[Sigia-l] Research and Search Results

[Derek R]

Cf wrote:
>| look on the right edge of this page
>| to see folks who, however cynically,
>| understand the limitations of search
>| engines -->
>| http://google.com/search?q=information+architecture

I won't pretend to understand what above seeks to mean, however, it is a
point of interest to note the *top* (Feeling Lucky) Google result for
the subject of this SIG is a defunct organization whose Web page last
operated sometime in early 2001 . . . How cynical is that?


Jared wrote:
>| When users do not use on-site search
>| they are twice as likely to find 'their content'
>| than when they do -->
>| http://world.std.com/~uieweb/searchar.htm

All this boils down to is real common-sense:

Categories are going to take you there because that is what they do --
they define 'an end' (hard-wired) and, by doing so, make it available.
Search, however, is open-ended in that 'many ends' are made available.
Therefore, it only stands to reason (common-sense) that categories are
more successful at producing tangible results.

The *paramount difference* which Jared's study would appear to ignore in
favor of being 'hard-wired' to fodder-production: 

>| Our clients are happy with our results. They
>| are making informed decisions using our 
>| data. And they keep asking for more research

is that the presentation of 'category' is the language of the
IA/Designer, whereas, the presentation of 'search' is the language of
the user/person.

This is the whole tamale I have recently been talking about -->

Any business with any orientation to robustness (i.e. the long-haul)
will eschew fixed-categories in favor of *market demand.* Otherwise,
business must support a 'new' industry of 'category-makers and fixers'
to constantly update and create labeling of content (interpretation) to
match *perceived* demand.

What is entirely more successful, in the long-haul, is to supply the
market with what it demands **directly,** without asking for the 'help'
of a 'mediator' or go-between to muck-up, confuse, and complicate what
was previously a simple dichotomy (supply and demand).

We don't want your 'help!' We're on to you!
 
If you are a business, you are painting yourself into a useless corner
using categories, since:

- Categories present what *you think* the customer wants
- Search presents what *the customer knows* they want

Clearly -- search is what the customer asks for and categories are what
the salesperson suggests. If you want to make money you'll stop
marketing to the user (categories) and start selling to them instead
(search):

Search is essential to scale -->
http://semanticstudios.com/publications/semantics/000004.php

Indeed, in this same way you can *know the path* (being/direction) as
opposed to *walking* it (categories/redirection) -->
http://www.info-arch.org/lists/sigia-l/0301/0504.html


So, again, any company worth-their-weight at all will dismiss linear
conclusions like 'Searching Reduces Success' -->
http://world.std.com/~uieweb/searchar.htm
which, in the context it is given, clearly aims to be fodder and ignores
the big-picture.

This fodder-creation is only exacerbated by pro-eugenic slogans like
'Garbage In/Garbage Out' which state: 

>| A search engine's results can only be as good
>| as the inputs it receives

which, in addition to being fascist, flies-in-the-face of
recently-stated comments:

Jared wrote:
>| There isn't ever a problem with users --
>| it is always a problem with the design

and in contradiction, lends credibility to a claim of 'fodder-creation.'


It would serve all Information Architects to remember that research
which queries or observes actual/real 'users' can only *inform* and is
NOT *informed* -- which is to say, whatever conclusions you can come up
with to support one position, it is possible to support the opposite
position using the same data. With 'research,' it is all in how you look
at it ;-) Indeed, the *whole point* of research is to have something to
look at (i.e. fodder-creation)!