« Reader JG writes: Then
Google Denies Legal JARGon »
Not a surprise.
From the article: “In August, I attended a talk by Marissa Mayer, Google’s leading executive on search, who said Google has worked on social search. However, she was somewhat dismissive of the opportunity. She said social search hadn’t shown much promise, but that if someone were to prove its worth, Google would be in a good position to incorporate it.”
I would be very curious to know about when and how Mayer was able to determine that social search had not shown much promise. Doesn’t the Google approach to research consist of prototyping something quickly, getting it out into the hands of tens of thousands of users, and then getting real-world feedback on how well something does or doesn’t work?
So when did Google release a social search application to tens of thousands of users? When did they get all the hard data to back up Mayer’s position?
The article continues: “She [Mayer] said Facebook is a communication tool, whereas search is a research or informational tool, meaning that social search may not make sense.“
But.. it doesn’t matter whether or not it makes sense. At Google (the story goes), one’s logical arguments do not carry as much weight as the cold, hard data. Whether or not it makes sense to Mayer is secondary to the real data that the engineers collect, right?
So again, when did the Google engineers collect all this data on social search? I’ve certainly never seen the “I’m Feeling Social” search button on Google. When did they ever do those experiments?
some f***in gmail spammer has actually managed to plug dozens of domains for a search on “domain” — some people!!
And he/she/it even managed to somehow disable the “Fan” list!
Are there any hackers in the house?
I think what Ms. Mayer might have been talking about was more along the lines of: If many people agree that something is a “miserable failure“, then all of the engineers at Google will do their best to make sure the best results come out on top in the really rockin’ machine….
Hmmm — does anyone know why there are no “sponsored links” for that query? Seems to me that in case the “organic results” weren’t producing effective information, that someone could simply pay a penny or so to join the conversation and tell us the “truth“?
Then again maybe Google’s organic results aren’t all that bad after all — see for yourself:
for comparison, see:
and I also got a chuckle from the “related” search terms suggested at:
which are different than the results at:
What about the data Google collects from their Partnership with MySpace? Worlds biggest Social Network, etc… seems like a pretty good place to collect data.
I can tell you MySpace is one of Google’s poorest Search Syndication partners – in terms of quality of traffic (monetization) – from first hand experience.
I suppose the Demographic/Contextual overlay of the FaceBook profiles may improve the experience. Time will tell.
What about the data Google collects from their Partnership with MySpace?
PaulJ, that is a good thought. However, does Google actually do Social Search within that MySpace context? Or does MySpace just send the searches to Google, and Google send them back?
I’m drawing a distinction between search in a social network context, versus social search in a network context. It seems like Google is doing the former, not the latter.
Bush no more failling miserably to google… =]
Frankly I’m concerned that Facebook is focusing too much on attracting advertisers and developers that are providing products and services that benefit themself the most.
This could result in a severe backlash in the form of users, Facebook’s real customers, leaving.
Facebook needs to be careful here.
J is one hundred percent correct. I was a steady user when facebook first entered the world, and there has been a rapid interest decline. I switched to woozyfly instead, but I’ll always miss the old Facebook days.