The Next Battle: Enabling Information To Find You -- Or Why Yahoo/Microsoft Is A Distraction
from the helping-information-find-you dept
I have to admit, I wasn't going to write anything at all about the Yahoo/Microsoft search deal. It honestly seemed pretty pointless -- much bluster about nothing at all of importance. After talking it over with an editor at Forbes, however, I agreed to write up an op-ed for them about why the deal is misguided, and I wanted to expand on one part of that here. I just don't think there's very much interesting in fighting the last battle over "search" rather than looking at where things are headed. And, on that front, I noted:People are discovering that information finds them, rather than them going in search of information. Search already works. The next interesting challenge is in improving the way information finds you, rather than the way you find information.That is the key point that innovators in the internet space are starting to figure out. Information is much more powerful when it finds you (for example, when it's passed along by someone you trust). But that information doesn't just find you by itself. The internet helps, in making it easy to pass along a link or some text -- or to share/embed/etc. some content. But the tools for sharing information need to improve drastically, and that's where the next excitement will come from. It's in enabling relevant information to find you rather than the other way around. And, Yahoo/Microsoft has nothing to do with that at all.
Separately, this is also why I think sites that are trying to lock up content behind paywalls or limited access are making things worse. They're doing the opposite of where the internet is moving. They're making it harder for their information to find you, and they'll discover that this will lock them out of much of the opportunity.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: information, journalism, relevance, search
Companies: microsoft, yahoo
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Walled Gardens are beautiful...
The internet is the exact opposite of a Walled Garden and any business that uses the internet that doesn't understand that won't make it for long.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Find me? No thanks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Find me? No thanks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Find me? No thanks
I don't need a crappy ad showing up on my Microsoft-Powered car dashboard telling me to stop at Pagliacci Pizza on the right, and get $3.00 off. That's past annoying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who ya kiddin?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who ya kiddin?
If search "doesn't work" then that means you find information on the internet by not using a search engine.
"Doesn't work" is not the same as "sucks". My car sucks, but it still works in getting me to my job and back.
I wanted to find more information about London being mapped out with Warcraft 2 sprites... London Warcraft 2 search came up with relevant articles. What are you searching for?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Who ya kiddin?
Remember Mike's comment that "search already works?" Within the context of this article he's implying that search works very well, not that it works but kinda sucks, and that's why the next battle is enabling information to find you.
I, on the other hand, am saying that search doesn't work - exactly because it doesn't work well - and that until it does the next battle will remain in improving search.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Who ya kiddin?
Google's insistence to fix things "in the algo" means that they rarely apply human eyes to check popular searches, which means that spam, misdirection, and outright scams are often what greets a surfer. It might end up pushing more clicks to Google ads (good for google) but over time it might undermine the public's interest in using Goog, especially if better results are known to be found elsewhere.
I don't want information to find me. I'll go look for it when I need it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Also I find it interesting how it raised anti trust issues when Google and Yahoo tried to work together but it all of a sudden raises no anti trust issues when Microsoft and Yahoo work together. Perhaps Microsoft spends more money on lobbying? I think just goes to show you that this whole anti - trust thing isn't being being used for preventing monopolies, rather, it's more about politics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I cringe whenever someone thinks it's a good idea to automate away entire professions like doctors or teachers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Finding me...
As already stated, those walling up information will die!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Finding me...
The basic idea is sound: You can't have a battle when no one's fighting it.
The only way to beat Google is by making search engines irrelevant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Finding me...
In a sense, it's more like the old internet. The internet before Google, you just browsed around to see what was there. With Google, you know what you're looking for, so you search for it. After Google, you watch a few things you like so they'll tell you about more things you like so you can subscribe to information that comes to you without a blind search.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Finding me...
He referenced some of what he's referring to specifically, but the kind of stuff he means is Twitter, Facebook, RSS, customized home pages, etc. Personalize what you're interested in, then let it come to you in feeds and aggregators. I don't know how much this is the new frontier--if it will replace a significant amount of search's utility--but the article is very clearly not talking about pop-up adds for penis pumps while you're browsing...??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't want ads / information to find me.
When I want information, I will go get it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No news here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
more on Finding me...
Before Google there were a host of other search engines. There were even search engines that searched other search engines. But before search, there were still ways beyond just browsing around. Lists of usenet groups, Topical BBSs, etc.
A bit more on topic, I don't see much coming out of this other than a bit more of the shaft to the people who still use their services. The default Microsoftians wont care, because they don't even understand what they're doing. The old Yahooligans will just get data mined by MS as well as Yahoo, and probably a few more ads, and yet another search engine change. The anti-trust would be more pressing if they actually had a chance to succeed, or do anything. As it is, it's just kids playing in the mud.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where's the Cash?
To a corporation, relevance is irrelevant unless there is profit to be made. While information feed methods such as RSS are excellent for a user, the only major corporate efforts underway are pinned to tying advertising dollars to the information which 'found' you.
Follow the money, therein will be the business plan and the shape of the future to come (nope, I do not think this always results in the best outcome for individuals).
The Yahoo-MS deal is about increasing market share in a multi-billion dollar industry. Pretty standard. Wherever information retrieval goes in the future, the players will use their existing systems, or develop new systems to tie-in advertising.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Where's the Cash?
And an irrelevant corporation is ignored by consumers, meaning it will not make any profit. First you need people to consume your product, then you find a way to monetize it best.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Where's the Cash?
True enough, though I would argue that you can try to monetize at any point in your business strategy that makes sense -- the sooner the better, obviously. It all depends on your specific business.
The only catch to what you're saying is the case where a vital service (such as electricity, or search and information retrieval) is under the control of a monopoly.
Cable companies and utilities have shown us that corporations which are effectively 'entitled' to their customers have little concern over anything except squeezing as much as possible from their clients while providing the very least possible in terms of product.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You're Mostly Right About Search, But This Ain't About That...
I think you're analysis of the search market is pretty spot on. I don't know if the new models supplant search, but they certainly have the ability to become significant in the future.
But as I just wrote over at the ACT blog, this deal isn't really about search.
Most of the first day analysis, however, has focused on what this deal means for the less relevant market for search. Yet, the real question is whether it gives both companies a foot in the door with large advertisers, to which they can provide integrated advertising solutions that span search, banner ads, and newer "human-seeking information projectile" platforms. If so, then the efficacy of this deal looks a lot different...doesn't it, Mike?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You're Mostly Right About Search, But This Ain't About That...
What Yahoo-MS are *trying to do does make sense in a forward-looking, or at least present-aware, context. Whether they actually stand a chance at significantly cutting into Google's market share of the ad dollars is something only time will tell.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
End User Comment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]