[Search-l] Old markets and methods vs. new

Tue Jun 3 08:12:04 UTC 2008

Ok, I'll bite ….Here's my two cent rant (dream)…  What's motivating the
internet search industry?  Is it the desire to help people?  Is it the
desire to save people some time while allowing them to find what it is they
are looking for?  Is the desire to treat users fairly in all regards?  Is it
the desire to align internet data, services, etc so that the internet and
search technology can progress as fast as possible and live up to its
potential sooner rather than later?  No.  The major desire and motivating
factor is too make money and maintain control of the internet
environment.  That's
why those who already have money and majority control will remain most
successful.  Those with the most money are going to win the money game.

What if a search engines motivating factors were much different though?
What if one of a search engine's primary motivating factors was the desire
to help people perform better and more useful searches?  What if a primary
motivating factor for a search engine was to treat internet searchers with
fairness in all regards?

With those intentions as the primary motivators, I believe a truly useful,
efficient, popular, etc search engine could be created quite simply.
Coincidentally,
I believe that a search engine with those primary motivations would also
make lots of money (despite what traditional business paradigms say about
fairness, etc in regards to the bottom line).

What if instead of trying to dream up new fangled ways of doing something as
simple as create a large online database (search engine), a search company
was just exceedingly dedicated to its internet searchers (those who
ultimately make or break any search engine) and to the intentions briefly
described above?

What if a search company put people and quality above profit?  Gasp…. I
don't mean like corporations do (which is to say they don't really they just
say they do to sell more of whatever it is they are selling), but I mean
really and truly make those intentions the primary motivating factors of the
search engine?

I believe internet searchers deserve nothing less.  When someone searches
the internet they are performing a service for the search engine.  Why not
pay them (directly or indirectly)? They are the ones arranging the search
engine's database (as their search queries update data files) in the most
contextually (socially, etc) relevant way.  Why do internet searchers
currently get less than nothing (when adjusted for big-picture economics) to
perform a service for search engines (and make the owners rich)?  Why do
only a few people get to keep the trillions of dollars of profit generated
by search engines?  The bottom line is that without internet searchers,
search engines are useless.

Yes, I know, im sure the search execs are saying, "but we offer you a useful
a service and we give you free things like online storage, email, documents,
etc?  Why are you complaining?  You are our customer and we LOVE you? Our
feelings are hurt that you would even think such selfish thoughts L"

The 'realists' are saying, "why do birds have wings?  Why are some people
rich and some people poor?  Why don't you just be a good citizen and do what
everybody else does?  Who do you think you are?  Quit complaining, you're
not special.  You are just like everyone else and the status quo is always
right, so just shut up.  How dare you propose some kind of 'disruptive'
(what exactly does that mean btw) idea / technology … be careful… you know
what happened to the last person with a 'disruptive' idea, right?"

 While I must admit that I am impressed with the amount of services Google
(and others) offer their users, how tiny is the fraction of their revenue
that is actually required / used to provide those services?  Money aside,
what is the price internet searchers pay in lost efficiency, wasted time,
etc due to the fact that these traditional search engines are set up to make
themselves more money, not to perform searches in the best way (for the
user) possible?

The most popular search websites are simply search engines of its customer
lists.  It is next to impossible to find anything of real value (unless you
don't mind getting the same large companies / websites returned for just
about every search you perform) when searching on most search engines.  These
search engines do little more than scratch the surface of the surface of the
surface of the information the internet provides.  It really doesn't have to
be that way though.

What if a user could search any search engine and get useful search results?
What if a user could click any ad-link (on any website) and have the revenue
directed to a company of his or her choice or even go back to the user?

Of course the technology already exists to do this and search engines know
this so they created "search for donation" sites that pay charity a less
than a minuscule donation when you search on those sites.  Of course these
sites only superficially placate users enough to prevent them from expecting
more from search engines and to prevent them from creating a better solution
themselves.  These sites are merely jetsam.  Although every bit of money
donated to charity helps, donating to charity is not the primary goal of
these sites.

Also, there were the now-failed companies that paid users to "surf" the net.
But these companies were built on the infra structure and with the same
intentions of the current search paradigm and so were irrelevant and wrought
with click / ad fraud, etc (hence the failure).

Regarding ideas:  My dad used to say that, "ideas are like a--holes.
Everyone's
got one and they all stink."  Actually, I think he used to say that,
"excuses are like a--holes …" but 'idea' works just as well in that
metaphor.

Honestly, there are many simple solutions (ideas) to the search
"problem".  None
of those ideas that have money as the primary motivating factor will 'beat'
the incumbents.

On the other hand, just about any idea that makes fairness, quality,
efficiency, etc its goal will succeed (with or without money)…. I've thought
of a few.  If anyone is interested in implementing them send me an email….

Take Care,
Bryan Randall

On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 7:56 PM, Jason Calacanis <jason at calacanis.com>
wrote:

> > a large number of people - If the company doesn't have to be big, you
> don't
> > need a lot of people.  I think Craigslist (for just one example), which
> is a
> > huge service, has a staff of 25?  And it started out smaller than that.
>
> Yes, that is a great example of a service that was built of a long
> time very slowly. Of course, when they started they didn't have
> competition to speak of.
>
> If you look at the search space Wikia, PowerSet, and Mahalo are coming
> into a space where there are MANY excellent search options. Google and
> Yahoo are doing AMAZING things in search... and they are working on
> thousands of significant improvements all the time.
>
> Search is a very mature space with a lot of revenue at stake... it's
> not classifieds in 1996.
>
> > Okay, sure... but if you don't need all that capital in the first
> place...
> > Actually, what you need that capital for is *marketing*.
>
> Not true actually.
>
> Google, YouTube, and Weblogs, Inc. spent exactly nothing on marketing.
> The best products on the web spread by work of mouth or some viral
> component (think syndication of videos in YouTube's case).
>
> Mahalo is spending exactly zero on marketing.
>
> Ask.com spent $100m on marketing last year and didn't change their
> share of search.
>
> > I think ideas are more important than you seem to - without ideas you've
> got
> > nada - but your point about execution is a good one.
>
> Most folks over emphasize the importance of ideas. It's human nature.  :-)
>
> >> In terms of specific ideas if you make a list of them I will tell you
> >> exactly how likely they are to work on a percentage basis.*
> > Hah!  I'm not sure if I'm supposed to take you seriously, or not!?
>
> Not kidding at all. Make a list and I will give you the exact
> percentage chance that it will work... but only to two decimal points.
> :-)
>
> > users.  Does it have to work this way? No.  Mahalo does the same thing -
> > reinforces the position of the incumbents.  Users would be better served
> by
> > an intelligent (whether computer powered, or human powered) system that
> is
> > constantly on the lookout for for the *best* resources, whether they be
> new
> > or old.
>
> If you're saying that it takes a long time to get people to switch you
> are absolutely correct. Incumbents have a huge advantage because
> people are lazy and they will not switch services EVEN IF the new
> service is better. There are people using AOL Mail at this very moment
> in fact.
>
> That is why it is so important to create a product that is 2-3x better
> than the incumbents... not 2-3% better. If you compare PowerSet's
> current offering it is--in most cases--no different than searching in
> Google with the "site:wikipedia.org" parameter. in fact, it's worse as
> often as it is better.
>
> Making something better than Google/Yahoo/MSN is a five to ten year
> project. Look forward to discussing it with you during that time.
>
> all the best, Jason
> ---------------------
> Jason McCabe Calacanis
> CEO, http://www.Mahalo.com <http://www.mahalo.com/>
> Mobile: 310-456-4900
> My blog: http://www.calacanis.com
> AOL IM/Skype: jasoncalacanis
> My admin: admin at calacanis.com
>  _______________________________________________
> Wikia Search mailing list
> http://alpha.search.wikia.com/
> Change options or unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wikia.com/mailman/options/search-l
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikia.com/pipermail/search-l/attachments/20080603/1337146e/attachment.html 