Will Lack of Relevancy be the Downfall of Google?

Every so often, posts come around about new search engines that are going to make a bid to become a Google search killer, but I wonder if the changing nature of the web itself will lead people to a search engine that appears to do search better in those bits of the web that they’re spending most time, and so lead them away from Google?

It’s hard thinking back the 10 years or so to a time before Google, so I’m not sure what prompted me to switch allegiance from Metacrawler to Google? Maybe it was that Google results were dominating the Metacrawler results page? (For those of you who have know idea what I’m talking about, Metacrawler (which lives on to this day, as… MetaCrawler;-) was essentially a federated search engine, that pooled results from several, early web search engines. Before Metacrawler, I used Webcrawler, which was one of the first search engines to do full text search, I think?

In those early days, Google won out on producing “better” results in part because of its PageRank algorithm, in part becuase of its speedy response. PageRank essentially determines the authority of a page by the number of pages that link to it, and the authority of those pages. There’s lots of other voodoo magic in the ranking and relevancy algorithm now, of course, but that was at the heart of what made Google different in the early days.

So Google came good in large part because it used the structure of the web to help people better navigate the web.

But what of the structure of the web now? Many of the recently launched search engines have made great play of being “social” or “people powered” search engines, that leverage personal recommendations to improve search results. The big search engines are experimenting with tools that let searchers “vote up” more relevant results, and so on (e.g. Google’s experiment, or Microsoft’s URank experiment).

But it might be that the nature of recommending a page to someone else is now less to do with publishing a link to another site on a web page or in a blog post, than sharing a link with someone in a more conversational way (though as to how you found that link in the first place – there lies a problem;-)

So although Google won’t be able to snoop on link sharing in “walled garden” social networks like Facebook, I wonder if they are tracking link sharing in services like Twitter? (Google owns rival microblogging site Jaiku, but since buying it, all has been quiet. Maybe they’re waiting for the masses to become conscious of the thing called Twitter, then they’ll go prime time with Jaiku?)

Just by the by, there’s also the “problem” that many shared links are now being obfuscated by URL shortening services, which means that TinyURLs, bit.ly URLs and is.gd URLs all need resolving back to the pages they point to in order to rank those pages. (Hmm…. so when will the Goog be pushing it’s own URL shortening service, I wonder?)

This link resolution is easy enough to achieve, though. For example, the Tiwtturly service tracks the most poplular links being shared on Twitter over a 24 hour period (I think they also used to let you see who was tweeting about a particular URL, because I built a pipe around it – A Pipe for Twitturly – although that functionality appears to have disappeared?)

PS Maybe that Jaiku launch moment will actually be on mobile devices – on the iPhone (which now has Google Voice search), and on Android devices? Maybe Jaiku’s relaunch (and remember, Jaiku was heavy on the mobile stuff) will be a defining moment that hails: “the era of the PC [i]s over,… the future belong[s] to cloud applications accessed via phones”, via Daddy, Where’s Your Phone? which also includes a lovely story to illustrate this: a child overhears her dad answering “I don’t know” to a question

“Daddy, where’s your phone?”

“What do you mean, where’s my phone?” She explained that she’d overheard the question. Why wasn’t he just looking up the answer on his phone?

Cf. the apocryphal story of the child looking behind the TV set for a mouse, and the idea that “a screen without a mouse is broken”… ;-)

Author: Tony Hirst

I'm a Senior Lecturer at The Open University, with an interest in #opendata policy and practice, as well as general web tinkering...

4 thoughts on “Will Lack of Relevancy be the Downfall of Google?”

  1. Kind of related – following up our discussion about Technorati the other day. One of the reasons Technorati is as Alan L said ‘toasted broken useless’ is that it doesn’t pick up links from twitter (other microblogging services are available). Increasingly this is how people reference and link to stuff (and indeed comment on posts – I should be saying this in twitter!). So like your Google example, it begins to lose its relevancy because it is only getting half the story.
    Oh, and I always more of a Lycos boy myself, back in the day…

  2. Tony,

    The original tweets are still there. Just click on the “more info / full tweet history” link near the sites description and you can see everything about that URL.

    As a bonus, if you click on any usernames, you can see all of the urls that that user tweeted about.

    -Joel

  3. Once google does launch a tiny url service and ability to resolve the tiny urls we will see a change in the SERPS for sure. However i find it hard to believe the weighting will be strong towards it in the early days.

Comments are closed.