| 
| 
|
 In This Article
NEWSLETTERS | NOVEMBER, 2009 Search is a Work in Progress By Chris Butler We are all librarians now. I'll back that statement up over the course of this article, but if you're already picturing a stern, bespectacled figure who might shush you at any moment, think again. Today, our lives represent a fusion of roles hitherto segregated to a minor piece of society- the author, the producer, the librarian. The libraries I'm talking about are networks of content on the web, and they're run by ordinary users just like you and me. We create the content, using all kinds of simple yet powerful tools, with a prolificacy unheard of ever before. With those same tools, we can immediately package our content for distribution. And any content we find valuable--whether our own or someone else's--we make sure to quickly share with others. Like librarians, we guide the reading of our contacts, and they perform the same function for us. We are personally doing the creating, the organizing, and the connecting- and this changes how the content is found and received. In past newsletters, we've focused on creative strategies and helpful tools to enable you to plan effectively and execute professionally on the web. But we haven't taken a close look at how we as users organize all this content and connect other users to it. This effort is much bigger than individual applications and has become such a natural part of our daily lives that it just hasn't stood out much. But it is now clear that the way we organize online is having a profound effect upon the world of search. Search has changed significantly, and just as we adapted to the algorithmic approach of search engines, we must also adapt to today's crowded social environment. This month, I'd like to look at the ways that our use of social tools affects how we connect with content, and the practical ways we can apply this knowledge to improve websites.
 |
    Subscribe To Our NewsletterFebruary 2010 How a Website is Built, Part 2  |
Chris,
I'm a big fan of this theme you've had over the past few months: 'People trust people and people act upon trust.'
I enjoy noticing and poring over the persistent truths of our business--the elements which provide the undercurrent to the fluid web atmosphere we wade through daily. One of these is trust. From prospect vetting, through each project stage, and into the long term relationship--trust is the heart of the matter.
Mark
Chris,
You'll be pleased to know I read through the entire newsletter this month. I do not think skipping portion of it to get to the 'meat' makes it complete (at least not in this instance). My reference to making a Cliff's notes version of it was just joking, but I'd also like to suggest a practical solution.
I tend to be put off when reading content on the web and encounter a 'read more 1..2..3..4' as this prevents me from quickly skimming an article before reading it (something I often do for lengthy content), which is generally why I wouldn't read much past the first page, not just in your articles, but also when reading other stuff on the web.
Many sites to this I believe to increase the click count, and as a result, make me sit through unnecessary load times as all their ads, flash and javascript loads, slowing me down and also increasing the chances they will throw obnoxious pop up or slide-over ads in my face while I try to read them. I think this has also been a factor in conditioning me to not want to click through 'next page' links while reading on the web, even though I know you don't follow this nasty practice.
Do you read metrics on how many clicks on the first page vs how many make it to subsequent pages? I'd be interested in knowing whether I'm the only one who doesn't always click through.
- Jim
Jim,
Thanks for your thoughtful comment. Just so you know, I didn't take your suggestion in a negative way at all. I've been considering a few options for making the newsletter easier to read and more digestible to various kinds of readers. For instance, I may try an 'executive summary' approach, too. So, even if you were joking about a 'Cliffs Notes' version, I liked the idea so much that I made a big, ugly, throwback-to-my-childhood feature out of it!
As for the metrics, our tracker shows that, for the most part, readers who come in on the first page tend to read through all of them, though they may not spend equal time on each subsequent page. In our upcoming redesign, we're moving the subpage navigation for the newsletter to the upper right of the page template, and making it read in a more straightforward way- giving it a heading of 'In this Newsletter' and making the page links read as 'Part 1,' 'Part 2' and so on. Justin's designs for our 2010 version of the site look really good.
Thanks for reading,
Chris
I agree with you that business need to adapt to the greater use of social media, but I don't think I agree with your premise that algorithmic search is on the decline.
One reason is that with search engines' greater reaches, constantly improving algorithms, and initiatives likes OpenSocial, the social network becomes part of the algorithm. If Google sees me and you sharing links about a particular topic, Google can then make better inferences about what content to return.
I think information consumption on the Internet comes in two main flavors: active and passive. For me, social media (and that includes blogs I subscribe to, Facebook, Twitter, and aggregator sites like reddit and Hacker News) is a passive source of information. It's a grab bag. If I'm looking for specific information, I would never rely on any of these sources. They are magnificent at turning up content that I may not otherwise find, but when I'm actively seeking something, to Google I go.
The benefit of social media, at least to me, is the benefit of getting information is to better train the search engine's algorithms. As Big Brother-ish as it sounds, the more search engines know about me, which means my social networks and the information we share on that, the more relevant the results returned.
I do agree with the idea that I trust links shared by my social network more, but these are more 'I thought this was interesting, and you might, too' which is completely independent of me wanting *specific* information and knowing that Google is my best bet to find it.
It took me a while to get through this one, and yes, I chose the dig-in route. There's a lot to think about, particularly in terms of the trust and equalization issues. It seems to me that the result of all of this is that we're going to eventually have to care more about quality as a way to separate the wheat from the chaff.
Russ,
Thanks for reading. You're right- getting on the first page of Google results is only going to get more difficult. Currently, it's probably impossible for new players in specific industries- particularly tourism/hospitality. We'll have to see how things go, but my sense is that SEO as we know it is about to become something else.
Chris
On the topic of SEO, you say that SEO's have had a good run dot dot dot. Are you suggesting they're washed up? But then you seem to backtrack on that somewhat at the end when you say that the algorithmic approach may not be dead after all. I feel like you're toying with us ;-)
I have never thought of where we would be without Search Engines, but they have been instrumental in the past decade of how we find information. And SEO is a true art form and has been gaining in momentum recently. I think even big companies are starting to realize the importance of being on the first page of Google for a serious keyword phrase. If you think its hard to reach the first page now, wait 5 years...but things change so rapidly in this industry, I am excited to see how the search engines advance in technology and where search is going...
@Ed Bryson, I was hoping my 'SEO's have had a good run...' comment would be inflammatory ;-) My point there was that SEO as a practice is going to lose its preeminence to other kinds of optimization- not in that it will be completely obsolete, but it will have to share the stage so to speak. The point about not pronouncing the algorithm dead doesn't have that significant of a tie to SEO as we know it today. Algorithms are the life force of most 'smart' tools we use online; indeed, they are necessary to deliver even the social network-specific results that Google is experimenting with now. So I want to be measured in my expectations: SEO as we know it will decline, as will the algorithm/bot paradigm, but won't completely disappear.
@Nolan, I agree with what you're saying. There is an important distinction to be made in terms of search. Like you, I have multiple modes of operating, especially as far as seeking vs. receiving information. For specific queries about topics for which I don't already have a preferred or 'go-to' source, like 'plant propagation methods,' I will use Google. For me, though, that kind of activity has declined significantly as I lean more heavily upon other sources for information about topics of interest to me. Google Reader is generally my main source of info for most areas of general interest to me (topics run the gamut from design to time to marketing to science fiction). Of course, I had to initially find those sources somewhere. Many came linked from another source, or through a recommendation, or something personal. I'd guess that a tiny number of them came from Google Searches, but I have 136 active subscriptions at the moment. I just have not cultivated a practice of querying for that kind of material. One last point about sources for specific information- many times I have a question related to my work that I can get real and helpful responses to by asking via Twitter and LinkedIn. It's not always a home run, but neither is Googling. For now, that's my online MO, and my motivation for writing this article was because that's new to me over the past year and I suspect that many are experiencing a similar shift due to the factors I explored on page 2.
@Alex, Thanks- I'm glad you chose to explore the conceptual stuff. That's always my practice. I tend to like the 'why' of things more than the 'how.' Quality is a big issue! There was an interesting post this week on Frog's Design Mind blog about how to value content that touched on this point. I left a rather long, rambling comment there, which you can read through to get my two-cents on things related to quality and value. Also, check out my last article, Who Are You Speaking To?, which talks a lot about value-orientation for web content.
Nolan,
These are great points. I agree with your distinction when it comes to active versus passive search approaches. Sometimes I use search in a specific way to refer to these approaches, and other times in a general way to refer to the entire 'ecosystem' on which we depend for information. The other piece, though, is that those sources upon which we depend passively for information will become the sources we are delivered information from when actively searching using tools like Google. With Social Search, we saw that Google was experimenting with pulling in results from our individual social networks- this is a strong approach that is predicated upon our inclination to trust people we know, though we may ultimately realize that they are more subjective, more than an algorithm. Just yesterday, we saw the release of realtime search from Google, which pulls in information in real time from Twitter along side its standard search results. In both cases, what have been passive sources are being folded in to a previously active source context. Make sense?
Last comment... (I promise!)
I agree with you and the melding between these two realms is exciting.
I think the realization that I've come to is that everything on the Web is passive. By itself, the information has no context. All of this information is sitting at the docks waiting to be unloaded and delivered.
It's the software that people write that makes this usable to others, algorithmic search engines go out and find everything it can, and the creation of social networks let people share things directly. The former is analogous to going to a library's card catalog, while the latter is like tuning into a radio station where your friends are the deejays.
The search engines will continue to reach into any pockets of information they can find, whether it be a static blog post from 5 years ago, or my friend's latest tweet. What Google is doing with their real-time search is adding social networks, which is what people--and not robots--find interesting (which I think was your point), which allows me to actively, and in the traditional sense of the word, discover what my social network has given me.
The lines between these two will definitely blur, even more. The ultimate result will be instantaneous information indexing, having the most relevant information, no matter when written, be immediately accessible, which is the ultimate goal of search engines. And after that, what else is there?
I think the issue I am having trouble accepting your premise is calling the passive intake of information through RSS and social networks 'search.' In my mind, 'search' is the active seeking of information. Receiving information by social means can never be an active operation, only passive. What comes across someone's screen using social media is completely dependent on what those people decide to write or share, and is completely independent of what you want out of that relationship. It seems that 'search,' at least in the way it was used in the newsletter, is conflating the active and passive consumption of information, where 'search' has a literal meaning, but in real life and on the Web, of being an active operation.
It's like going to Kurama (a local sushi restaurant) and really wanting California roll. Social media is sitting by the conveyor belt and hoping it comes by, while search is grabbing a waiter and ordering it. The algorithmic search engines return more or less what you are looking for, giving you the option to zero in on the info you need, which is what I would call 'search.'
This is not discrediting one or the other on being a good source of information, but I'm having trouble calling waiting on what comes up in my RSS feed 'search.'