My Problem with Focus on the User and Making Google Relevant [Long]
24 Jan
There’s absolutely no excuse and no reason as to why they don’t include Twitter (or Facebook for that matter) profile results in their new Search+ social areas.
I have been reading with interest, and a bit of disgust, the story about Google revamping their search results to include Google+ profile pages above other content. Like the stories about the many failure of Android, it’s a story that I kind of wish would go away, but people are very persistent about it. Yesterday, Focus on the User released a bookmarklet called “Don’t Be Evil” that circumvents the new changes in Google Search+ to show more relevant links. It was developed by a team from Facebook, Twitter, and MySpace.
From their site:
We created a tool that uses Google’s own relevance measure—the ranking of their organic search results—to determine what social content should appear in the areas where Google+ results are currently hardcoded.
They may be attempting to create more relevant results, but its more relevant by their standards, not mine. I actually believe Google is on the right path with their changes. The problems with Google’s approach have been outlined extensively already (look at Techmeme to catchup), but I have yet to see anyone attempt to defend the changes. I would like to try.
The two primary issues that I have seen with Search+ have been:
1) It promotes Google products ahead of other web results
2) It excludes profiles from Twitter, Facebook, and other socially relevant sites.
Here is John Gruber at Daring Fireball:
I think their decision to artificially promote Google Plus pages above more relevant pages on competing social networks is the modern-day equivalent of the ’90s era search engines turning their homepages into “portals”. A search engine should be designed to send users quickly and accurately away to whatever sites on the Internet they’re looking for. The ’90s-era search engine portals blew this, because the whole portal idea was to keep users on their sites rather than send them away. This Google Plus integration is the same thing — an attempt to keep users on Google.com for another page view or two.
If I didn’t celebrate John Gruber like a God, I’d call this bullshit, so I’ll stick to calling it bull.
I would argue that the purpose of the Internet is to find and share stuff – by searching for it, reading what someone shares, sending to others via email, sharing it on YouTube, etc. Most people are rather proud of their stuff and like to share it frequently, make it accessible to be discovered, and want it to be shared with others. Most will not be happy if they only share only one item in their life time, and that compels them to keep creating and wanting to get discovered.
This goes from small-time bloggers who are concerned about Bounce Rate Times and number of page views, to larger corporate sites.
People want their stuff discovered, because they want to make money or feel good about the number of people reading or commenting on their stuff.
It’s a game that has been played on the Internet since the time of gopher, to the competitive nature of hackers putting their names into their torrent files, to the SEO games on websites. Google has been participating in this game for a long time now before Search+, as has Facebook, Myspace, Twitter, etc.
If you think about the number of services Google provides, its aim is to keep you using Google products to help them build revenue streams. The Google bar, Android, Gmail, Google Docs, Google+, Google Voice, and so on. The same strategy is going on at Facebook with their building in search results (via Bing), incorporating Skype, Messenger on phones, shared group documents, and rumours of them developing a phone. Neither Facebook or Google want you leaving the site to play on Twitter instead, especially now that Twitter has started to monetize the site – it’s no longer an innocent pre-teen cousin that it was five years ago.
To me, Search+ is disrupting search to steer it in a new direction given the challenges it’s currently facing with Facebook and Twitter. In order for Google to stay relevant, it needed a social tool, because as people keep harping “social is the new search.” People are more likely to discover new products and services more through social media than they do through regular searches in the near future, if they aren’t already.
Flipping the switch on a new social playground is not enough to get people over there, however. The reason why people switch or start using a new service is because it’s relevant to them – they have friends or colleagues already there, it’s within their niche (musicians on Soundcloud). Last summer, people didn’t have much motivation to want to switch over to Google+.
Now, they do, if they want their stuff and the stuff they want to share to be easily discoverable. Once people catch wind that their profiles will be displayed closer to the top or on the side, and links that they share will appear if the user has them circled, they will have more reason to complete their Google+ profile and be more active on the site.
If Google had incorporated the Twitter and Facebook profiles at the top, there would be no point in using Google+.
This also raises the question of relevancy of Focus on the User’s results. Not all Facebook profiles have adjusted their privacy settings to be able to subscribe to them, or have enough of a profile filled out to give you enough information about that person. Twitter profiles only display one link, if any, and then you have to filter through the tweets to find the relevant information you’re after. Is either solution ideal? Not really.
Choice would be nice for those that want it. A better option is to see how Search+ continues to improve in displaying its results over the next six months. Google+ has made some significant changes to improve its performance and usability, I’m sure there will be a similar level of improvement with Search+.
Back to MG Siegler’s statement at the start about there not being a reason for Google not to include Facebook and Twitter in their search results.
If Twitter ended their deal for instant access to the “firehose” of tweets, and Facebook has chosen Bing as its search engine of choice within Facebook, why would Google want to give preference for their competitors? Why is it Google’s problem to come up with a solution on how to include Twitter’s public tweets into search results, instead of people asking Twitter to open it back up? Why don’t people push Facebook to include Google results instead of Bing if Google is the search engine with the most relevant results?
I happen to enjoy the look of Search+ and I have been happily surprised when I come across some older links that have been shared by my friends on Google+ as I search for stuff. It’s the sort of thing that doesn’t show up in Facebook search, and definitely not in Twitter unless I search for a specific user (Twitter could have the option to display results from people you Follow or your Followers).
I’m not going to use the “Don’t Be Evil” bookmarklet. I want to give social search a fair chance.






















