Matt Cutts: Sharing a search story | Hacker News Reader

Matt Cutts: Sharing a search story

mattcutts.com

34 pointsnextparadigms29 comments

I may be in the minority here, but the focus on social search seems like a red herring.

Kudos to the search team for trying things to see what works, but this feels awkward to me. The implementation gives me a "hotel california" feeling -- that your social relationships follow you where you go, no matter what you're doing. Heck, it's much easier to be anonymous offline than online nowadays. This really feels like it's trying to be all things to all people.

The search results page is starting to look like salad. What used to be simple and streamlined is now jumbled together. It honestly looks like an implementation that server-side developers would create as a response to competition from Facebook and Bing. Seriously, the SERP is on a path to jump-the-shark territory.

I made the leap to DuckDuckGo and have basically quit Google (save for my legacy email.) As I said, I may be in the minority here, but this just feels like a slow crawl toward mediocrity.

Same here, I just made DuckDuckGo my default search engine. Going to give it a try for a few days and see how it goes.

I'm not sure about this one. On the one hand relevant search results and less spam are good things for me. On the other hand, one of the key things I have always enjoyed about the Web is being exposed to new people, new ideas and things that were unexpected but interesting. With the increasing focus on social and relevant it seems like the gap for unexpected and interesting is closing. To some extent aggregation sites like HN and Reddit take this role, but they also tend to be too focused and relevant.

The web used to remind me of the story of Butte, MT. Butte apparently had a mini gold rush that quickly died down when people realized there wasn't much gold. Many of the gold prospectors left, because no gold meant no fortune. For some of those who stayed, however, the hills yielded a larger fortune in Copper, Silver and other metals.

The web used to be like that. You went looking for gold, and occasionally found a fortune in copper and silver instead. As search becomes more and more focused, however, there's no more copper or silver. Just a dead end, and a sign that says "No Gold.".

I'm not sure if Google gets this, but the interaction between social search and general keyword search is pretty small. As others have noted, I rarely want results for general searches from those in my social network. And when I do, I actually would prefer to specifically invoke it. And if anything, when I do a social search I want the opposite of what they're doing -- I want social info from Twitter/Facebook of public info from people NOT in my network.

I feel Google is so concerned that they may be losing a monetization opportunity that they're screwing over their customer user experience. Google, your next billion dollar business is not Facebook or Twitter.

And BTW, if Matt is reading, WTF is up with GMail using contextual information, even if I turn it off? This to me is a HUGE no no. Maybe I turned it off incorrectly, but if someone like me gets it wrong, the mechanism to turn it off is broken.

I hope this is and the obvious interest of twitter and facebook to get in on this action represents a crack in the closing web.

And in some sense, it always seemed like that's what G+ was all about: a moat to make sure they'd keep get/access to all the information that was flowing into closed social networks. Being included in search results is a powerful incentive.

The next step has to be open APIs, though, right? I should be able to add social signals outside of G+ and other closed social networks.

Can I please have my old Google search back? The one that returns unpersonalized search results by default, didn't use javascript tricks in the URLs of search returns just to track clicks, and didn't have an annoying hideaway thing on the right side?

Pretty please?

1. Go to https://www.google.com/preferences?hl=en and disable your "personalized" results.

2. Install "Google Search link fix" for FF https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/google-search... or "A Little Privacy" for Chrome https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/kjhmfidomefgpbbebo...

3. I don't have an annoying hideaway thing?

Annoying hideaway thing = site preview I believe, that pops out when you hover over the right edge of the search result. I find it incredibly annoying.

Oh right. If you wait for one to come up, and then click the "X" in the corner of the preview pane, they won't come up again unless you specifically hover over the >> button for each result.

If you want something more permanent, I think this userscript http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/90394 or these AdBlock rules will block it, but I haven't tried them:

  google.com##.vspi
  google.com##.vspib
  google.com###vspb

(remember to modify if you're using e.g. google.com.au)

I'll have to give those a try. Thanks.

I like and admire Matt, but I disagree 100% with his assertion (and Google as a whole) that searching for something and seeing pictures of me and my friends in the result is "magic." It's banal, and worse it's useless. I already know about those pictures -- obviously, because Google knows about them only because I know about them.

When I search I'm looking for answers, or at least, I'm looking for information I don't have on hand.

Cluttering up the results with information I already have available to me, and worse, modifying them in subtle ways based on information I already have available to me, is not helpful. It's the opposite of helpful.

I really think Google is opening themselves up to a competitor who is nothing but simpler and easier to use, in much the way that AltaVista and others opened themselves up to Google taking over by getting too complicated and becoming less and less useful.

Time will tell if I'm right.

Actually, I'm not sure Matt already knew about that picture of him. But regardless, not everyone is "looking for answers" when they search. Plenty of people type things into Google like "Christmas" or the name of the university they went to, and the majority of them would be amazed and delighted to see search results with long-forgotten pictures of loved ones opening presents or status updates about their college buddies' get-together at the last homecoming.

Here are the current search trends, you tell me which would benefit from posts from acquaintances.

http://www.google.com/trends/hottrends

"photos", "girl scout cookies", and the dozen or so politicians.

It's a cute trick, and undoubtedly will attract interest. But the interest is as likely to be negative as positive - people think it's creepy. Has Google focus-group tested these changes? Has Google asked focus groups of random people (not Google employees) what they actually want in search? Or is the decision making process basically something like, "This is cool!" (from Google programmers) and "This will help us make money!" (from Google executives)?

Because I think it's the latter.

A search engine's value is in bringing new information to people. Matt Cutts knew that he was playing Werewolf with Brian Fitzpatrick. That photo of Matt Cutts returned to Matt Cutts' search was duplicate information. It's a dupe! Cutts already knew that! It might be new to anyone else in the world, but not Matt Cutts!

Google is busy attaching a tube from our anus back to our mouth to facilitate information consumption. (You can call it an echo chamber or living in a bubble if you like.) This will not end well.

Using focus group testing in the way you're describing is like the French revolutionary who says "There go my people. I must find out where they are going so I can lead them."

Google is notoriously one of the most (if not the most) data-driven companies in the history of the world. That doesn't mean they never make bad decisions, but I'm sure they've taken user behavior into account.

The duplication you mention isn't a bug. Just because I've seen something before, doesn't mean I never want to see it again, especially if it's relevant. Searches are often re-searches for information you've seen before. The most important thing is relevance, and your social interactions are relevant.

I think what many here are missing is that the exposure of social in search results is only the first-order effect. But the social signals themselves probably affect your personal relevancy algorithm, too. I imagine that's a valuable addition, and it will only get better with more social data.

Yes, they took user behavior into account and realized that it didn't matter because they have to get into the social space. Remember, social media success is tied into all Google employee bonuses. They are willing to make search worse in order to make G+ better.

Yes, relevance is everything. When I search for something in a search engine 95 times out of 100 I am searching for something new. Occasionally I am searching for something that I already found when searching before. I am never looking for photos of myself. I mean please.

This is corporate spin and you are eating it up! :)

Yes, they took user behavior into account and realized that it didn't matter because they have to get into the social space.

I think you have the causality wrong. They realized they had to get into the social space and integrate it into their product because of user data.

They are willing to make search worse in order to make G+ better.

I think the point of this announcement is that they make no such distinction. Search and Plus are the same product.

When I search for something in a search engine 95 times out of 100 I am searching for something new.

Thank you for your data point. I'm sure Google has many others. Not only that, but how much of that is because you haven't even thought of using search for information retrieval purposes yet? How often do you access your photos? How often do you access your friends' photos? What's your primary way to access them? What percentage of that access would be made better using search?

I am never looking for photos of myself. I mean please.

I bet you're the exception.

"""I think you have the causality wrong. They realized they had to get into the social space and integrate it into their product because of user data."""

They did it because of "user data" alright, but not in the way he means it. User's haven't told them: "wow, it would be great if you had Plus integrated into search".

Their data was more like: "hey, this social thing is lucrative, numbers show we can milk our users more if we get a stronghold in this area".

"""I am never looking for photos of myself. I mean please.

I bet you're the exception."""

And I bet you that he is not.

At least non in Google searches --people weren't looking for photos of themselves there.

> I am never looking for photos of myself. I mean please

What if your friend 'Fred' e-mailed you and asked "Can you send me that picture of us from the rafting trip last year?"

Which would you rather do - dig through your photo albums until you find it, or type in a search for it and have it show up in the results?

"""What if your friend 'Fred' e-mailed you and asked "Can you send me that picture of us from the rafting trip last year?" Which would you rather do - dig through your photo albums until you find it, or type in a search for it and have it show up in the results?"""

You do realize that this edge case (and tons of similar) are not representative of 99% of the queries we do, right?

(Percentage pulled out of my ass, but still more accurate than the edge case mentioned).

And even if it did, how about doing a special: "Search Social", box instead of polluting the main search results?

Well sure - the exact example I used is an edge case :-)

But I think the general case of searching for something that I either own or that was shared with me is not really that uncommon. I think it's only uncommon on Google today, because - until now at least - Google could only search the public web for you.

The way I think of it is this: When the web started out, the amount of stuff was small and it was possible to keep track of the site you needed to know about. Then the web grew and people tried to manually organize it (ala early Yahoo). Then the web grew more and search became the best way to find something.

The same kind of thing happened with personal computers. In the early days there was limited storage and a single folder worked fine. Then storage got cheaper and hierarchical directories were added and that worked for a while. Now there tends to be so much stuff on your computer that it is often easier and faster to just search for it.

I think the same thing is happening on the web. As the amount of stuff we have on the web grows - especially stuff that is private or shared with a select group of people - the need to effectively search it will grow.

It's true, people may think it's creepy. But there are other values provided by a search engine. A great majority of less IT-savy people types yahoo.com (or yahoo) into google. Or more IT-savy people use search engines to search for pages they have seen before.

We need to see beyond how a search engine is predominantly used by us more-technical folks and look at how real people use it.

Google has an extensive user research team, and make extensive use of quantitative and qualitative feedback. They have scores of everyday users physically come in to the office or remotely participate in the studies every week.

Well they must have missed a week.

Search for cars while you are opted-out of personal search. You will see the Google+ Ferrari page on the right. Is that really what people want to see? The normal Ferrari website isn't anywhere in the top 100 organic results, but yet Google's extensive user research team decided that is what people wanted to see on the right hand side. Or did they put that there because it benefits them.

Well, they obviously didn't skip a week, and making snarky comments like that misses the point. Whatever testing they did, and the way they interpreted it, meant they were happy to go ahead with the implementation you see.

> A search engine's value is in bringing new information to people.

I'd rearrange that sentence: its value is in bringing information that is new to the user.

Cutts knew that he played Werewolf, but did he know that the picture existed, or where it was?

It is creepy, though. Reminds me of this story: https://www.privacyinternational.org/blog/how-facebooks-targ...

I think that is a very narrow definition of the value of a search engine.

I would say that a search engine's value is in helping me find what I'm looking for.

Often - as you point out - what I'm looking for is new information.

But there are plenty of other times, when I know exactly what I'm looking for, but I either forgot where it is, or it is simply faster to search for it than to go digging through folders, apps, etc to get to it.

In the case of Matt's story, maybe he remembered that someone posted a picture of him playing werewolf, but he couldn't remember who posted it or where they posted it to. In this case searching for it was very useful and gave him exactly the information he was searching for.

Or maybe I know that I have a picture from some event last year with a friend, but I can't remember - or I'm too lazy :-) - to dig through my folders to find it. Being able to search for it is awesome.

It's analogous to the way search works on my phone, or on Windows 7 or mac spotlight.

If I want to find a contact on my phone, I can dig through the contacts app, or I can just type the name into the search box. If I want to find a program or a document on my computer, it's often faster to just search for it rather than navigate through menus and/or folders.

This new search feature is simply bringing that same kind of functionality to the data you have in the cloud.

Since "don't be evil" was abandoned a while a go in favor of greed (whatever your opinion may be on particular issues, doing a complete 180 on net neutrality to get in bed with telco was pretty definitively ended the credibility of that slogan), Google may try to make "don't be creepy" it's new motto, at least internally.

Because this, and some previous stuff like the introduction of Buzz, or the way Google fails to comprehend European concepts of privacy, shows that Google's company culture is deeply autistic when it comes to understanding how people experience its service.

Google is basically the corporate version of that socially awkward guy that tries to have way too personal conversations with you in which it becomes apparent that he knows way too much about you. If you could pepperspray a company, Google would be blind by now.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com