Burden of Truth

Wednesday, August 13, 2003

A TURNING POINT IN SEARCH ENGINE HISTORY?

1. A History Lesson

Consider the following quotes:

"But the company lost its way through repeated restructuring exercises and diversification." - The Times

"But there are some ominous signs out there, AV had been my primary choice for search since Digital rolled it out -I gave up on it a few weeks ago and switched to a collage of engines, with Google being first, AV second, etc., etc... Today, Brett posts that he had come to the same decision -to move on. How many more of us have just finally said "Enough!" and reluctantly chosen to leave an old workhorse that's come up lame? " - RC Jordan April 2000

"I think that the problem for AV stems from the fact that it seems to have taken it's eye off the ball.... some time back it seems to have forgotten that it was a search engine, first and last." - Napoleon, Feb 25 2001

"I received some feedback from correspondents on this issue and soon discovered that Altavista was no longer the mechanically objective tool that I once faithfully relied upon. As I surfed the new Altavista site, it was a little like experiencing the death of a friend. Companies can now purchase "relevant keyword result placements" that are sold via online auction." - Spies.Com

These all pertain to the decline of AltaVista of course. The question is, how many of these are starting to look applicable to Google at present?

2. Google Today

It's actually quite alarming. A search engine lives and dies by its quality, its focus and its reputation for objectivity.

All three of these have recently been challenged:

1) Quality
With the recent strangling of returns in some sectors by Amazon, PDFs, and so on, countless people, even on this board, are bemoaning a drastic reduction in quality. Other problems are also contributing to this, such as the 'missing index' phenomena

2) Focus
Google has its fingers in a growing number of pies... importantly, direct earning pies: Adwords, Adsense, etc. The diversification is stark and clear, giving the impression to many that, as quoted above, the company may be "taking its eye of the ball".

3) Objectivity
The allegations that somehow Google has a financial arrangement with Amazon are actually likely continue whilst the current status quo is maintained. Worrying for Google, this accusation may not remain on the fringes.

All this of course comes soon after a period of substantial instability due to the implementation of new technology.

3. Google Tomorrow

The question therefore becomes: are we at a turning point in search engine history? Has the decline of Google, which some view as inevitable, already started?

Of course, it's a very difficult question to answer... but there ARE signs

a) Consolidation

The consolidation in the industry certainly indicates that challengers are labouring up and preparing. Yahoo certainly, via acquisition. Microsoft via statement of intent. These and others are clearly developing a strategy to compete more effectively.

b) Google's Self Inflicted Damage

It never ceases to amaze how organizations fail to study the history of their own industry and learn from it. Search engine after search engine have trodden the same path to oblivion.

That path is loosely described above, and the signs over several months are that Google may be taking those first fateful steps. The current quality issue is a matter of fact. The index instability is a matter of fact. The diversification is a matter of fact.

Now look at AltaVista for example... we've seen much of this before.

4. Public Perception

Public perception is ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL to a search engine company. Unlike most other products and services, consumers can switch supplier freely and easily. If the public believe that results are somehow flawed, 'broken' or fixed in some way, they will switch. If they believe that a search engine is going down hill, and better returns can be found elsewhere, they will also switch.

Unfortunately, Google has been dicing with public perception for some time, perhaps riding the temporary situation of no obvious major challenger to the limits. This clearly cannot continue indefinitely.

The importance of webmasters in this scenario should not be underestimated. These are movers and shakers in the industry... major influencers. Some of the recent threads on this board demonstrate beyond doubt how webmaster perception has already started to shift.

Twelve months ago, Google was almost universally seen as infallible. Criticism was rare, heavy criticism almost unheard of. No more. Thread after thread is full of criticisms of Google quality. It is also generally believed that Google has had a series of bugs, some of which remain unfixed.

Despite GoogleGuy's best efforts (he's a Google Rep on the board), this is a seed change, and one which will have wider fallout in time.

To some degree Google is lucky that the main competitors are not yet ready for the challenge. That could change very quickly indeed though, and in my opinion at least, Google should be looking to manage perception a little more pro-actively.

Someone much wiser than me once said something like "It takes a lifetime to build a reputation, and minutes to lose one". If I was Google, I would take that to heart.

5. Neo: "I Don't Believe in that Fate Crap"

Neither do I. The ball is in play, and Google still has possession. Although significant medium term damage has already occurred, which will take a lot of effort to recover, Google can still shape the future if it reacts quickly enough to the warnings.

This latter point is the crux. Time is a commodity that will run down for the company sooner than it realizes if it fails to respond. Short terms measures for me would be: Beef up the QA department, sort out the current index (eg: Amazon), repair all the bugs (eg: index) and important... BE SEEN TO DO THIS.

Medium term (weeks not months) would be to create a strategy to grasp the initiative in terms of PR and perception. Explain a little more about the technological improvements (duel edged sword I know), herald the QA improvements (as just referenced), etc etc.

If they do nothing, but simply continue as they have been, by the time they IPO they will already be seen as an ailing company.

It's in their own hands.... and I for one hope they read it correctly. However, ultimately, they are likely have the future they deserve.

MESSAGE BOARDS AND CENSORSHIP

The item above was originally posted on a well known webmaster message board. It was immediately criticised (without rationale) by a 'moderator', and within 24 hours, was removed.

Interestingly, it had already received a substantial amount of positive feedback in its thread, and the author had received a steady flow of congratulatory emails.

Why was it removed? I offer no explanation... but it does make you think about what drives these boards.

posted by Art Saturn [5:20 AM]

Saturday, August 02, 2003

YAHOO'S INHERITANCE

For me, the pending purchase of Overture by Yahoo is most interesting not because of the Pay Per Click (PPC) aspect, but for what else comes with it.

Yes, Yahoo will have its own PPC delivery system at a stroke. That fact alone though doesn't necessarily change the Yahoo onsite search landscape (although it may do so at MSN of course). The most interesting aspect is actually that Overture own Alta Vista and FAST, two substantial and highly respected search engines in their own right.

This gives Yahoo a set of three, because they already own Inktomi.

Three into one doesn't go, so the first big question is which search engine, or combination of search engines, Yahoo will use when it eventually gets to grips with all this technology, and uses it to replace Google (surely inevitable, given that Google is certainly seen as a competitor nowadays).

That's too difficult to call, but equally, what about the future of these engines, either as stand alone entities, or as providers for other portals? Will Yahoo merge them in some way, or simply replace one or even two of them? Of course there could be a degree of media management downstream, as they close one down, but with slight technical change to give the impression of merger.

All very murky and difficult to read. However, I would suggest that the likelihood of all three being maintained is quite low. I hope I'm wrong.

posted by Art Saturn [4:35 PM]

ALL'S WELL THAT ENDS WELL?

Well I'm back to the blog. I wish I could say that I had been on holiday, but I haven't. Instead I've been caught up in the stormy waters of Google, Summer 2003.

Anyone reading this log will understand that Google strayed from the norm a few months ago. The predictable monthly update never arrived. Instead, we were treated to a sequence of events that had many webmasters tearing their hair out. First there was the inactivity phase: new sites were simply not being collected, recorded, and displayed as expected.

Bad enough? It got worse!

Phase two included the 'missing index file' phenomena. For their main search terms (eg: company name) countless sites were AWOL - they didn't appear. Yes, there were common features to identify these sites, the most consistent being that they were under 2 years old. However, the impact was serious for most of those effected. Changes to content and link structure made little short term difference.

Serious webmasters of course analyzed this very closely. Even so, no consensus materialized. Camps were divided even at the high level plateau of whether this was actually an error, or a filter (algorithmic change). Evidence was substantial on both sides, which made the situation even more difficult to assess.

Then suddenly, Google changed again. The high quality of the search returns was re-established. Things seemed to resemble normality: companies appeared on their company names again; index pages appeared for searches as opposed to privacy statement pages; etc. Google was top of the SE pile again, almost at a stroke.

Unfortunately this didn't resolve all the ongoing disputes: Was it an error that had been fixed? Or was it a deliberate filter that had been withdrawn? If it was the latter of course.... it may re-appear again in the future!

I still believe though, on balance, that it was indeed caused by new technology related glitches. Somehow, I doubt we will ever know for certain.

posted by Art Saturn [4:33 PM]