How Facebook Could Beat Google | Hacker News Reader

How Facebook Could Beat Google

wired.com

37 pointssvag27 comments

Some tech pundits foresee a Facebook future where friend recommendations replace search

I don't even understand how anyone can think this would be useful.

Would it be helpful when shopping for a new phone to know if my "friends" have had better experience with Android or an iPhone? Sure.

But will a friend's recommendations help me find driving directions to a location, or help me search for the answer to an elusive error message from a piece of software I'm using, or help me find out more information on a historic event or disease I want to learn more about?

How often are these "tech pundits" correct in their prognostications anyway?

I think my friends recommendation to rank the serp if done intelligently would be great.

The confusion of all these journalists lies in the fact that Google and Facebook are direct competitors because they both are advertising companies based on data. But they both have fairly different usage scenarios so you'd say that they are in partial competition like fast food being sold in a theme park and a fast food company that does deliveries to homes and offices. But maybe it's not that distinct; I suppose the product recommendation engine could go beyond your local graph into friends of friends so that you can see what SLR camera your "greater tribe" has been most satisfied with, see what they said about it and see some of their photos they've taken with it. But am I going to really be swayed by this vs. an Anandtech style SSD review or a camcorderinfo.com one[1]? I think not. Maybe for something I don't care much about and wish I could care less about, like clothes, I could be swayed. But as soon as Amazon has a system where I can send in all my measurements and then browse appropriate stuff from home and set up "manpacks" style periodic deliveries I doubt I will step foot in another clothes store again. As I understand it, that's pretty much in development right now. And as you say, Google is organising the world's information well beyond products. I share your disappointment in these tech pundits, but even HN returns to them constantly like moths to a flame.

[1] some of these reviews are seriously impressive in their depth vs CNET "senior" editors (btw has anyone ever actually seen a non-"senior" CNET editor?) http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/Canon-HF-S100-Camcorder...

I think cameras are a great example.

I don't care what my "greater tribe" thinks of a camera. Why should I?

What difference could it possibly make - unless I'm a moron who needs to be seen carrying the same camera as Bob-the-cool-guy?

Even more, only a dull minority of modern people have only one "tribe". I might share a friendship with one group of people based on a single interest and another group based on another and the two groups only marginally intersect. I was impressed that a member of my martial arts group brought a camera to video our practice group. But I have no reason to think he actually knows more about cameras than the average camera using person and I didn't ask his advice in buying a camera when I did buy one (I bought my camera used off craiglist after Googling up some reviews - basically finding the cheapest item that satisfied my needs).

Friend's suggestions are highly valued, especially for large ticket tech items where the options are endless and often seemingly the same. Those who are not tech-savvy have no idea what model camera, monitor, computer etc to buy. My family is always asking my advice for these things, and I'm sure if Facebook released some kind of recommended-by-your-friends product search they'd take it to quickly. Variety and freedom of choice is not always seen as a good thing, in those areas where someone has little experience of purchase.

That is because you probably think that most people are like you and me. Interested in the internet.

That is not the case. Most people are interested in stuff like mountain biking, kayaking, photography, cooking, their friends, partying and so on. They couldn't care less where they get their information from. They are in that regards, lemmings. They don't even know that they can search for an answer to an elusive error message. Hell they don't even know what it is.

Google couldn't survive on google maps alone so if they loose the preferred search "war" they are in deep trouble.

Also mind you that Facebook is capable of delivering far more precisely targeted advertising in context of not only your interest, but your current situation at any given day (at least potentially)

It's easy to think that the rest of the world thinks like us, but they don't.

Case in pint. The recent skype re-design that drew a lot of bad reviews are all made by techies with at least a hundred skype contacts.

Yet 90% of people on skype have 5 contacts, 95% use the message window to write "Can I call you"

So all in all I would say that Facebook is in great shape to compete with Google. It's not made for the 20% but the 80%.

This "people are sheeple" position is quite widely held but didn't actually serve old media. The rise Google has involved a move from advertising based on "tempting the unthinking masses" to advertising based on giving a mass of individuals the information they seek.

Old media grew wealthy on emotional, image-based advertising while neglecting informational advertising. Sure, the people interested in biking, kayaking or photography might not be terribly competent with computers but the rise of Google has demonstrated that more and more these people are after the objectively best product and less-and-less a product that their friends, their tribe or their favorite celebrity endorses (this does vary a lot by product category but its hard to find a hi-tech product people buy only for the image). Google has found a way to give them some rough approximation of the objective information they seek.

Average people are certainly also entertained by chatting with their friends on Facebook. Does that mean they'll go back to consuming based on emotional advertising? I don't think so.

The proof is in the Facebook ad conversion rate. Tell me when it gets up to Google levels.

I am not saying that people are sheep.

I am saying that when it comes to choice of search engine, most people didn't actually choose google. Most people don't even know what google really is, they just use it because that's what is used.

The rise of google have have demonstrated nothing but network effects (which isn't exactly based on objective choice)

People don't use google because google is the best search engine, they use it because it's the most used. Just as people don't use FaceBook because it's the best social network but because it's what most of their friends are on.

The average time spent on Facebook is actually increasing which means less time is spent in google land and this will sooner or later hurt Googles add revenue.

We also haven't seen the effect of companies moving their main communication onto Facebook. But it seems pretty plausible it will happen.

Facebook ad conversion rate has nothing to do with whether facebook will end up taking large parts of the search market from google.

People don't search because of the ads, they search despite them.

> "Would it be helpful when shopping for a new phone to know if my "friends" have had better experience with Android or an iPhone? Sure."

Even if that is the case for some people (not me), I'd be really surprised if people start shopping for a phone by going to facebook. It just won't happen.

People go to a search engine (google) to find stuff. They go to facebook to communicate with friends, waste time, play games, share social stuff. The intent simply isn't there on facebook.

And this is where people in the power user group always miss the boat. We have different sites for different things, and the overlap is minimal to nonexistent. This isn't true for most people.

It's been said google is the homepage of the internet.. Well, facebook is quickly becoming that to a growing group of people. If people can get a good recommendation for a phone from the website they're already on, they sure as hell are going to use it. If people can get "recommendations" for a website for whatever they're looking for, you'd be foolish to think they aren't going to use it.

Why is it that Mozilla is sustained by having a little search box on the browser? People use it 'cause it's there.

I disagree. Non tech people I know wouldn't use facebook for anything other than 'friends/photos/games'.

That's because those options aren't there yet. I'd be genuinely suprised if there became such an option and it wasn't successful. Don't you get asked for recommendations on tech purchases by your lesser-techy friends/family? Where is the difference? People also like to buy what the majority is buying as it is viewed as stable. Facebook can really make an effect here (disclaimer, I'm not on Facebook and don't intend to start).

I still don't get it really. People don't just use google to find stuff to buy, they use it to find information.

I'd be surprised if the idea lives up to the hype. Heck I'd be amazed if Facebook can make any kind of inroads in email.

Google made this point of recommendations vs facts on a recent paper on their Q&A System: "Confucius and Its Intelligent Disciples: Integrating Social with Search" http://research.google.com/pubs/pub36900.html

Of course it's useful. What is a back-link other than a recommendation for a website? The internet has changed. Most people on the internet no longer publish anything, so we're effectively seeing an oligarchy when it comes to ranking information on the internet. Using various forms of social media is a way to again democratize the access to information.

To do this you have to go where the recommendations are. They used to be by linking to a website from your own. Of course that is going to remain a large component, but any company would be foolish to write off using social linking as a source for recommendations.

The mainstream trajectory of web experience from AOL to Google to Facebook is ironic. If it happens.

quick summary: after winning the identity war, launch a third-party ad service. if it happens, Ryan projects FB could be worth $100B

jdp23, you are hereby given the tl;dr Wired.com badge. Submit your Facebook UID and we'll let you prominently place it on your page.

thanks! do you want my SSN and bank account numbers too?

This is actually a tremendous idea.

One of the main arguments against FB monetizing their ads is because "FB users don't go on FB to click on ads". This is anecdotally true. But when FB Connect and Like buttons have you logged in everywhere, there's nothing stopping them from showing you targeted ads when you are shopping, or searching or doing things where ad CTR would be much higher.

Why does any one company have to "win" the internet? Why do people need to have a "best" web company? Pitting companies as enemies? I cannot understand the line of thinking- does this person want there to be some sorta web monopoly big brother type figure that strikes down all who oppose? This is tabloid writing...

They can't, Facebook is a gnat, Google is an elephant, they aren't even in the same league. When their profit is 10 times what it is now, then maybe they can be in that conversation, but just barely as it'll still only be half of what Google makes.

why suddenly everyone is talking about Google vs Facebook , instead of Google vs Microsoft? Though I hate MS but still it's a good rival to fight with. Facebook? Uh oh.

The baiting headline about "winning the net" is really annoying. I really, truly doubt any one company will own the Internet. Google has tons of fiber, a cache of a ton of the Internet already, maps of the entire planet, algorithms that can predict the stock market... I think Google still has more muscle than Facebook.

Also, unless we get into some seriously Orwellian stuff, identity will not be required for EVERY site on the net.

Therefore, no one owns the net.

Think about how fast the "like" button was adopted all over the internet. All these sites did so for two reasons: the possibility of getting additional free traffic from facebook, and access to their fans' feed and potentially friends' feeds.

If FB can make the case that requiring people to FB connect on a 3rd party site will drive traffic, raise revenues, and whatever, many/most sites will make the change. They won't shut out non-connected users, but they may degrade the experience to encourage connectedness.

It sounds Orwellian, but it's not difficult for it to make business sense for large swaths of the internet.

I bet most websites have no idea why the hell they have a 'Like' button on their site. Everbody else is doing it, why shouldn't I?

Lots of sites have a bar with five+ ways of sharing every article but that's hardly a sign that delicious, digg, redit and so-forth are winning (a lot of those bars are broken too, btw). Web real estate for link-images seems easy to get once you reach a certain level of mind-share but I can't see getting image everywhere as being the same as becoming a necessary part of the web.

If taking credit cost little, every remaining store in the US would do it tomorrow. Does that mean many stores would be willing to stop accepting cash? No way. (well not 'till "the beast" slouches a little closer to ba-by-lon but I'm not hold my breath).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com