The big thing here isn't graph search, or the fancy searching per se. The big thing here is this:
> "and meet new people, too."
This is huge. Huge!
Facebook from the start was envisioned as a sort-of dating platform but that part of it got swept under the rug real quick. Throughout Facebook's history meeting people with Facebook has been a slim thing. Typically it was always one way:
Meet in real life -> Add on facebook.
It's only a matter of time until Facebook tries to make it the other way around. It seems they're explicitly avoiding the "dating" route, which may or may not be wise (dating sides have some weird connotations among some groups of people). It looks like they've finally found their solution.
The amazing thing here isn't Graph. It's that Facebook is going to change its paradigm so that meeting new people is a viable goal of going on Facebook.
So eventually we'll be meeting people through Facebook, starting with meetup.com style interests. That's big.
Quite the opposite, in my opinion. People don't like being bothered by strangers on Facebook. It's weird and creepy, especially so when it's a guy contacting a girl. This could be seen as a disincentive to share if you don't want your face popping up on search results for people outside your immediate network.
It also makes friends who are ignorant or careless about privacy more of a liability. If they tag you in something that's set to 'public', that thing could now be seen by far more strangers far more frequently. There's no good solution to this: You can harrass your friends about their tagging habits, waste countless hours un-tagging yourself every month, or delete your profile altogether.
I could see it being useful if you could give it commands. Something like: "Invite all friends who like Game of Thrones to my Game of Thrones Event on Sunday at 8PM". Then again, that could just increase the amount of noise on Facebook and drive people away even faster.
People love being bothered by strangers. Just try it. Make any half-funny observation about the world around you to a random stranger in the line, at the hairdresser... just not when they're actively doing something. Weather the surprise, repeat what you said if necessary, allow them to come up with a response. If they don't, follow through yourself.
At first it seems like you're a crazy person talking at others. But after a minute (though it'll feel like a little longer) most people will happily talk to you.
And don't think of it as "bothering". You're diverting your precious attention to them. The thing that every website and channel on the planet wants from you.
That used to be just normal, polite behaviour BTW.
You know? The ones who want to talk to you in elevators? Or just come and stand next your desk while you're trying to do work and talk? All socionormative, smile and handshake?
Maybe you should watch this:
Here's a thing: If I dont know you, and you want a conversation, catch my eye. If I smile, sure, lets chat.
If I look away, look at my phone, stare out the window.
dont talk to me
Your social obligation to engage is unwelcome
In all seriousness; you need to re-evaluate if you honestly believe "People love being bothered by strangers."
Some people may; many do not. You enjoy bothering strangers. There's a difference.
I really hope this "introvert fad" slows down soon. There's no need to be so radical, there's a spectrum of personality types. It's not black and white. I identify as an introvert. Social situations exhaust me, so I enjoy them sparingly.
If someone makes a funny comment to me in the elevator, I'll laugh and it's okay. I don't rant to him about my being a recluse.
So, for Facebook it doesn't matter. As they always do, first they create something that is seen as violating people's notion of privacy. Then they add some form of setting that allows the introverts and control-freaks like you and me that makes it enough for us to not abandon the site, but at the same time allows to still be users.
Also, there is something funny about how you mention not liking to be bothered by strangers in an Internet forum with 10^6 users, but I digress.
One fourth to a less than a half is not "vastly outnumbered".
Or even slightly more than a half: http://www.thoughtful-self-improvement.com/percentage-of-int...
Here's the cliff notes:
“But in 1998, researchers were finally able to do what Isabel Briggs Myers could not: an actual population study. The study was based on a national representative sample – 3,009 randomly selected individuals – which, through weighting of underrepresented groups, was made to approximate the distribution of the 1990 U.S. Census. The findings were clear: introverts and extroverts are equally represented in the population.” (emphasis in original)
Yes - but if you watch very carefully you'll notice their eyes darting nervously about, trying to find the nearest exit, and a small frown appear as they attempt to calculate the whether staying in the line is worth it, and the likelihood of you attempting to sell them something or attempt violence if you make your excuses.
In other words - if some random guy starts talking to you in a line, you will tend to make small-talk in return. Whether you like it or not.
That's always nice, for everyone involved (or so I like to think).
.... Wait for it :)
Edit: I'll take your downvotes, but know that there's a joke there you're just not getting.
- the interaction is of a short, definite length. I will probably never see you again if I don't want to.
- the number of real-life encounters I can have in a day are limited by my location in space and time. it's fun to have that happen once a day; I imagine the joy wears off when it's happening 30 times.
Doesn't talk about FB, as it wasn't yet a dominant force yet.
You can also change your profile settings so you have to approve all posts you are tagged in before the tag can be viewed by the public. I've found this to work a lot better for me than untagging
Revisiting it just now, the options in that section of Privacy are now fairly byzantine, but I think I still have it locked down :-)
This is true, however the fact that you can search friends of friends means you can look for people you might want to get to know better, and get introduced via your mutual friend. Or be bold and just send them a friend request with a little note, etc.
A friend of a friend is less of a random person than the current facebook search which is actually random.
Obviously it will be abused by some, however I think it is a pretty big deal as a feature
Plus there was anybeat.com - which got shut down http://techcrunch.com/2012/05/09/anonymous-social-network-an...
How is this any different to just creating an event normally ?
But it's okay, you'll get the last laugh in another few decades when having a Facebook profile is more powerful than having government issued identification and we're in a topsy turvy world where if the Facebook personality emitting/detecting jewel you have to wear around your neck would light up if someone else compatible is close by for you to mate with.
At least you didn't contribute that to society.
I get the "hook" to lure people onto facebook may change from generation to generation but I wouldn't necessarily say the hook for a newer generation supersedes the needs of the existing generations. If that were the case, facebook would always be focued on building a product for 16-18 year olds. Clearly that hasn't been the case from their past history.
To that extent, this is a pretty big thing for them to pull off. I could certainly see it helping their growth if you are finally able to search for people in a more fine-grained way and connect with them.
Some say this may be unwanted -- that's exactly why FB has been testing having people pay to send messages. They know this will be a problem and are searching for solutions.
myself and around me, people (early 30ies now) all use FB primarily to "stay in touch" with people that are not really close anymore. old colleagues from school, uni, whatever. co-workers? not so much, for that you have linkedin.
1., who exactly should i want to meet out of these people's connections?
2., as no one is using the like button, what exactly is it supposed to data mine?
3., why would i go to FB to search, if my browser automatically searches in google if i start typing in the URL bar? or the search box on iOS.
social search? i want to know which restaurants are recommended by people with taste, not my friends. movie recommendations? i prefer ebert over the people i know.
crowdsourcing is mob rule.
That said, fb has never made sense to me except through the lens of millennial and boomer narcissism. Maybe they'll lap it up. (I am not intentionally exempting our generation but I've never quite gotten the same vibe as from those who came before and after us.)
I assume you mean "No one is clicking the like button", but of course they are, and even when you don't click the like button Facebook still knows exactly which page you saw it on, and that gives them plenty of information to mine..
What a myopic view. Lets take myself, and 90% of the people I know - as real friends. They are all in relationships.
You know what could be "Huge" - creating ad-hoc groups around interests.
Imagine searching for people around you, within a definable degree of separation, that have the same interests where you can do activities.
Meeting people yes - dating does NOT have to be the singular vector for such relationships, that will be a natural secondary. And as a secondary - remains less creepy.
This really seems to harken back to facebook circa 2004. Every single comma separated phrase in interests section of your profile was a link that brought up all the other profiles with that phrase in your college network. I suppose some folks discovered each other this way, but it didn't seem very popular. No one cared when facebook disabled it.
This is also the obvious next step for social networks and one that quite a few startups (including ourselves) have been working on for the past couple of years under the "people discovery" banner. Can't wait to see this in action.
It's time for online dating to die. I've had enough of my little sister calling me up with horror stories, like the time a guy's first message was "what's the largest you've taken." No joke.
A world where online dating takes place on Facebook (or Ark) will be a better place.
This is facebook's core value prop though. To flip is would be fundamentally flip what facebook's good at - creating a deeper digital connection with ppl you meet in real life.
Meeting ppl on facebook became weird and creepy when they became too open. It wasn't an issue so much when they were closed to college networks. They sacrificed privacy for growth.
On the flipside, consider LinkedIn, where it's not considered creepy to reach out to a complete stranger (recruiters do it all the time). But b/c LinkedIn has a focus (careers) and has more privacy, this is acceptable in their ecosystem.
Net net, I think the only way facebook can be about meeting new ppl and do it well is if they sacrifice openness. Otherwise the creepy factor will undermine success.
For many people, it's creepy to "search out" and find you. Making an initial contact on the internet is a far bigger hurdle in a tight social network like facebook than it is in real life.
For myself, Facebook Groups have actually already done a great deal to put me in a setting with a bunch of new people that I can relate to... and I have made friends that way. From group projects, to school groups, to interest groups. You get to know each other surprisingly well.
Search requires initiative. Initiative is very uncool.
Actually one of the examples shown today was a dating example, one of the Facebook managers who oversaw the product trying to set his wife's cousin up with someone: "friends of people I'm friends with who live in San Francisco and are from India"
I'm trying to work out if this is a good idea or not. Do privacy settings still apply when you join a group?
Would people just message any stranger? I guess thats not the norm now.
If they want to, doesn't it cost $1 now? Maybe that's the whole idea...
Of course OpenGraph wasn't either open or a graph, but then that was a developer product.
I'm glad they brought back functionality they removed forever ago.
Link to demo video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=g...
Also, similar to W|A, there is value in the queries themselves since they are mini-algorithms. If someone comes up with a clever query to get FB to say, find me people who I actually might want to hire, it could be valuable. I really hope they build an API on top of this so that startups can build products around novel queries.
maybe the rest they are going to forward/proxy to Bing.
Not a bad idea. Perform a search, highest ranked results are for friend's content, then fall through to Bing results. The Bing search API (from Azure marketplace) which I use from Clojure and Ruby applications yields good results and since Google no longer offers search APIs, Microsoft gets that business.
On year from now, trying to convince someone to use Google+: "But it's accessible from the google homepage!" "I don't google anymore, I just search facebook"
And the graph search is very good solution/excuse to have the search text box in FB.
2. Interesting problem, to make all that data available to natural search queries. Definitely an attack on Google who still can't really answer natural queries what Marissa Mayer was talking about ages ago.
3. There is just stuff from Facebook what I think is problematic because people don't share everything on Facebook. If they can expand it onto the whole web, it would be a game changer, but also way more difficult to solve.
4. I can't think of a query I would use this for other than testing it. If I search for Apple, I want to the Apple website. So I think this is more a solution on the search for a problem. Maybe they figure that out when it's out there.
You can say that again!
It makes Facebook data actually... purposeful.
The next step is still to match purpose with intent to make that money.
I either have to unfriend people to get it to give me stuff i care about (since it appears to have no way to explain i don't give a shit what my grandma thinks about sushi in palo alto), or it's giving me answers that don't seem better.
I understand they needed to improve their site/internal search, and this looks great for that. But it just doesn't seem like that big a deal to me.
What am i missing?
I for one welcome any new natural language interface that can replace and improve on click interactions.
(I wouldn't be so harsh if it was just the press trying to sell it this way, since the press is always trying to generate clicks :P)
It's the future
I don't know anyone who has a very clean social graph that they can formulate sane preference queries about.
There is no magic, so please explain the math/algorithms you think would work here.
(Sorry, it's just a lot of people wave the magic "algorithm" flag when faced with hard problems)
I haven't given you pseudocode for an actual algorithm, but I can imagine that Facebook could combine all of these metrics into an index that can tell them roughly how likely you are to want to hang out with certain people.
Facebook also has a bunch of data on how often you've interacted with various friends there .. so that could be one data point. (How often you're tagged in a check-in / photo, how often you've liked a post made by someone else etc.)
Your Your mom / dad / school friends generally may not be a good data point, while your college friends might be.
It'll take a lot of beta testing and tweaking, but I think it can be done.
1) Rank by popularity among all friends.
2) Rank by global number of check-ins.
3) Rank by a one-off friend's preferences.
You think (3) is the way something called GraphSearch works?
I think it's closer to #1 with "popularity" replaced by "preferences". But that has the problem that i don't care what all of my friends think about most things, or even most of them.
While I do think that the feature is pretty interesting, I don't think it warrants reporters flying in from all over the country to cover the event. I'd be pretty upset right now if I flew in from a news organization NYC to cover this.
You'd need a very large matrix of combinations, which would be really expensive to build, and probably really expensive to use during scoring.
I'm guessing they use something similar to this with a bunch of other ranking signals. I guess i'd just be really surprised if they've actually made it work well.
From the promo video:
-The world feels smaller…
Yes, I joined the freaking World Wide Web to narrow my world view.
-On Facebook, when two people make the same search, they get completely different results!
That's a feature?
What's maddening to me is that we are allowing someone like Zuckerberg, who obviously has many talents, but making friends is not one of them, direct our social lives. The sad thing is that it's getting harder and harder to ignore it, from work to friends. I fear that someday I might be forced to join this freakshow.
I'm sure there are many who have had this idea or are building this currently. Facebook Heroku templates given for new developers to start with, hit on the four main areas that Graph Search seem to provide.
Another example would be a query like
movies liked by people who like movies I like
SELECT name, page_id from page where page_id in (SELECT page_id from page_fan where uid in (SELECT uid2 FROM friend WHERE uid1 = me()) and profile_section='movies')
So then you wonder, why use an app with an unstable query built on an API filled with bugs when I can faster get the result using facebook.com?
My feature request would be to allow us to create and share custom FQL and views computed and rendered by facebook. Then, friends don't have to give permission to apps to access their data and facebook runs the query faster.
In other words, it makes building your profile feel additive and even useful.
I feel like a Luddite for it incentivising me to remove stuff from a wall I want to be a place for actually interested friends to check out my photos and not a collection of metadata for marketers
For me, the potential negatives of leaving a very precise data shadow for marketers and state actors to remember for all time often outweigh any potential benefits, for a whole range of 'codify yourself' opportunities even outside Facebook (e.g. GoodReads, Amazon Wishlist, YouTube subscriptions, etc).
Find people on Facebook whose first name begins with Robert'); DROP TABLE users;--
I can just query useless data from my peer group or the friends of friends group. Data which I already know and not care about.
But I cannot ask the really interesting questions about all Facebook users:
"Show me all female singles nearby with at least 30 profile photos each"
"Show me all female singles nearby which love to chat and respond messages within 2 hours on average."
"Show all females within one mile and poke them all automatically"
This thing is as it is half-baked: the name, the product, just everything -- far away from being "huge".
BTW, those kind of looking-for-female-singles-in-my-city-queries were very easy in FB's early days for quite a long time. Then, I poked them all in my city and got a conversion (poke2reply) of about 1:15.
Seriously, females are human too.
I have no interest in my personal info being used for their search engine, nor do I want friends of friends (i.e. strangers) to contact me just because I like the same TV show or went to their favorite restaurant.
From a revenue perspective, I think this is definitely competitive to Google. Not saying it will succeed, but businesses will definitely see value in advertising to hyper-specific segments and personal groups. It sounds strange to say, but I do think UI and speed will be key components of whether FB GS will do well. Search is a convenience market, and if FB GS isn't convenient, Google is always one click away.
Except that's not true. Google personalizes results for users and also sometime integrates social aspects (through Google+).
If I search for pizza I see a map of pizza places close to me, their average reviews, links to find out more, photos, etc etc. I don't know if a Facebook friend once at a slice there, but I also don't care whatsoever and would rather not see it to be honest.
Right, except this doesn't actually work unless all of your friends work at Google.
1. it treats data from all friends (presumably) equally. Presumably in real life you weigh opinions of different friends differently.
2. search can only take place on information that your friends are willing to share publicly (or at least with all their "friends"). Presumably in real life opinions you get from people you know will be way different if they know it is a private exchange.
3. isn't this all a bit high on the autism spectrum? The idea that to find out information about the likes and dislikes of your "friends", you log onto a computer and do what amounts to a database search, rather than just ASK YOUR FRIENDS ???
With number 3, if you just ask your friends, there's no chance for advertisers to get involved in that transaction. Facebook is a business where the things you express to friends and family are the currency with which you pay for the service.
"Free and always will be" is a lie when factoring in your personal views, information, recommendations, and content are the currency used.
You can always leave FB, but you'll be losing connections you depend on for emotional and social reasons. Facebook knows this, that's why they have you by the balls.
As an outsider, I'm seeing a new wave of business-reliance on FB which will mean the FB logo spreading to every shop, ad, website etc. From the local bakery to bike shop, "Find us on Facebook" posters clumsily displayed in big fat graphics. More than ever, I'm not interested in joining.
This new business-reliance will alienate those who joined to connect with people.
Future generations hopefully won't tolerate such a blatant sellout of personal connections, a stupid hi-jacking of the word "like" - which once belonged to people who liked things.
Marketing and search engines don't belong as an invisible force underlying your communications with close friends or family. That is so wrong it's poisonous.
Zuckerberg said it best: "dumb f--ks".
People go to Google to search for lots of stuff they want to know more about. Movies, sports, homework, whatever. And when they need that particular mouthwash, where do they think of first? Google. And thus the power of AdWords. The habit of general searching causes you to turn to Google when you're seeking a product.
Mark Z is smart, and recognizes this dynamic. So he's trying to create a destination for your search queries. The problem for him is that people already have a habit he needs to break. And what he's offering as an incentive to break it is pretty weak tea. How often will the average user (grandma in Peoria) turn to Graph Search? Not often enough to break her Google habit.
+1 for effort and ambition - but I doubt this is going to be much more than hype.
One of the side effects of people actually using graphsearch would be that businesses need to have more likes than their competitors, to enhance their FB SEO. Therefore, we'll likely see even more FB ads for nearby businesses trying to get you to like their page.
Path: search personal events; discovery via proximity (nearby)
Facebook: search graph events; discovery via common interest
Seems like facebook trying to hone in on cases like dating (discovering people with common interests), and interest discovery (ie, restaurants that others like). Path seems more about making most of personal time (creating life events) in the context of a social environment.
I did discover that it can do delightfully strange things like if you search for "snow" it finds all the moments that happened when it was snowing, even if the moment does not have the word "snow" in it. So it must link location and weather history with moments, which is pretty cool!
So Path has a lot of potential. I think the search interface just needs some work to expose more functionality like Facebook is.
The inbuilt assumption is that people care enough about the data to want to search it frequently and thoroughly. I don't think that is true. Facebook is mostly ephemeral junk data that you don't care about; this has been true ever since they changed their UI to the Twitter-style "what are you thinking right now?" input / streaming.
In order for search to be useful they first have to backtrack heavily on what their entire platform is about. Which would be hard.
Search results respect your privacy settings, whether it's info you’ve shared, or posts with tags of you that others have shared."
My Facebook profile is currently set to not be visible in search, because I don't want people who I didn't explicitly give my Facebook link to be able to find me. Will Facebook continue to respect this setting?
Not sure if is something that adds real value for users. We'll see...
It is possible that FB will "capture" status messages to add to that information. E.g. saying something like "Great Game Of Thrones show today!" will get converted into "like GoT", but it can be difficult, as there are a lot of info that you don't usually comment on Facebook. How many books did you read in your life? Are you listing them all in FB?
I think that anything that needs specific "maintenance" can be difficult to keep up-to-date in the long run, and you'll end with people that liked a group for a couple of years and got tired of, etc...
They know your best friends based on your actions versus who you might list if they asked you who your best friends are -- which might be a more accurate way of figuring it out anyway.
Glad to see natural language interfaces are finally going mainstream.
No, I think they're probably doing proper natural language parsing, and from there hand-coded translation to (their internal version of) FQL.
I wonder how flexible their grammar is. It'll be pretty easy to reverse engineer the techniques they are using by looking at failure modes of parses and how intelligently they correct fall-throughs.
query is term1(person) & term2(person) & term3(person) ...
query :- term1(p), term2(p), term3(p)
So, I can see why advertisers or businesses might like this, and I can see why grudge-holding exes might like this, but I can't really see why I would want to be stalked. Thank god Facebook has such transparent and persistent privacy settings, or I'd really worry!
(yes, this is over the top)
"Facebook is for the all the people you know... Ark is for all the people you should know".
Google started moving towards a more social experience from search engine by adding google plus.
Facebook started move towards a search engine from social experience by adding graph search.
They are definitely lined up to converge at a giant battleground, both coming from opposite sides of the spectrum.
Both will come with different strengths, however, Google's integration of its plus network is FAR superior, both technically, and in the sense of having a plan. Whether we use it or not, it is already stealing data from us, even if we dont know it.
IMO, google has no adversaries. FB is doing this for the fun of it.
In addition to what's been mentioned above, this is the shot across the bow of Google. I suspect Google has better search, but their social graph is much worse. (Google+ is only extensively used by their captive audience) The search on Facebook will get better over time, and they have the better social graph. This also gives them a new "neat" factor that will keep people coming back, especially those bored of seeing cat and children photos from long forgotten friends.
I can't really explain what's going on in their heads… Perhaps I'm just completely out of their target market, who knows.
Interest based social networks will replace the hodge podge of specialty forums using anonymous names you see all over the web.
There are lots of forums (guns, cars, gambling, I.T. security, ...) where people are very careful about what they post.
I think, on the contrary, that with all that push by FaceBook and G+ to try to reduce your anonimity more and more we'll see more and more specialized forum putting an emphasis on anonimity.
I even believe there's a wide open door for a pseudonymous social network. One where people really know each other (you can only add if you know the person in real life) but where it is specifically forbidden to use any real name.
Here is the previous discussion: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4871854
I like the idea of having a query language for facebook data. I just don't like the idea of having any of my things come up in any search. And yes, I quit FB a long time ago, but my spidey sense is tingling that FB didn't quit on my data.
Being able to weight my Google results with demographic or social graph attributes would be more useful for me - especially with purchases.
'restaurants in 10km range popular with 30-40 age professionals'
'most popular cookery books up to 3rd degree connections'
'top movies my close friends watched last week'
The query, at one point, is "People who like Cycling and live in Seattle, Washington" yet the 2nd person "card" clearly states they live in San Francisco, California.
I wonder if this is part of a new strategy of pushing him out to the public a little bit more.
The first step to a Yelp killer? Type in "Italian Restaurant" and get back list of all the restaurants your friends have checked into. A recommendation engine.
For now, its mostly to filter your facebook data. But do you think it can expand and become the goto search engine, ala google?
But I think Facebook overhypes how much people care about their friend's preferences, at least for most things. We generally don't pick friends based on how closely their shopping/eating/whatever habits match ours.
It seems like Facebook and other social networks took the idea of asking your friends for a recommendation on a good doctor or auto shop and twisted it into some overly simplified premise that if one friend likes something, all of my friends will like it too.
Anyway, This reminds me of of the Google+ search by www.findpeopleonplus.com
So I ask, when you have access to Graph Search, what is the first thing you'll do with it?
- "The interface fundamentally determines the behavior" and this thing has a real great interface. I just don't see how this could be integrated into the facebook home screen (newsfeed).
- I wonder how long does it take google to copycat this thing.
I need to permanently move to DuckDuckGo
Back in `05, the facebook would let you search for people by interest, or age, or sex. Can't imagine why they stopped that.