[Sigia-l] Search and classification

[Gerry McGovern]

Richard Wiggins wrote:

Let's posit for a moment that we are all headed for a future where we
>navigate some whiz-bang multidimensional space instead of typing "Linksys
>WiFi" or "rule against perpetuities" into a search box. (I'm picturing
>shooting letters out, arcade-style, one at a time: L-I-N-K...) I don't
>believe it for a minute, but let's just assume it.
>
>That technology isn't here yet. (If you think it is, quick, go sell it to
>Yahoo, because their drill-down service loses market share to Google every
>day.)  While we wait for that technology, we have to live in the here and
>now and make the most of the tools we do have.

I don't agree with this. The Yahoo classification/categorization system is 
a 'technology?' The Yahoo categories were developed by people, not 
machines. I use Yahoo (I also use Google.) Millions use Yahoo. In fact, 
Yahoo is still the number one destination on the Web. I just read where 
their underlying revenues rose 39 percent, so they must be doing something 
right.

Anyone remember the Yahoo V AltaVista debate? Back around 1995, Alta Vista 
was supposed to rip to shreds Yahoo with its 'superior technology.' 
AltaVista has just been sold for USD140 million, having been sold for 
USD2.3 billion in 1999. So much for fancy technology whipping librarians. 
Because that's exactly what Yahoo employed: librarians.

I don't fully agree with Jared that the end of Search is nigh, except in 
very specialized circumstances. I think search will remain a bedrock 
feature of the Web for a long time. However, I think that Jared makes some 
really important points about search.

Search has been vastly over-rated. And I used to be one of those who 
over-rated it. Some time back, I read a number of Jared's reports. I simply 
didn't agree with them. But I decided to check up my own website to see 
what sort of search activity was happening.

My website gets about 8,000 visitors every month. On average, about 500 of 
them use the search. That's just over 5 percent. The first time I 
discovered this I was really surprised. I had expected a much higher figure.

This encouraged me to do more research on search. The more research I 
did--asking clients, reading reports--the more I realized that for many 
sites, search is a minor activity.

You search when you are lost. As you become more familiar with an 
environment, you tend to search less. You have figured out your favorite 
places and go directly there. I book a lot of flights online. I don't go to 
Google. I have 5-10 websites I check.

Last weekend, Ireland were playing Scotland in rugby. I was out of Ireland 
and wanted to get a match report. I went to a number of newspaper websites. 
Invariably, they had a 'Sport' classification. They then had a 'Rugby' 
classification. I clicked on that. I got what I wanted.

More and more, I see websites getting better at how they classify their 
content. Sure, the first couple of times you might visit a particular 
website, you might use search. But as you get to know where they put 
things, you begin to lean more on the classification to help you get 
around. Search becomes, for many, an option of last resort.

Sure, this is not always the case. I have my 5-10 favorite airline 
websites, but I will always use a search functionality to check flight 
availability, cost, etc. So, for a lot of sites, search will play a 
critical role.

But classification is fundamental. Many websites will do fine without 
Search, but how many websites can survive without classification?  And 
classification is NOT a technology. It is a human skill. A difficult skill 
that perhaps can never be perfected. But it is a skill that is in 
increasingly demand from the clients I work with.

I do think what Richard is saying about the Best Bets approach to Search 
makes a lot of sense. But Best Bets is in fact a process by which you 
integrate human-based classification into the search process. It is an 
indirect admission that the search technology isn't nearly as accurate or 
useful as a smart editor who makes judgments such as: If there's a search 
for "content management" let's give the first Best Bet as "Content 
Management Homepage."

Google also taps into the human editing/classification decision process. 
Google could not have succeeded nearly as well in 1994. Why? Because there 
weren't enough people creating links to other websites. Google thrives when 
there is a pre-existing body of human-based linking already in existence.

So, I think Jared's basic premise is correct. Over time, search will become 
less significant to an increasing number of people. Good classification--or 
whatever you want to call it--will become more significant.

(After all, if search was such a rich vein of activity and revenue, how 
come there are so few search engine vendors in the market? Only recently, 
Yahoo bought Inktomi and Overture just bought AltaVista.)

Gerry McGovern


-----------------------------------------------------
BOOKS BY GERRY MCGOVERN
Content Critical:
http://www.gerrymcgovern.com/content_critical.htm
The Web Content Style Guide:
http://www.gerrymcgovern.com/web_content_style_guide.htm
Web: http://www.gerrymcgovern.com  Telephone: +353 87 238 6136