.com/crazedpsyc Michael Smith

    That’s precisely what DuckDuckGo does — in addition to being the first to bring actual, quality information to the top of the results (Zero-Click Info, like Google’s younger Knowledge Graph)

  • ScottyMack

    You’re preaching to the choir here, Michael. Every time I mention duckduckgo as being a superior search engine on one of these big SEO blogs like Search Engine Land, people come out of the woodwork, deriding me (and the duck). They bash every company that isn’t bigger than Google as being “so what?”

    Duckduckgo is singing a beautiful opera in a nearly empty auditorium. At least Bing would have a fighting chance if they created a similar search experience, since they seem to at least have a marketing budget.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Frank-DiSalle/100001529412008 Frank DiSalle

    IMHO, all that information should be linked in categories, not displayed. It’s too busy! (Cluttered).
    Example: Did You Mean? (here list links to alternative searches)
    10 {or number selected by User} Most Relevant Results “Next 10?” 10 per page, a page at a time (here add “Want Most Linked?” “Want Most Recent?”)
    Want to know more? (here list link to Related Searches)
    Images (link to Images query)
    Most Talked About Links?
    Social Conversations?
    This gives you the Option to expand your search. I suppose you can add the ability to configure / customize the search results – 3 5 or 10 thumbnails for images, etc.

  • Alan

    Scott but that would be bad for Google’s business. By ranking the same site multiple times above others means the others have to go to adwords!

  • Alan

    Duckduckgo’s main problem is the stupid name! quite frankly the technology is some ways is better than Google but that name is always going to be a negative. Hire some marketing people and work out a decent name!

  • http://twitter.com/jenastelli Jen Marie Robustelli

    We (I’m on Nathan’s research team) actually wrote about duckduckgo here on SEL about a year ago. Glad you guys are fans, because we are too! (here’s the article: http://searchengineland.com/could-duckduckgo-be-the-biggest-long-term-threat-to-google-118117)

  • ScottyMack

    I had never read that particular article – nice one!

    What I find most amusing about going back in time like that is reading not only the posts, but the comments. I especially liked the one that talked about how stupid Google was to enter the social networking game and how even Twitter was blowing Google away with five times as many users. Those tables sure turned real quick, didn’t they?!!

    Now, it seems as if you ignore Google+, you’ll be kissing your Author Rank goodbye and deemed “irrelevant” in no time at all!