Nope – I disagree. Google’s Challenge is not Facebook, but rather the fact that 100% of the search terms listed for each of the so-called “search engines” are navigational. After people learn “media literacy” (as you called for on the HPIO live webcast), they will begin to realize that all 3 of these “search engines” are superfluous for navigating the web (and perhaps also that they are mostly ineffective for anything else).
I have a different point of view. Is it possible that since Google is the default search engine for so many people, that nobody actually searches for “Google” because it’s done automatically?
I often just type “facebook” in my address bar. I’m assuming (though I could be totally wrong) that it is sent to Google which returns the result of the “I’m Feeling Lucky” search.
I rarely just type “google” to do the same because I can search directly from the address (or search) bar.
So to me, unless there is more information to explain the numbers, they don’t really mean much. Except that 1.7% of users on each search engine use Facebook.
John – Any explanation why? Statistical pointer indicates 20% searches are one word, may be navigational.More interesting will be which is/are the next links they click about facebook? But why typing facebook on the search bar?
Or is it something like – instead of typing it on a small url box on the top of a browser, users finds it easy to type it on the much larger pretty much on their face – a search box?
Gee whizzer-wonkers, If only they had a firmer place in the social web landscape!
Civilizations are actually products of net social energy, the culmination and ever evolving product of countless interacting decisions by individuals and groups operating within an also changing environment.
(btw, its more helpful to social theory to understand money as an inherently flawed but necessary allocation mechanism for social energy than as a store of value.)
Facebook via a combination of innovation, luck and momentum has achieved a tipover point in a landscape which offers advantages to the User by concentration (greater concentration increases the chances his/her friends will be there too).
Search doesn’t possess the same tendency to that extent.
However, facebook is apparently oblivious to some significant parts of this evolving social landscape…
Whereby offering certain other capabilities to the User may offer similar advantages catalyzing this flocking behavior.
No matter what the medium, the human mind will ALWAYS need a form of search. I jokingly told my team in an SEO training class a couple of years ago that every one of us is a search engine.
Google will evolve to meet every form of data collection it can adapt to — I don’t sense that they need to become the data collectors (although clearly they do that in some cases).
Facebook hasn’t declared that it is trying to organize all our information for us; Google has.
There is no conflict in their strategies so far, but Google does face the challenge of avoiding obsalescence (which, as Yahoo! found out, is easy to succumb to).
Good observation — and / but different browsers behave differently (e.g. using Mozilla Firefox it’s fairly easy to configure the browser behavior).
Google’s Chrome “browser” is the most insidious — it not only sends the full search term (e.g. “facebook”) to Google, but in fact it is actually a KEYSTROKE LOGGER (which is why I usually refer to it as “spyware” rather than “browser”). In any case, since most of the people who use Chrome are GooTards anyways, it really doesn’t matter much.
That’s a very astute comment, Phil — what would be really cool would be if you could *define* what you mean when you say “search engine”… is e.g. Hotels.COM a search engine or not? AFAIK, comscore and similar traffic measurement services think it’s not, and I have repeatedly asked them for an operational definition of search engine, but they have been remiss. Wouldn’t you like to take a stab at it? (maybe you could be the very first to come up with a definition! 😉
And Adobe’s – http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughts-on-flash/ !
Nope – I disagree. Google’s Challenge is not Facebook, but rather the fact that 100% of the search terms listed for each of the so-called “search engines” are navigational. After people learn “media literacy” (as you called for on the HPIO live webcast), they will begin to realize that all 3 of these “search engines” are superfluous for navigating the web (and perhaps also that they are mostly ineffective for anything else).
😉 nmw
I have a different point of view. Is it possible that since Google is the default search engine for so many people, that nobody actually searches for “Google” because it’s done automatically?
I often just type “facebook” in my address bar. I’m assuming (though I could be totally wrong) that it is sent to Google which returns the result of the “I’m Feeling Lucky” search.
I rarely just type “google” to do the same because I can search directly from the address (or search) bar.
So to me, unless there is more information to explain the numbers, they don’t really mean much. Except that 1.7% of users on each search engine use Facebook.
L
John – Any explanation why? Statistical pointer indicates 20% searches are one word, may be navigational.More interesting will be which is/are the next links they click about facebook? But why typing facebook on the search bar?
Or is it something like – instead of typing it on a small url box on the top of a browser, users finds it easy to type it on the much larger pretty much on their face – a search box?
Look forward for your views.
Gee whizzer-wonkers, If only they had a firmer place in the social web landscape!
Civilizations are actually products of net social energy, the culmination and ever evolving product of countless interacting decisions by individuals and groups operating within an also changing environment.
(btw, its more helpful to social theory to understand money as an inherently flawed but necessary allocation mechanism for social energy than as a store of value.)
Facebook via a combination of innovation, luck and momentum has achieved a tipover point in a landscape which offers advantages to the User by concentration (greater concentration increases the chances his/her friends will be there too).
Search doesn’t possess the same tendency to that extent.
However, facebook is apparently oblivious to some significant parts of this evolving social landscape…
Whereby offering certain other capabilities to the User may offer similar advantages catalyzing this flocking behavior.
On Social Energy, Enterprise & Expanding the Technology of Money
The Individually-controlled/Commons-dedicated Account
What’s their phone number?
I have a fundamental problem with Facebook and that is that it is still a web within the web. -I do not like the idea of that.
No matter what the medium, the human mind will ALWAYS need a form of search. I jokingly told my team in an SEO training class a couple of years ago that every one of us is a search engine.
Google will evolve to meet every form of data collection it can adapt to — I don’t sense that they need to become the data collectors (although clearly they do that in some cases).
Facebook hasn’t declared that it is trying to organize all our information for us; Google has.
There is no conflict in their strategies so far, but Google does face the challenge of avoiding obsalescence (which, as Yahoo! found out, is easy to succumb to).
@Laurent
Good observation — and / but different browsers behave differently (e.g. using Mozilla Firefox it’s fairly easy to configure the browser behavior).
Google’s Chrome “browser” is the most insidious — it not only sends the full search term (e.g. “facebook”) to Google, but in fact it is actually a KEYSTROKE LOGGER (which is why I usually refer to it as “spyware” rather than “browser”). In any case, since most of the people who use Chrome are GooTards anyways, it really doesn’t matter much.
😉 nmw
Most people don’t go to search engines to find search engines. What’s the motivation for searching for Google on Google?
Would we expect the top search on Facebook to be “Facebook”?
That’s a very astute comment, Phil — what would be really cool would be if you could *define* what you mean when you say “search engine”… is e.g. Hotels.COM a search engine or not? AFAIK, comscore and similar traffic measurement services think it’s not, and I have repeatedly asked them for an operational definition of search engine, but they have been remiss. Wouldn’t you like to take a stab at it? (maybe you could be the very first to come up with a definition! 😉
🙂 nmw