Looked at two new (for me) search-engines this week, Cuil (pronounced cool) and Keyboardr. Keyboardr is a geek-project and, like Mac’s Quicksilver, is all about navigating via a keyboard. Cuil, which I had heard of before, I was made re-aware of by a recent Stanford entrepreneurial thought leaders podcast, in which its creation and the theory behind it was discussed. I liked the idea of approaching search as a visual placement problem, as that is how humans (in my opinion) often judge information. Still, I didn’t think that Cuil was particularly innovative, from a GUI perspective. Even so, all interesting projects, as is Mahalo—human powered search.

What remains clear is Google will continue to be the thought-leader in this field, not because it is a better search, but because it is so integrated with the web.

What I’m thinking about is how search can be improved to become useful for human beings, rather than search-engine optimised websites, and the key to that seems to me to be presenting information in the right way for the right person.

Take Java tutorials, which I was looking for last week and where my priority was to find a. the right tutorial for my beginner-level and b. be taught by a good teacher. Two elements that matter here are level and quality, of which the first is easy to search for—just insert ‘beginner’—but the latter is currently being solved by Google as follows: the more it is linked too, the better it must be, which also makes sense. But it does ignore an element, discussed in the Stanford podcast, which is that unknown teachers can both be bad, but also exceptionally good.

Education online is different from education offline. The latter, if good, will be very popular, but interested people will run into a physical constraint—only so many students fit in that building. Online education, if good, will also be very popular but not have the same physical constraints, though possibly imposed price-based ones. But since we are talking good old open source Java, let us assume that price is not a factor. If everyone picks the most linked tutorial, which is also of good quality, it means that everyone potentially ends up with the same knowledge. The commoditisation of code.

But how do you produce exceptional Java-coders? These are arguably all people that walked the extra mile, either through inner potential and/or through environmental factors, such as an exceptional teacher. There’s another factor, which is that diversity can also breed innovation, by exposing people to a wide variety of ideas and perspectives, again made possibly by people working with a wide variety of tutors. Still talking Java here, but it could be applied to anything.

Search, in other words, promotes mediocrity, by leading people to pick the most common denominator, the top-result, rather than across the wideband of possible results, made possibly by the widely hyped up “long-tailed” nature of the internet.

And that is one problem that search is currently facing. How this is solved, is possibly a GUI solution, by presenting results in the right way and right variety. It could also be a human solution, such the one used by Mahalo. It could be a user-generated solution, using social-based variables through sites like Facebook, Twitter, FriendFeed, now LinkedIN, and something that Google is also implementing (badly, I hear). It could be a technological solution, something Cuil is also working on… etc. etc.

One thing is certain, that Keyboardr, no matter how geeky and cool, won’t exactly solve this problem

Vincent

Like

Unlike

Related posts:

1. Google Brain: the future of search and e-Commerce?
2. Google displays Live Search as a 1st result for 'search'
3. Entrepreneurial brainstorming session N.11: an Economic Warfare defensive tool altering Google search results reliability
4. Is Search the key to Twitter's Business-model?
5. Another resolution: spend 2+ hrs/week learning C# development