Quality Search Results: From Pink Slime To Correctly Diagnosing Appendicitis

from the it's-not-all-pink-slime dept

We recently wrote about a bizarre attack on Google from copyright propagandists The Copyright Alliance, claiming that Google wanted to turn all information into "pink slime" where "distinguishing value from muck" was not allowed. We pointed out how ridiculous that is, as the entire role of a search engine is to do exactly that -- to distinguish value from the muck. It's why your search rank is so important. I was thinking of this today, as I read about Jeff Jarvis' experience using "Doctor Google" to self-diagnose the fact that his appendix was bursting. He notes that all the talk from people about how searching Google for medical info led you down dangerous pathways had him nervous enough that he didn't want to believe what he was seeing -- but, in actuality, Google led him to credible (and correct) info:

I woke up with a new pain on my right side about an inch down and three inches over from the navel. Given who I am — chronic hypochondriac and a certified Google fan boy — I searched Google for appendicitis.

By reputation, Google — and the internet — should have returned bogus, dangerous, uninformed, unauthoritative advice from cults, and witch doctors, and Demand Media. But it didn’t. It gave me the NIH, WedMD, the Mayo Clinic, (yes) Wikipedia, and other good and trustworthy sources. It gave me more than enough good information to check and cross-check and then diagnose my new pain correctly.

Yes, rather than promoting "the muck," Google properly returned the valued sites. And, of course, that's exactly what Google wants to do. So I started thinking -- why is it that the folks at the Copyright Alliance are so confused about Google (other than the obvious answer that they've never used a search engine)? And I think I know what the problem is. They think that Google is supposed to serve up the links that are most valuable to the Copyright Alliance, not the links that are most valuable to the actual users of the service. That's a very different thing.

More specifically, when people using Google search for "free movies" or "free music," the folks at the Copyright Alliance get upset that Google actually sends them to what they want, believing that, instead, Google should send them not to free movies or free music -- but rather to a site to pay for those things. Of course, if the users were looking to pay for those things, then I'm sure Google would accommodate. But to assume that someone looking for free stuff is magically going to buy because Google doesn't send them to what they want sure sounds like wishful thinking.

The issue is not about "pink slime" or Google's inability to distinguish value from the muck. It's very much about actually responding to what users want. The problem is that the folks who generously fund the Copyright Alliance don't like giving users what they want. They prefer the old way that things were done, when they could control and limit the release of content and they could focus on being gatekeepers and artificially jacking up the price on things -- leading them to inflate (in their own minds) the true value of something, as well as the corresponding price (not the same thing, of course).

However, if they were to adapt, and recognize the opportunities the internet provides, they could embrace it by providing what consumers want. At that point, it seems clear that Google would also point many people in their direction... if only they served the users' best interests too.

Filed Under: copyright alliance, jeff jarvis, mayo clinic, pink slime, search
Companies: google, webmd

Video Book? Is That Like A Horseless Carriage?

from the change-your-perspective dept

It's no secret that when new technologies and innovations come along, we tend to look at them through the prism of what we already have. We look at them as a minor improvement on what was done before -- this technology lets us do something faster or better -- rather than at ways that it enables us to do something totally new. Because of that, you often get amusing attempts at reinventing the old with the new that don't seem to take any advantage of what the new innovation really allows. It's simply a weak attempt to take the old and move it into the new. This comes to mind as PaidContent last week discussed the Harper Collins attempt to offer a $10 "video book," which was really just author Jeff Jarvis talking about his book for 23 minutes against a white backdrop. For $10. As Tim O'Reilly noted, the concept of the "video book" sounds like "moving pictures" or the "horseless carriage."

That's not to knock Harper Collins for at least trying something new -- but to note that when you're jumping into a new medium it's important not to identify it by the constraints of the old medium. A video presentation that complements a book by engaging people in a conversation could be quite interesting -- but not at $10 a pop. That's not engaging people in a conversation at all. In fact, it's the same traditional publisher mindset of "let's release something and get people to pay $10 - $30 for this unit of content." It doesn't take into account what the internet and video actually allows you to do that's different. This seems especially ironic, since Jarvis' book is called What Would Google Do, and it's all about making business decisions a la Google. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't think Google would be offering video books for $10 a pop.

Filed Under: jeff jarvis, video book
Companies: harper collins

How Copyright Is Holding Back The Creative Class

from the we're-all-the-creative-class dept

While not enough people recognize it, the real purpose of copyright law is to provide an incentive for the creation of more content. The government felt that there was a market failure, where not enough "content" would be produced without a limited monopoly, and thus, copyright was born. However, that happened back in the day when creating content wasn't easy. You pretty much had to go through a professional process. These days, thanks to new technologies, creating content is exceptionally easy -- and thus, a big part of the very basis for copyright no longer makes sense. We're drowning in content -- and it's not because of the "incentive" of copyright. There are plenty of incentives for creating content these days and very few have anything to do with copyright.

However, because of that bright line, where copyright was really designed for professional content creators, you end up with bizarre conclusions about how communications should be owned. This stems from the fact that these new technologies have blurred the boundaries between content and communications. Traditionally, professional content was about a one-to-many communication system. However, today, most content is really about many-to-many communication. This isn't new. Nearly four years ago, we pointed to some early work by Greg Lastowka and Dan Hunter (who are still doing good work in this field) pointing out how copyright law doesn't make sense for many-to-many communications.

But with that border being made increasingly blurry (and it's only going to get more so), it's causing more and more people to recognize how troublesome existing copyright law is -- because all it does is hinder that kind of communication. That is, rather than acting as incentive for content creation (as is it's basic purpose), it's instead hindering content creation. That's because it only targets one increasingly less relevant type of content creation, while hindering the increasingly more popular one. This realization is occurring to more and more people, and the latest is Jeff Jarvis, who has come to the conclusion that the "creative class" is a myth. And he's right. These days, we're all the creative class -- and copyright is holding us back.

I've long disagreed with those who say that copyright kills creativity, for I do believe that there is no scarcity of inspiration. But I now understand their position better. I also have learned that when creations are restricted it is the creator who suffers more because his creation won't find its full and true public, its spark finds no kindling, and the fire dies. The creative class, copyright, mass media, and curmudgeonly critics stop what should be a continuing process of creation; like reverse alchemists, they turn abundance into scarcity, gold into lead.

In the essay, Jarvis also dives into a fuller recognition of the economics of scarcity and abundance:

But we are shifting, too, from a culture of scarcity to one of abundance. That is the essence of the Google worldview: managing abundance. So let's assume that instead of a scarcity there is an abundance of talent and a limitless will to create but it has been tamped down by an educational system that insists on sameness; starved by a mass economic system that rewarded only a few giants; and discouraged by a critical system that anointed a closed, small creative class. Now talent of many descriptions and levels can express itself and grow. We want to create and we want to be generous with our creations. And we will get the attention we deserve. That means that crap will be ignored. It just depends on your definition of crap.

Welcome to the party, Jeff.

Filed Under: communication, content, copyright, creative class, culture, jeff jarvis