Creating an environment of free information where data flows easily among people is the ultimate promise of the Internet.We share data and information with one another, and, as a result, we increase what we can do as a culture, and what we can do as consumers.But actually, in many cases, this isn’t happening.
Internet search engines like Google (Nasdaq: GOOG) are supposed to enable companies to compete for consumers’ attention and provide “value” without actually having a recognizable brand. The opposite is actually taking place. There is so much information available on the Web -- the end result is a whole lot of useless data. This has led to a “devolution” effect that is actually diminishing the ability of consumers to find useful product information online.
To get a better sense of what’s happening, let’s explore the online car buying experience. What car buyers want online is to be able to find the best deal with an upfront price. In effect, they are saying, “Computer, buy me a car!”
You may never have heard of FreeCarQuotes.net or CarPrices.com, but if you search on Google for new car prices, these sites will pop up in the results.Google is supposed to enable innovators to compete in the car market.The search engine should create an open platform that drives the online marketplace and, hopefully, improves our experience in buying a car.
What’s happening instead is that brands likeFreeCarQuotes aren’t adding value to the consumer; they’re just exploiting the search process by giving the consumer a different way to buy a car, which Google already enables.So instead of creating alignment between what the consumers want and what the car dealers want to offer, some brands are merely creating another clog in the wheel, further frustrating the car buyer’s experience.
Here’s the problem: Car buyers ask for a price online, but they don’t get a price. The car dealers want buyers; instead they get a gobbledygook of customer leads.In a strange way, Google is not enabling innovation when it comes to finding relevant information; it actually stops the natural progress of creativity that the Internet is capable of providing -- hence the devolution effect. Google forces companies to develop monetization strategies that end up cheating the user and stopping innovation.
From an online consumer's perspective, the ultimate goal of the Internet is to transform the buying experience to a transparent, predictable, and pleasurable one. To make that happen, new innovative business models need to be created that bypass the Google paradigm. For example, there should be a transition from pay-per-lead to a pay-per-sale model. This would help create a marketplace where value is created in the alignment between the consumer and the seller.
“Computer, buy me a car” -- now that’s evolution!
— Oded Noy, Chief Technology Officer and co-founder of Zag.com
I think this is the problem faced by every one of us. But we cannot blame the google search engine specially, because all the search engines are like this.I think "semantic web" provides better solution to the problems faced by user. Later generations may get relieved from this hedache of obtaining the required information rather than unusual information, if we strive better for the development of "Semantic web".
The last two comments are getting to the heart of the matter. My intention was not to "rag" on Google, but rather to illustrate possible Evolution areas that the Internet era can provide and that we, as a community of technology innovators, we might be missing.The last comment made a reference to "portals". They are creative ways that entrepreneurs have found to leverage what Google’s contribution to the Evolution process have been exposed in a negative way.Part of the creation of forums like this one, is point in fact to the ability of us – as an intelligent, driven community to reflect upon any phenomena (as creative and as positive as Google is – for one) and identify abnormalities that it generates that are mutations that should be identified and discouraged.
You were accused of 'ranting' against Google with this post, since other search engines produce similar results. I'm going to go a step farther. I think that the problem lies not with the search engines themselves, but with their exploitation by savvy but predatory entrepeneurs. However, with practice and a bit of common sense, it's not usually that hard to spot bogus search results. And there may be room for improvement in the results if some sort of filtering were applied to the search.
To me the most irritating sort of search result (other than the ones that actually harm your computer) is a so-called portal site. These are simply indexes of search results that, if the portals were excluded from the original results. Unfortunately it is not always easy to identify portals from the initial result snippet; it is, on the other hand, almost always easy to identify them when their actual web page comes up.
I hate portals. Why should I have to go through an additional level of search results when the result could appear directly in Google? Software is available to create these portal websites and people create them hoping to get web traffic and possibly click-throughs that may enable them to siphon off a few pennies from the vendors who are trying to get customers to their sites where they are actually selling merchandise. Web hosting companies even promote use of portal software for web sites; their motivation is of course selling more web hosting. I don't blame them but I don't like the expanded access to portal software.
Often, I think, inexperienced Internet users set up a portal as their first web site, because it is so easy. They may even think they are providing some sort of service for those who go through their portal. But I ask what additional value is provided by these intermediary search sites. What do they contribute? It is not additional information. In fact it is nothing, except additional time spent finding the real results.
Google and other search engines return the results that are available. Better, or more accessible, filtering could help the end user. Elimination of portal sites from results would be a wonderful enhancement to searching, but I certainly do not suggest that portals be eliminated by any legislative approach. I'd far sooner put up with what I consider bogus results than have any additional restrictions added to the distribution of information. I believe that all information should be available to everyone, and without tracking. But that discussion is for another day.
Thanks for the friendly banter and the very professional response from you. I'm not a tech savvy guy like you and there are times i get things screwed up just to let people clarify certain issues just like you have done.
If i can understand you well, there is no need to blame searvch engines because they basically display base upon their configuration. So the onus is on the owners of the respective websites to make their website very friendly to the search engines. With this in mind, i'm a little bit confused as to what Oeded Post is dealing with.
In terms of SEM, do you see a pay-per-sale model a feasible alternative? I don't see i working because search engines would not be in a position to guarantee sales and as such such model will yield them minimal ad money.
It's good to be back on he boards and it seems i've been gone for ages taking into consideration how the site has blossom with current internet trends.
First let me say, "Nice to see you back" kind of missed you there
for a while.
Now to answer you, I would try to respond in like fashion. I don't understand
your incessant hatred for Google, that you would describe my objective
statement as a subjective notion of me loving Google? I nether love nor hate
Google but was just positing a counter point to an article. I'm not assuming
that Google is perfect nor will I waste my time trying to defend such clam.
Paul, I think I do have enough intellectual capability to know the purpose
of this forum, and please next time when passing judgment on people, be careful
not to make the same mistake you're castigating the other person for, 'cause it
renders your point mute and irrelevant.
Search engine optimization (SEO) and search engine marketing (SEM) are two
very different thing. Simply put, SEO deals with building a website that is
search engine friendly. A well coded site with
well planed architectural and hierarchical layout gives you a solid premise on
which to build semantic web structure with high integrity, this naturally leads
to higher page ranking. While SEM deals with paying search engines
for placement when spesific keywords or key-phrase are searched for. Like I
said before, I hardly click on paid ads, because, most often they are irrelevant
to my search.
Anyway, thanks for the callout. I guess I might have
to make some time to write an article on SEO, because I can sense lot of
ambiguity out there.
I really don't understand your incessant love for Google that you could describe a 'friendly' post like this one as a rant. We know very well that Google is powerful, innovative and successful but that does not rule the fact that even the best needs improvement. There is room for improvement and it's the purpose of this forum to discuss current and future trends that will make our internet experience both memorable and worthwhile.
I don't see the post as an accusation against Google but rather calling for a new model in online advertising that will make search engines optimised their current operation. Companies are employing various models like pay-per-click, pay-per-deal and pay-per-sale. The author of the post was simplying suggesting that a pay-per-sale model will force search engines to upgrade their present indexing. Whether this is technolgically possible is debatable but this is the reason we are on this site. So do you think a pay-per-sale model is the ideal model for all those involve in the process?
is a little bit like trying to count the instances of the word 'and' in a full set of encyclopedias. It will find some on a page that talks about cars, no doubt, but it may be found on pages that are not related to a car at all.
I am sure this is an extreme example, and it certainly does not represent the algorhythms which make up googles page rank system, or likely any other significant search engine for that matter.
It is certainly a good point that a newspaper ad does not always get results either. Are we to blame the loggers that cut down the trees that make the paper that the newsprint is made from?
To me that is how distinct the disparity is between buying a car, and doing research about what cars may interest me.
As a consumer I need to research quite a while before making a major purchase. I certainly don't expect to have all my answers in the top 10 google results. But if I don't, google is not to blame in my book.
I think Mr. Roques has a good point. Google mainly uses its "PageRank" algorithm for the search results with some text-matching techniques. But how exactly Google does it or what exactly it uses in the search algorithm is pretty much only known to Google. Ideally, the PageRank based algorithm should be "fair" but we're living in a real world where nothing is perfect, and I think Google and other search engine service providers are well aware of the search engine optimization (or SEO) issue that leaves gaps for exploitation. So, as Mr. Roques pointed out, blaming it all on Google isn't exacly right.
Also, as it seems, search results don't stay the same. I just tried search on Google for new car prices, and FreeCarQuotes.net didn't pop up in the top 20 results (at least).
I also have a few questions I would like to ask:
1./ What exactly do you mean by "the natural progress of creativity that the Internet is capable of providing"?
2./ I'm not sure I understand when you said "Google is not enabling innovation..."; How is a search engine company like Google enabling "innovation" through the search results? Are you suggesting that a product search query via Google's search engine should return results listing companies that provide relevant and innovative products or services? In that case, how would Google know which of the companies' products or services are actually innovative?
3./ And lastly, to make the case for Google's devolution effect, do you have any other examples apart from the online car buying experience?
What a good example! Each time a friend of mine searches Google for
"toyota" (looking for used cars), he ends up following a link to a site
that tries to install spyware or other benign junk on his system. My
solution for him was to simply stop searching for cars. Another good
use of the internet ruined! - Michael
Yeah I agree with Michael. Just stop. I just recently had a trojan attack which halted my PC operation because I was searching for car models and I ended up reformatting my PC because of these spywares that automatically pops up and then installs. What a crap.
hmmm, I see... This is just another rant against a successful and innovative company. Anyway, I don't know how much you know about the Google indexing algorithm... Study shows that 90% of those searching the web don't click on the top or side placed ads. Personally, 99.9% of the time I never click on the placed ads when I search.
Google, is a powerful search tool, and with that tool, I search the internet, and deside for myself what site I want to do business with, not based on Google's recommendation. I'm having a hard time see the validity of your Google accusation.
Internet Evolution RSS Updates Want to stay up to date on the topics covered in this article? Use the links below to subscribe to our topical RSS feeds:
The ThinkerNet does not reflect the views of TechWeb. The ThinkerNet is an informal means of communication to members and visitors of the Internet Evolution site. Individual authors are chosen by Internet Evolution to blog. Neither Internet Evolution nor TechWeb assume responsibility for comments, claims, or opinions made by authors and ThinkerNet bloggers. They are no substitute for your own research and should not be relied upon for trading or any other purpose.
Web
2.0 is both a data-mining goldmine and a nightmare. While it provides a valuable environment of consumer-generated data
and media, it's hard to
consume this information in a meaningful way without getting overloaded with noise.
Virtualization and Web services: This innovative combination is creating an evolution of flexibility and efficiency that far transcends just running applications. Now, a small group of concentrated IT administrators are able to control an enormous amount of network activities and applications from a single management console. But there's a catch.
Smarter Collaboration: How to Thrive in a Challenging Business Environment Market conditions are changing faster than ever, and organizations need to improve their agility and adaptability in order to provide better service and improve processes. The ability to work with customers, business partners, and employees as effectively as possible - while at the same time holding down costs - is a key to success. READ THIS eBOOK
your weekly update of news, analysis, and
opinion from Internet Evolution - FREE! REGISTER HERE
Wanted! Site Moderators Internet Evolution is looking for a handful of readers to help moderate the message boards on our site – as well as engaging in high-IQ conversation with the industry mavens on our thinkerNet blogosphere. The job comes with various perks, bags of kudos, and GIANT bragging rights. Interested?
To save this item to your list of favorite Internet Evolution content so you can find it later in your Profile page, click the "Save It" button next to the item.
In the final episode of this series about the death of Internet anonymity, Saunders describes how the Internet of the future will start to attain a level of intelligence that requires no human intervention. Scary.
What can users today do to protect their online privacy? The simplest and most obvious option is to not use the Internet – at all. However, once all digital information is consolidated over the Internet, trying to protect digital identity by simply unplugging from the Internet becomes impossible – a fact that has manifest implications for civil liberties, Saunders says.
By 2011 the number of Internet-connected sensors will exceed 1 trillion, making your chances of doing anything or going anywhere unnoticed pretty much zero. Saunders talks about how the 'sensortization' of the Internet is eliminating the traditional divide between online and offline populations.
The 20th Century Internet was characterized by the ability to interact with other people and information on the Internet largely without anyone knowing who you were. The Internet of this century, conversely, will be defined by identity. Saunders explains how Internet users are unwittingly contributing to the demise of the anonymous Internet.
Steve Saunders talks about the risks inherent in uncontrolled, widespread profiling of Internet users, and how one day this practice could form the basis of a new industry, the Outernet, which in economic terms will have outgrown the commercial value of the Internet itself.
Search companies and social networks are collecting incredibly detailed information about their users, says Steve Saunders, who predicts that these 'profiles' could one day become commodities to be bought and sold by companies on 'profile markets' or 'identity exchanges’ – the digital DNA equivalents of the financial and commodities exchanges on which stocks, oil, and gold are traded.
One of the most important Internet issues of all time is being ignored by the media. In this three-part video series Steve Saunders explains how search companies are turning the tables on their users by creating user profiles for financial gain, and how soon this trend will explode into full scale profiling.
The Google backlash continues. After seeing their Project 10^100 submissions disappear into the bowels of a Google server farm, a group of irate developers has started their own site to re-collect and vote on the ideas.
The big news at the Web 2.0 Summit was that Twitter partnered with Google and Bing, enabling the search engines to show Tweets in search results. This couldn't possibly be less interesting.
Is there such a thing as complete anonymity on the Internet? It is something of a philosophical question, but the consensus among experts seems to be 'No.' However, there are degrees of anonymity, which might be more practical for most people – and more necessary than ever before.
A digital content market is emerging. Only two things are known about it: the first is that at some point the Internet will primarily become a paid network. The second known factor is that there are innumerable variables in the digital content market that have yet to be worked out. It’s not known, for example, exactly how users will pay for content (micropayments, subscriptions, bartering of farm animals, other).
The Google backlash continues. After seeing their Project 10^100 submissions disappear into the bowels of a Google server farm, a group of irate developers has started their own site to re-collect and vote on the ideas.
The government secrets of UFOs are hidden in Area 51, so where are the secrets of net neutrality hidden, Area 52? Nope, they're hidden in Paragraph 148 – and they're a lot more substantive than UFOs!
Routesy is an iPhone application that uses the phone’s GPS to let the user know where and when the next train or bus is coming. The application’s developer, Steven Peterson, talks about why a mobile application makes sense, especially given that this transportation information is already available on the Web.
Executives from all backgrounds are modifying their best practices to connect stakeholders to all points of their businesses. In this section, we will explore how the supply chain industry is changing with the times.
Techies have been going crazy over the pending release of Nokia's N900 cellular phone, which incorporates a newly revised touch-screen operating system. Reiter's got one. Is the craziness justified?
Bad news! By eliminating the world’s digital divide we’re likely to create a new divide: the information divide, where we end up creating a two-tier Internet where access to 'quality' content is controlled and charged for by mega-corporations, and the gulf between information haves and have-nots is entirely dependent on how much money they have. This is, of course, an almost exact inversion of the current situation on the Internet – where access is expensive and content is free.
As enterprises leap into the Web 2.0 world of blogging, commenting, and social networking, just 'being there' won't deliver ROI. You may want a 'Web Evangelist' to systematically harvest the feedback in order to polish your product or service.
Digg
Del.icio.us
Reddit
Email This
TWEET THIS
