

Matt Cutts: Sharing a search story - nextparadigms
http://mattcutts.com/blog/search-plus-your-world/

======
jroseattle
I may be in the minority here, but the focus on social search seems like a red
herring.

Kudos to the search team for trying things to see what works, but this feels
awkward to me. The implementation gives me a "hotel california" feeling --
that your social relationships follow you where you go, no matter what you're
doing. Heck, it's much easier to be anonymous offline than online nowadays.
This really feels like it's trying to be all things to all people.

The search results page is starting to look like salad. What used to be simple
and streamlined is now jumbled together. It honestly looks like an
implementation that server-side developers would create as a response to
competition from Facebook and Bing. Seriously, the SERP is on a path to jump-
the-shark territory.

I made the leap to DuckDuckGo and have basically quit Google (save for my
legacy email.) As I said, I may be in the minority here, but this just feels
like a slow crawl toward mediocrity.

~~~
stfu
Same here, I just made DuckDuckGo my default search engine. Going to give it a
try for a few days and see how it goes.

------
mjb
I'm not sure about this one. On the one hand relevant search results and less
spam are good things for me. On the other hand, one of the key things I have
always enjoyed about the Web is being exposed to new people, new ideas and
things that were unexpected but interesting. With the increasing focus on
social and relevant it seems like the gap for unexpected and interesting is
closing. To some extent aggregation sites like HN and Reddit take this role,
but they also tend to be too focused and relevant.

The web used to remind me of the story of Butte, MT. Butte apparently had a
mini gold rush that quickly died down when people realized there wasn't much
gold. Many of the gold prospectors left, because no gold meant no fortune. For
some of those who stayed, however, the hills yielded a larger fortune in
Copper, Silver and other metals.

The web used to be like that. You went looking for gold, and occasionally
found a fortune in copper and silver instead. As search becomes more and more
focused, however, there's no more copper or silver. Just a dead end, and a
sign that says "No Gold.".

------
kenjackson
I'm not sure if Google gets this, but the interaction between social search
and general keyword search is pretty small. As others have noted, I rarely
want results for general searches from those in my social network. And when I
do, I actually would prefer to specifically invoke it. And if anything, when I
do a social search I want the opposite of what they're doing -- I want social
info from Twitter/Facebook of public info from people NOT in my network.

I feel Google is so concerned that they may be losing a monetization
opportunity that they're screwing over their customer user experience. Google,
your next billion dollar business is not Facebook or Twitter.

And BTW, if Matt is reading, WTF is up with GMail using contextual
information, even if I turn it off? This to me is a HUGE no no. Maybe I turned
it off incorrectly, but if someone like me gets it wrong, the mechanism to
turn it off is broken.

------
joebadmo
I hope this is and the obvious interest of twitter and facebook to get in on
this action represents a crack in the closing web.

And in some sense, it always seemed like that's what G+ was all about: a moat
to make sure they'd keep get/access to all the information that was flowing
into closed social networks. Being included in search results is a powerful
incentive.

The next step has to be open APIs, though, right? I should be able to add
social signals outside of G+ and other closed social networks.

------
RexRollman
Can I please have my old Google search back? The one that returns
unpersonalized search results by default, didn't use javascript tricks in the
URLs of search returns just to track clicks, and didn't have an annoying
hideaway thing on the right side?

Pretty please?

~~~
sp332
1\. Go to <https://www.google.com/preferences?hl=en> and disable your
"personalized" results.

2\. Install "Google Search link fix" for FF [https://addons.mozilla.org/en-
US/firefox/addon/google-search...](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-
US/firefox/addon/google-search-link-fix/) or "A Little Privacy" for Chrome
[https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/kjhmfidomefgpbbebo...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/kjhmfidomefgpbbebodnbakelpabilga)

3\. I don't have an annoying hideaway thing?

~~~
jcurbo
Annoying hideaway thing = site preview I believe, that pops out when you hover
over the right edge of the search result. I find it incredibly annoying.

~~~
sp332
Oh right. If you wait for one to come up, and then click the "X" in the corner
of the preview pane, they won't come up again unless you specifically hover
over the >> button for each result.

If you want something more permanent, I think this userscript
<http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/90394> or these AdBlock rules will block
it, but I haven't tried them:

    
    
      google.com##.vspi
      google.com##.vspib
      google.com###vspb
    

(remember to modify if you're using e.g. google.com.au)

~~~
RexRollman
I'll have to give those a try. Thanks.

------
ebbv
I like and admire Matt, but I disagree 100% with his assertion (and Google as
a whole) that searching for something and seeing pictures of me and my friends
in the result is "magic." It's banal, and worse it's useless. I already know
about those pictures -- obviously, because Google knows about them only
because I know about them.

When I search I'm looking for answers, or at least, I'm looking for
information I don't have on hand.

Cluttering up the results with information I already have available to me, and
worse, modifying them in subtle ways based on information I already have
available to me, is not helpful. It's the opposite of helpful.

I really think Google is opening themselves up to a competitor who is nothing
but simpler and easier to use, in much the way that AltaVista and others
opened themselves up to Google taking over by getting too complicated and
becoming less and less useful.

Time will tell if I'm right.

~~~
raldi
Actually, I'm not sure Matt already knew about that picture of him. But
regardless, not everyone is "looking for answers" when they search. Plenty of
people type things into Google like "Christmas" or the name of the university
they went to, and the majority of them would be amazed and delighted to see
search results with long-forgotten pictures of loved ones opening presents or
status updates about their college buddies' get-together at the last
homecoming.

~~~
MatthewPhillips
Here are the current search trends, you tell me which would benefit from posts
from acquaintances.

<http://www.google.com/trends/hottrends>

~~~
raldi
"photos", "girl scout cookies", and the dozen or so politicians.

------
jellicle
It's a cute trick, and undoubtedly will attract interest. But the interest is
as likely to be negative as positive - people think it's creepy. Has Google
focus-group tested these changes? Has Google asked focus groups of random
people (not Google employees) what they actually want in search? Or is the
decision making process basically something like, "This is cool!" (from Google
programmers) and "This will help us make money!" (from Google executives)?

Because I think it's the latter.

A search engine's value is in bringing new information to people. Matt Cutts
knew that he was playing Werewolf with Brian Fitzpatrick. That photo of Matt
Cutts returned to Matt Cutts' search was _duplicate information_. It's a dupe!
Cutts already knew that! It might be new to anyone else in the world, but not
Matt Cutts!

Google is busy attaching a tube from our anus back to our mouth to facilitate
information consumption. (You can call it an echo chamber or living in a
bubble if you like.) This will not end well.

~~~
joebadmo
Using focus group testing in the way you're describing is like the French
revolutionary who says "There go my people. I must find out where they are
going so I can lead them."

Google is notoriously one of the most (if not the most) data-driven companies
in the history of the world. That doesn't mean they never make bad decisions,
but I'm sure they've taken user behavior into account.

The duplication you mention isn't a bug. Just because I've seen something
before, doesn't mean I never want to see it again, especially if it's
relevant. Searches are often re-searches for information you've seen before.
The most important thing is relevance, and your social interactions are
relevant.

I think what many here are missing is that the exposure of social in search
results is only the first-order effect. But the social signals themselves
probably affect your personal relevancy algorithm, too. I imagine that's a
valuable addition, and it will only get better with more social data.

~~~
fred_nada
Yes, they took user behavior into account and realized that it didn't matter
because they have to get into the social space. Remember, social media success
is tied into all Google employee bonuses. They are willing to make search
worse in order to make G+ better.

Yes, relevance is everything. When I search for something in a search engine
95 times out of 100 I am searching for something new. Occasionally I am
searching for something that I already found when searching before. I am never
looking for photos of myself. I mean please.

This is corporate spin and you are eating it up! :)

~~~
joebadmo
_Yes, they took user behavior into account and realized that it didn't matter
because they have to get into the social space._

I think you have the causality wrong. They realized they had to get into the
social space and integrate it into their product because of user data.

 _They are willing to make search worse in order to make G+ better._

I think the point of this announcement is that they make no such distinction.
Search and Plus are the same product.

 _When I search for something in a search engine 95 times out of 100 I am
searching for something new._

Thank you for your data point. I'm sure Google has many others. Not only that,
but how much of that is because you haven't even thought of using search for
information retrieval purposes yet? How often do you access your photos? How
often do you access your friends' photos? What's your primary way to access
them? What percentage of that access would be made better using search?

 _I am never looking for photos of myself. I mean please._

I bet you're the exception.

~~~
dextorious
"""I think you have the causality wrong. They realized they had to get into
the social space and integrate it into their product because of user data."""

They did it because of "user data" alright, but not in the way he means it.
User's haven't told them: "wow, it would be great if you had Plus integrated
into search".

Their data was more like: "hey, this social thing is lucrative, numbers show
we can milk our users more if we get a stronghold in this area".

""" _I am never looking for photos of myself. I mean please._

I bet you're the exception."""

And I bet you that he is not.

At least non in Google searches --people weren't looking for photos of
themselves there.

------
rickmb
Since "don't be evil" was abandoned a while a go in favor of greed (whatever
your opinion may be on particular issues, doing a complete 180 on net
neutrality to get in bed with telco was pretty definitively ended the
credibility of that slogan), Google may try to make "don't be creepy" it's new
motto, at least internally.

Because this, and some previous stuff like the introduction of Buzz, or the
way Google fails to comprehend European concepts of privacy, shows that
Google's company culture is deeply autistic when it comes to understanding how
people experience its service.

Google is basically the corporate version of that socially awkward guy that
tries to have way too personal conversations with you in which it becomes
apparent that he knows way too much about you. If you could pepperspray a
company, Google would be blind by now.

