free html hit counter John Battelle's Search Blog | Page 50 of 547 | Thoughts on the intersection of search, media, technology, and more.

Google's "Opinion" Sparks Interesting Dialog On Tying of Services to Search

By - December 02, 2010

the search cover.pngYesterday’s post on Google having an algorithmic “opinion” about which reviews were negative or positive sparked a thoughtful response from Matt Cutts, Google’s point person on search quality, and for me raised a larger question about Google’s past, present, and future.

In his initial comment (which is *his* opinion, not Google’s, I am sure), Cutts remarked:

“…the “opinion” in that sentence refers to the fact our web search results are protected speech in the First Amendment sense. Court cases in the U.S. (search for SearchKing or Kinderstart) have ruled that Google’s search results are opinion. This particular situation serves to demonstrate that fact: Google decided to write an algorithm to tackle the issue reported in the New York Times. We chose which signals to incorporate and how to blend them. Ultimately, although the results that emerge from that process are algorithmic, I would absolutely defend that they’re also our opinion as well, not some mathematically objective truth.”

While Matt is simply conversing on a blog post, the point he makes is not just a legal nit, it’s a core defense of Google’s entire business model. In two key court cases, Google has prevailed with a first amendment defense. Matt reviews these in his second comment:

“SearchKing sued Google and the resulting court case ruled that Google’s actions were protected under the first amendment. Later, KinderStart sued Google. You would think that the SearchKing case would cover the issue, but part of KinderStart’s argument was that Google talked about the mathematical aspects of PageRank in our website documentation. KinderStart not only lost that lawsuit, but KinderStart’s lawyer was sanctioned for making claims he couldn’t back up… After the KinderStart lawsuit, we went through our website documentation. Even though Google won the case, we tried to clarify where possible that although we employ algorithms in our rankings, ultimately we consider our search results to be our opinion.”

The key point, however, is made a bit later, and it’s worth highlighting:

“(the) courts have agreed … that there’s no universally agreed-upon way to rank search results in response to a query. Therefore, web rankings (even if generated by an algorithm) are are an expression of that search engine’s particular philosophy.”

Matt reminded us that he’s made this point before, on Searchblog four years ago:

“When savvy people think about Google, they think about algorithms, and algorithms are an important part of Google. But algorithms aren’t magic; they don’t leap fully-formed from computers like Athena bursting from the head of Zeus. Algorithms are written by people. People have to decide the starting points and inputs to algorithms. And quite often, those inputs are based on human contributions in some way.”

Back then, Matt also took pains to point out that his words were his opinion, not Google’s.

So let me pivot from Matt’s opinion to mine. All of this is fraught, to my mind, with implications of the looming European investigation. The point of the European action, it seems to me, is to find a smoking gun that proves Google is using a “natural monopoly” in search to favor its own products over those of competitors.

Danny has pointed out the absurdity of such an investigation if the point is to prove Google favors its search results over the search results of competitors like Bing or others. But I think the case will turn on different products, or perhaps, a different definition of what constititues “search results.” The question isn’t whether Google should show compeitors standard search results, it’s whether Google favors its owned and operated services, such as those in local (Google Places instead of Foursquare, Facebook etc), commerce (Checkout instead of Paypal), video (YouTube instead of Hulu etc.), content (Google Finance instead of Yahoo Finance or others, Blogger instead of WordPress, its bookstore over others, etc.), applications (Google Apps instead of MS Office), and on and on.

That is a very tricky question. After all, aren’t those “search results” also? As I wrote eons ago in my book, this most certainly is a philosophical question. Back in 2005, I compared Yahoo’s approach to search with Google’s:

Yahoo makes no pretense of objectivity – it is clearly steering searchers toward its own editorial services, which it believes can satisfy the intent of the search. … Apparent in that sentiment lies a key distinction between Google and Yahoo. Yahoo is far more willing to have overt editorial and commercial agendas, and to let humans intervene in search results so as to create media that supports those agendas. Google, on the other hand, is repelled by the idea of becoming a content- or editorially-driven company. While both companies can ostensibly lay claim to the mission of “organizing the world’s information and making it accessible” (though only Google actually claims that line as its mission), they approach the task with vastly different stances. Google sees the problem as one that can be solved mainly through technology – clever algorithms and sheer computational horsepower will prevail. Humans enter the search picture only when algorithms fail – and only then grudgingly. But Yahoo has always viewed the problem as one where human beings, with all their biases and brilliance, are integral to the solution.

I then predicted some conflict in the future:

But expect some tension over the next few years, in particular with regard to content. In late 2004, for example, Google announced they would be incorporating millions of library texts into its index, but made no announcements about the role the company might play in selling those texts. A month later, Google launched a video search service, but again, stayed mum on if and how it might participate in the sale of television shows and movies over the Internet.

Besides the obvious – I bet Google wishes it had gotten into content sales back in 2004, given the subsequent rise of iTunes – there’s still a massive tension here, between search services that the world believes to be “objective” and Google’s desire to compete given how the market it is in is evolving.

Not to belabor this, but here’s more from my book on this issue, which feels pertinent given the issues Google now faces, both in Europe and in the US with major content providers:

… for Google to put itself into the position of media middle man is a perilous gambit – in particular given that its corporate DNA eschews the almighty dollar as an arbiter of which content might rise to the top of the heap for a particular search. Playing middle man means that in the context of someone looking for a movie, Google will determine the most relevant result for terms like “slapstick comedy” or “romantic musical” or “jackie chan film.” For music, it means Google will determine what comes first for “usher,” but it also means it will have to determine what should come first when someone is looking for “hip hop.”

Who gets to be first in such a system? Who gets the traffic, the business, the profits? How do you determine, of all the possibilities, who wins and who loses? In the physical world, the answer is clear: whoever pays the most gets the positioning, whether it’s on the supermarket shelf or the bin-end of a record store. ….But Google, more likely than not, will attempt to come up with a clever technological solution that attempts to determine the most “objective” answer for any given term, be it “romantic comedy” or “hip hop.” Perhaps the ranking will be based on some mix of PageRank, download statistics, and Lord knows what else, but one thing will be certain: Google will never tell anyone how they came to the results they serve up. Which creates something of a Catch-22 when it comes to monetization. Will Hollywood really be willing to trust Google to distribute and sell their content absent the commercial world’s true ranking methodology: cold, hard cash?

…Search drives commerce, and commerce drives search. The two ends are meeting, inexolerably, in the middle, and every major Internet player, from eBay to Microsoft, wants in. Google may be tops in search for now, but in time, being tops in search will certainly not be enough.

Clearly, as a new decade unfolds, search alone is not enough anymore, and my prediction that Google will protect itself with the shield of “objectivity” has been upended. But the question of how Google ties its massive lead in search to its new businesses in local, content, applications, and other major markets remains tricky, and at this point, quite unresolved.

  • Content Marquee

The Web 2 Debrief Video

By -

Almost immediately after the Web 2.0 Summit last month, Tim O’Reilly and I sat down at an FM event and debriefed each other on what we learned. Here’s the video.

In Google's Opinion….

By - December 01, 2010

Google Opinon.png

Wow, I’ve never seen this before. Check out Google’s post, responding to the New York Times story about a bad actor who had figured out a way to make a living leveraging what he saw as holes in Google’s approach to ranking.

How Google ranks is the subject of increasing scrutiny, including and particularly in Europe.

From Google’s blog:

Even though our initial analysis pointed to this being an edge case and not a widespread problem in our search results, we immediately convened a team that looked carefully at the issue. That team developed an initial algorithmic solution, implemented it, and the solution is already live.

What I find fascinating is the way Google handled this. Read this carefully:

Instead, in the last few days we developed an algorithmic solution which detects the merchant from the Times article along with hundreds of other merchants that, in our opinion, provide an extremely poor user experience. The algorithm we incorporated into our search rankings represents an initial solution to this issue, and Google users are now getting a better experience as a result.

What word stands out? Yep, “opinion.”

Think on that for a second. If ever there was an argument that algorithms are subjective, there it is.

(Oh, and by the way, the last paragraph in the blog post clearly is directed at the regulators in Europe, if you think about it….)

Twitter's Great Big Problem Is Its Massive Opportunity

By - November 30, 2010

twitter-follow-achiever.jpg

One of the many reasons I find Twitter fascinating is that the company seems endlessly at an inflection point. Eighteen months ago I was tracking its inflection point in usage (holy shit, look how it’s growing! Then, holy shit, has it stopped?!), then its inflection in business model (hey, it doesn’t have one! Wait, yes it does, but can it scale?!), and more recently, its inflection point in terms of employees (as in growing from 80+ staff to 350+ in one year – necessitating a shift in management structure….).

Twitter now faces yet another inflection point – one I’ve been tracking for some time, and one that seems to be coming to a head. To me, that inflection has to do with usefulness – can the service corral all the goodness that exists in its network and figure out a way to make it useful to its hundreds of millions of users?

To me, this inflection point is perhaps its most challenging, and its greatest opportunity, because it encompasses all the others. If Twitter creates delightful instrumentations of the unique cacophony constantly crossing its servers, it wins big time. Users will never leave, marketers will never get enough, and employees will pine to join the movement (witness Facebook now, and Google five years ago).

Now, I’m not saying Twitter isn’t already a success. It is. The service has a dedicated core of millions who will never leave the service (I’m one of them). And I’m going to guess Twitter gets more resumes than it knows what to do with, so hiring isn’t the problem. And lastly, I’ve been told (by Ev, onstage at Web 2) that the company has more marketing demand than it can fulfill.

But therein lies the rub. Twitter has the potential to be much more, and everyone there knows it. It has millions of dedicated users, but it also has tens of millions who can’t quite figure out what the fuss is all about. And you can’t hire hundreds of engineers and product managers unless you have a job for them to do – a scaled platform that has, at its core, a product that everyone and their mother understands.

As for that last point – the surfeit of marketing demand – well that’s also a problem. Promoted tweets, trends, and accounts are a great start, but if you don’t have enough inventory to satisfy demand, you’ve not crossed the chasm from problem to opportunity.

In short, Twitter has a publishing problem. Put another way, it has a massive publishing opportunity.

Oh, I know, you’re saying “yeah Battelle, there you go again, thinking the whole world fits neatly into your favorite paradigm of publishing.”

Well yes, indeed, I do think that. To me, publishing is the art of determining what is worth paying attention to, by whom. And by that definition, Twitter most certainly is a publishing platform, one used by nearly 200 million folks.

The problem, of course, is that while Twitter makes it nearly effortless for folks to publish their own thoughts, it has done far too little to help those same folks glean value from the thoughts of others.

It was this simple truth that led FM to work with Microsoft to create ExecTweets, and AT&T to create the TitleTweets platform. It’s the same truth that led to the multi-pane interface of Tweetdeck as well as countless other Twitter apps, and it was with an eye toward addressing this problem that led to the introduction of Lists on Twitter.com and its associated APIs.

But while all those efforts are worthy, they haven’t yet solved the core problem or addressed the massive opportunity. At its core, publishing is about determining signal from noise. What’s extraordinary about Twitter is the complexity of that challenge – one man’s noise is another man’s signal, and vice versa. And what’s signal now may well be noise tomorrow – or two minutes from now. Multiply this by 200 million or so, then add an exponential element. Yow.

There is both art and science to addressing this challenge. What we broadly understand to be “the media” have approached the problem with a mostly one-to-many approach: We define an audience, determine what topic most likely will want to pay attention to, then feed them our signal, one curated and culled from the noise of all possible information associated with that topic. Presto, we make Wired magazine, Oprah, or Serious Eats.

Facebook has done the same with information associated with our friend graph. The newsfeed is, for all intents and purposes, a publication created just for you. Sure, it has its drawbacks, but it’s pretty darn good (though its value is directly determined by the value you place in your Facebook friend graph. Mine, well, it don’t work so well, for reasons of my own doing).

So how might Twitter create such a publication for each of its users? As many have pointed out (including Twitter’s CEO Dick Costolo), Twitter isn’t a friend graph, it’s more of an interest graph, or put another way, an information graph – a massive set of points interconnected by contextual meaning. To the uninitiated, this graph is daunting.

Twitter’s current approach to navigating this graph centers around following human beings – at first with its “suggested users” list, which simply didn’t scale. Twitter soon replaced suggested users with “Who to follow” – a more sophisticated, algorithm-driven list of folks who seem to match your current set of followers and, to some extent, your interests. When you follow someone who’s a big foodie, for example, Twitter will suggest other folks who tweet about food. It does so, one presumes, by noting shared interests between users.

The question is, does Twitter infer those interests via the signal of who follows who, or does it do it by actually *understanding* what folks are tweeting about?

Therein, I might guess, lies the solution. The former is a proxy for a true interest graph – “Hey, follow these folks, because they seem to follow folks who are like the folks you already follow.” But latter *is* an interest graph – “Hey, follow these folks, because they tweet about things you care about.”

From that logically comes the ability to filter folks’ streams based on interests, and once you can do that, well, things get really…interesting. You could follow interests, instead of people, for example. It’s like search meets social! And hey – isn’t that kind of the holy grail?

If Twitter can make the interest graph explicit to its users, and develop products and features which surface that graph in real time, it wins on all counts. That is a very big problem to solve, and a massive opportunity to run after.

For more on this, read Making Twitter an Information Network, by Mike Champion, and “The unbearable lameness of web 2.0″, by Kristian Köhntopp, as well as the wonderful but too short The Algorithm + the Crowd are Not Enough, by Rand Fishkin. These and many more have informed my ongoing thinking on this topic. What do you think?

Groupon: That's More Like It

By -

marissa_mayer.jpg

ATD is reporting that Google is offering well more than twice what had been previously offered – $6 billion, instead of $2.5 billion. That sounds more like it. As I wrote yesterday, $2.5 billion sounded very low for this particular asset. (And this from the guy who thought YouTube was overpriced.)

Clearly, that leak to Vator.tv last weekend was timed to push a deal point, I’m guessing.

Key to this deal is Marissa Mayer, who recently took over local for Google and was promoted to boot. This would be her defining deal, and the integration of the acquisition would be critical. Google has had mixed results in this department so far – YouTube is clearly on its way to being a winner, but took far too long to get there. Many small pickups have proven to be big winners – Applied Semantics comes to mind. And Blogger, FeedBurner, and many other small acquisitions never really found their footing, but DoubelClick was a huge win.

Groupon Is Worth More Than $2.5 Billion

By - November 29, 2010

groupon.png

Today’s big rumor, so far at least, is that Google may be buying Groupon for a reported $2.5 billion. This sale has been rumored for some time, but the figure – and story – is based on a rather thin piece by VatorNews which broke early this morning. The headline is honest in its lack of, er, definitiveness – Google buys Groupon for $2.5 billion?   - but it does claim one “reliable source.”

Whether or not this story plays out, my first thought was that the company is worth far more than $2.5 billion. If, as many have reported, Groupon is doing $50mm in revenue a month, that’s a mere 4.2x multiple on current run rate. Given the insanely strategic nature of the purchase to not only Google, but just about every other major player in the game (Microsoft, Yahoo, eBay, Amazon, hell, American Express if they wanted to play, not to mention Facebook), I’d be utterly stunned if Google won the company for that price. Location is a key signal connecting commerce, search, social, and small business. It’s a big, big deal, and Groupon is the leader in the space.

My spidey senses tell me someone is shopping this deal through a leak to the press, seeking to drive an auction. We’ll see.

Not Proof, but Another Lead: WikiLeaks' Latest Includes Google/China Tip

By - November 28, 2010

Screen shot 2010-03-24 at 9.33.21 AM.pngAccording the the NYT’s coverage of today’s WikiLeaks trove (only a small percentage have been released publicly, the rest have been reviewed by the Times):

China’s Politburo directed the intrusion into Google’s computer systems in that country, a Chinese contact told the American Embassy in Beijing in January, one cable reported. The Google hacking was part of a coordinated campaign of computer sabotage carried out by government operatives, private security experts and Internet outlaws recruited by the Chinese government. They have broken into American government computers and those of Western allies, the Dalai Lama and American businesses since 2002, cables said.

However, there is nothing in this reporting that justifies how TechCrunch headlined its coverage:

WikiLeaked Diplomatic Cables Confirm China’s Politburo Was Behind Google Hacking Incident

No, guys, it does not confirm it. Re-read that paragraph. It says one source told another that it was the government. That does not qualify as a “confirmation” in any journalistic sense.

I searched for the original cable, but it has not been released yet. All we have is the summary above.

The Final Web 2 Conversation: Evan Williams

By - November 19, 2010

Ev recently turned over CEO duties to Dick Costolo, but it’s clear he’s still very, very engaged. Highlights for me included when Ev spoke of his mission to lower barriers to publishing, avoided talking about financing, and needled me a few times, in a humorous way, of course.

FCC Chair Julius Genachowski: This Is Getting Very Real

By -

If I could sum up the overarching theme of our conference this year, it’s that “this sh*t is getting real.” Plucky startups with funny names have consolidated power, and are disrupting the entire global economy. This, of course, means things are “getting real” from the point of view of government and policy as well. Here’s a candid conversation with one of the key policy chiefs, FCC Chair Julius Genachowski.