Comments on: Search on a different search engine… with Google! http://www.googletutor.com/2009/03/31/search-on-a-different-search-engine-with-google/ Your how-to guide for Google with Google tutorials, tips for using Google and advice. Wed, 17 Mar 2010 21:07:22 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Bertil Hatt http://www.googletutor.com/2009/03/31/search-on-a-different-search-engine-with-google/#comment-247252 Bertil Hatt Tue, 31 Mar 2009 18:01:42 +0000 http://www.googletutor.com/?p=3035#comment-247252 Well: those would heave helped competition, therefore increase research on classic search engines — but they also were accused to be unfair game: users knowing they could easily switch when starting by Google would use it by default. Because that argument proved decisive, all engines had to use a similar gimmick (remember?) encouraging cut-throat competition, and leading to the domination, not of the company spending the most in traffic aquisition, but of the most relevant engine. That line forced the area into a principle shift (from a media-like industry obsessed bith traffic into a algorithmic paradigm, vowing a cult to relevance). The consumer won on the short run, but competition rapidly became history. On the other side, those increases Google's load time, something that Marissa Mayer has described as very prejudicial (with data on how kbites translates to longer load times and less traffic): that line disappeared, once again to the short-term benefit of users, not competition. Because of that, search engines have beeen looking at new technology; the suggestion to leverage other services re-appeared, both implicitly & internally with Universal search, and explicitly & externaly with Maholo subletting Google results for the tail. Semantic engines will have to do the same: if they don't understand your query, a key-word based approach (well: caching Google's) might be a good enough proxy to allow developpers to collect data on click-through, relevance and meaning — and Google might have to recalibrate its competitor suggesting features in that light. Lower switching barriers are a strategic asset: using them wisely is the appanage of the data-oriented. Well: those would heave helped competition, therefore increase research on classic search engines — but they also were accused to be unfair game: users knowing they could easily switch when starting by Google would use it by default. Because that argument proved decisive, all engines had to use a similar gimmick (remember?) encouraging cut-throat competition, and leading to the domination, not of the company spending the most in traffic aquisition, but of the most relevant engine. That line forced the area into a principle shift (from a media-like industry obsessed bith traffic into a algorithmic paradigm, vowing a cult to relevance). The consumer won on the short run, but competition rapidly became history.

On the other side, those increases Google’s load time, something that Marissa Mayer has described as very prejudicial (with data on how kbites translates to longer load times and less traffic): that line disappeared, once again to the short-term benefit of users, not competition.

Because of that, search engines have beeen looking at new technology; the suggestion to leverage other services re-appeared, both implicitly & internally with Universal search, and explicitly & externaly with Maholo subletting Google results for the tail. Semantic engines will have to do the same: if they don’t understand your query, a key-word based approach (well: caching Google’s) might be a good enough proxy to allow developpers to collect data on click-through, relevance and meaning — and Google might have to recalibrate its competitor suggesting features in that light.

Lower switching barriers are a strategic asset: using them wisely is the appanage of the data-oriented.

]]>