Google's bad idea of personalizing search results!

I admire and respect Google only for one reason - they made it very easy for me to find the information I want, when I want it, as quickly as possible. If what I search for is available on the World Wide Web, Google gets it for me. I am stuck to Google ever since I started using Computer and Internet only for this reason. I won't mind even if Google takes all the other services it offers away. But I can't think of internet without Google, simply because I have learned many things after Google came along.

Search is the core of what ever Google does and they seem to be very proud about that. Personalized Search Result  is one of the key Google Search Features the company flaunts. Day before yesterday, Google announced that they are taking personalized search a step further by converting it into Personalized Search for Everyone. This is what I read on the Company Blog:

Today we're helping people get better search results by extending Personalized Search to signed-out users worldwide, and in more than forty languages. Now when you search using Google, we will be able to better provide you with the most relevant results possible.Previously, we only offered Personalized Search for signed-in users, and only when they had Web History enabled on their Google Accounts. What we're doing today is expanding Personalized Search so that we can provide it to signed-out users as well. This addition enables us to customize search results for you based upon 180 days of search activity linked to an anonymous cookie in your browser. It's completely separate from your Google Account and Web History (which are only available to signed-in users).

I like the idea of Google trying everything they can to get me the best result possible. However from the way Google explains the new Personalization Feature with an example, I think it is such a Bad Idea and a total waste of Google's time and computer resources. Following is how Google explains their way of Personalization:

For example, since I always search for [recipes] and often click on results from epicurious.com, Google might rank epicurious.com higher on the results page the next time I look for recipes. Other times, when I'm looking for news about Cornell University's sports teams, I search for [big red]. Because I frequently click on www.cornellbigred.com, Google might show me this result first, instead of the Big Red soda company or others.

Let me give you another example. When I search for Scocial Networking using Google, let us say I come across Facebook. I visit Facebook and I like it. Now, I visit the site a couple of times using Google. My problem is, if Google is going to put that result on the top just because I visited Facebook  couple of times from Google, then what about the other Social Networking Services? What if some one comes up with something better than Facebook and just because Google has put my favorite Facebook first the new guy gets pushed to the second page where I never go? I say pushed back because  the first ten results on the page are going to be in the order of my clicking frequency.

Lets not talk about Facebook. Let us say I want to know more about Social Networking. Google gets me ten great articles on the first page. I like all of them and I keep going back to read them. What if a new guy comes up with something better on Social Networking? How will I know, if Google puts where I go often first?

Is not Google reducing their Search Engine into a Bookmarking Engine by adding this sort of Personalization where what you click often appears first? I thought Google's way of intelligently understanding what I look for should mean much more than that!

[I have no issues with them using information on what I search to help advertisers target me. Since they give me the search result for free, they might as well make some money out of the advertisers using information about what I do on their site.]

Update: I was just thinking - what if Google puts the list of sites I click often when I search something just below the space available in that corner where they put sponsored links? How useful it will be if they do that, if the sites I have already visited are separated from the sites I have not!

Happy News Bloggers: Mr. Murdoch will charge for online content from next year!

Rupert Murdoch is an old man now. 78 years old. As an old man, may be he has lost that spark which saw him rise to the position of the media emperor he is today. Perhaps, that is the reason why he has announced the most uncharming business decision of his career the day before yesterday- a decision to make all his news sites available only to users who pay, from next year.

He said, :"Quality journalism is not cheap,..The digital revolution has opened many new and inexpensive distribution channels but it has not made content free. We intend to charge for all our news websites."

You should read people's reaction to that. Many reacted as though, it is not a big deal and they consider News Corps news sites as crap. Most of them said they don't care as they are not going to pay to read his sites anyway. News Analysers sounded very disappointed that a person like Murdoch took such a naive decision. Stories ran on blogs and technology review sites on how this decision is all about News Corps digging its own grave. Journalists are wondering how and why this is too risky for nothing. One reviewer even went to the extent of saying only Apple can save newspapers.

Is Murdoch serious about what he said or was he just testing the waters? True, his business ventures reported a net loss of $ 3.4 Billion this fiscal year. True, recession is at its best and on-line advertisement revenue is dipping. True, Wall Street Journal, a paid news site from Murdoch is doing relatively well and has users paying to read news. But, is he serious? Or was he, as I said, just testing the waters? Or, was it just a sudden outburst of frustration? May be, it was all the three put together.

Why do I say that? I think Murdoch is missing a key point here. On-line content is just a tool. I don't believe that Internet is all about Information. Internet is about advertisements. Certain products are just tools to sell certain other products. Why do Google let me search for free? Why does Google or Wordpress permit me to upload content on my blog for free? Why do social communities allow me in for free? Why are there many sites that give me many of their services for free? Why are open source applications free? Why is the news free, after all? I think these things are free because they want me to stick around as long as possible. You stick around so that you buy something, sooner or later.

 This is not a new business model. In India we have temples and churches organizing festivals around their theme of worship. They spend a lot of money, organizing a fare, staging plays or other performances by professional artists etc. These religious festivals last for five to ten days. The plays or other performances go well into midnights. You don't pay anything to watch a play during the festival. Why do they do it for free? Because, they know that people who come to the festival will visit the temple or church to pray. But the few coins they offer when they pray is not the target! People come to these festivals to set up stalls that sell from glass bangles to kitchenware. They pay lovely loads of cash to people who run the temple or church as rent for these five to ten days. In fact, there are groups of people in India, who travel from one festival spot to another and make a decent living!

To me, Internet sounds like a temple or church festival. And people who make content available or provide spaces for people to meet are like the Temple or Church Committee Members. They run the show. Sites like Murdoch's or Google's or Facebook's or Twitter's are these plays or performances staged during this Big Bang Festival called Internet. People come to the festival, because these performances are for free. And as they come, some of them, sooner or later most of them, will buy from the people who set up stalls in Google's or Murdoch's or Facebook's or Twitter's premises.

What happens if Murdoch makes his sites 'pay-per-click' as he says? May be there are going to be people who are willing to pay like there are people to read Wall Street Journal. But imagine the number of people who would have read Wall Street Journal, if it was available for free?

And if Murdoch is going to hide his content behind the 'paywalls', what about those people who hit the search engines for anything and everything? Google, Bing and Yahoo! If they won't have traces of Murdoch's Sites, won't he disappear from the minds of people gradually? This is why I said, Murdoch's announcement is happy news to Bloggers.

I am sure he will not hide all his content behind the paywalls. He will float enough summary of news stories around to make sure that he is on search engines. May be he will enter into deals with Search Engines to make sure that he is there, when people search. But even then,, it is happy news for bloggers!

Experts say that about 90% of his traffic will die because of this decision. Let Murdoch take his ten percent! Where will the rest go? The rest will trun to sites that make content available for free. I think, if Murdoch will implement his decision, there is going to be an increase in traffic to blogs we have around. Is this not happy news bloggers?

Image from Wikipedia

OneLook: Meanings from everywhere!

I agree. There is nothing better than Google Definition Search when it comes to finding the meaning of a word. Type "Define" and the word Google will find the meaning out for you. Type "~" and the word, Google will find synonyms for you. This is one feature I use usually, as I am often short of words or find it difficult to understand some words. However, like I said in one of my posts earlier, Google has a structural limitation which sometimes makes it difficult to understand the word I want to understand. Google, as I understand, gleans meanings automatically and sometimes this makes it give you only half of the definition. What do I do with half of a definition? Obviously, I have to look elsewhere for the meaning. Now, how do I decide where I look from the hundred thousands of links Google gives me? That's how I stumbled upon OneLook.

OneLook is an Answer Engine. I think they link to Digital Dictionaries from every nook and corner of the world, gather meaning when you ask and present in a very structured manner. [So Wolfram|Alpha is not the first one to do that?] It gives you a categorized list of links so that you can look up the meaning based on what Category you have in mind. For example you search the word 'Home' The word 'Home' means different things in sports and computers. So when OneLook gives you the list and links to different dictionaries you can search based on what you have in mind at that point of time. If you have sports in your mind you can click on links under Sports Category. If you have computer in your mind, you can click on links under Computer Category.

The best thing I liked about OneLook is, whenever and where ever possible they give you the meanings. On one side of the search page they usually have Quick Definitions. These definitions come with sentences to show you how they are used in different contexts. Sometimes they give you a link to how the word is pronounced and sometimes how the word originated. They also have, usually, a list of similar words.