Google CEO Calls Internet “Cesspool”

Google CEO Calls Internet “Cesspool”

Google CEO Eric Schmidt must love controversy. In a speech to magazine executives Wednesday he called the internet “a cesspool”, AdAge reported.

I don’t know if that makes Google a sewerage company, but I think Schmidt should realize that many look at Google as their filter to the web. Employees like Matt Cutts spend all their time working on ‘purifying’ the results, to expect publishers to be the answer may not be the right approach.

Criticizing opponents to the Yahoo-Google ad deal may not be a smart move given the recent drop in value of the once “golden child” of the web. Schmidt challenged “if you are going to criticize us, criticize us properly.” Claiming ad prices would not increase under the Google Yahoo ad deal.

Schmidt displayed a certain amount of callous aloofness when he avoided questions about how publishers could improve their ranking with Google.

“”We don’t actually want you to be successful,” he said. The company’s algorithms are trying to find the most relevant search results, after all, not the sites that best game the system. “The fundamental way to increase your rank is to increase your relevance,” he added” AdAge reported.

If you call the web a cesspool but do not offer insights to quality content providers who pay money to provide professional journalism I don’t think you are serious about cleaning it up, so much as taunting an economically challenged industry.

SEW Experts: Could Social Media Be the Google Killer?

SEW Experts: Could Social Media Be the Google Killer?

Much discussion has been made of where the David to the Google Goliath will come from. In today’s SEM Crossfire column, “Could Social Media Be the Google Killer?,” Frank Watson and Chris Boggs wonder if the ongoing growth of social media may indicate that we should look beyond a Yahoo-Microsoft merger and other algorithmic-based search engines and explore the possibility of search becoming less important.

» Full story

Google Discusses Search Evaluation Process

Google Discusses Search Evaluation Process

Google had been doing a series of posts about search quality. Today, the latest post in the series discusses how evaluation enters into the the process.

Scott Huffman, Engineering Director, gave four insights into the nuances of difficulty experienced in search evaluation:

• First, understanding what a user really wants when they type a query — the query’s “intent” — can be very difficult. For highly navigational queries like [ebay] or [orbitz], we can guess that most users want to navigate to the respective sites. But how about [olympics]? Does the user want news, medal counts from the recent Beijing games, the IOC’s homepage, historical information about the games, … ? This same exact question, of course, is faced by our ranking and search UI teams. Evaluation is the other side of that coin.
• Second, comparing the quality of search engines (whether Google versus our competitors, Google versus Google a month ago) is never black and white. It’s essentially impossible to make a change that is 100% positive in all situations; with any algorithmic change you make to search, many searches will get better and some will get worse.
• Third, there are several dimensions to “good” results. Traditional search evaluation has focused on the relevance of the results, and of course that is our highest priority as well. But today’s search-engine users expect more than just relevance. Are the results fresh and timely? Are they from authoritative sources? Are they comprehensive? Are they free of spam? Are their titles and snippets descriptive enough? Do they include additional UI elements a user might find helpful for the query (maps, images, query suggestions, etc.)? Our evaluations attempt to cover each of these dimensions where appropriate.
• Fourth, evaluating Google search quality requires covering an enormous breadth. We cover over a hundred locales (country/language pairs) with in-depth evaluation. Beyond locales, we support search quality teams working on many different kinds of queries and features. For example, we explicitly measure the quality of Google’s spelling suggestions, universal search results, image and video searches, related query suggestions, stock oneboxes, and many, many more.

Not sure if I’m buying that Olympics example. Google didn’t do a great job with the Beijing Olympics, and surely their algorithm could handle serving up more relevant search results during the time surrounding the event.

I’m not saying that search query intent evaluation is easy, just that the Olympics query is not quite as problematic as Google is making it out to be.

The rest of the points are things we’ve been hearing from Google for a long time. We know they’re progressing on universal and personalization search efforts, all in their famous intent to create the best user experience.

So, what methods does Google employ to address these evaluations? Huffman offered up the following:

• Human evaluators. Google makes use of evaluators in many countries and languages. These evaluators are carefully trained and are asked to evaluate the quality of search results in several different ways. We sometimes show evaluators whole result sets by themselves or “side by side” with alternatives; in other cases, we show evaluators a single result at a time for a query and ask them to rate its quality along various dimensions.
• Live traffic experiments. We also make use of experiments, in which small fractions of queries are shown results from alternative search approaches. Ben Gomes talked about how we make use of these experiments for testing search UI elements in his previous post. With these experiments, we are able to see real users’ reactions (clicks, etc.) to alternative results.

What do you think of Google’s search evaluation? What evaluations would you like to see them conduct? Discuss in the comments.

Searching Rich Media at TechCrunch50

Searching Rich Media at TechCrunch50

Video search has been a key topic at the TechCrunch50 show in San Francisco. Lots of newly launched companies presented (kind of like DEMO minus the payola). In a “rich media” grouping of companies, the proverbial challenge of making images and video searchable kept coming up.

Presenting companies were
• VideoSurf: video search
• GazoPa: image search
• Fotonauts: image search
• Bojam: online music collaboration (like garage band in the cloud)

On the panel of judges was Bradley Horowitz who was a key part of Yahoo’s acquisition of Flickr back in 2005. Now he in charge of Google Gadgets and recently oversaw the integration of facial recognition software in Picassa.

“For a number of years I worked at MIT on image recognition technology and the first time I saw Flickr, I wanted to rip up my diploma,” he said from the stage. “It turns out humans are very good at this. You don’t need a hyper-technical solution. It can sometimes be the activity around the video, not the content in the video that defines relevance.

This point underscores many of the companies walking different lines between algorithmic solutions and user interaction/tagging in order to solve this longstanding indexing issue.

For the sake brevity, I’ll just talk about the best one I saw — San Mateo, Calif based video search engine VideoSurf. CEO Lior Delgo agrees that users should be brought into the mix but asserts that relying on this alone is flawed.

The company still got Horowitz’ vote for its underlying technology, which includes a great deal of intellectual property around visual recognition. This is paired with some social features that together make it a viable choice for video search over and above existing engines like Truveo and Blinkx.

The technology essentially goes beyond the voice recognition, meta data, and surrounding content that many existing sites rely on, and instead tags each frame with more granular information. This includes character names in popular shows and other things that are more contextually relevant and likely as search terms. Relevancy is weighed on frequency of these keywords, click throughs and a few other factors.

This could also be the right time for this technology, given the expanding corpus of video being brought online. This isn’t just the long tail YouTube ranks but head content that will get more search queries such as network shows on sites like Hulu. Lots more to the nuts and bolts, and it’s clear video search will continue to be a tough nut to crack. But this will be one to watch.

I hope to dive deeper in a column later this month on this and the many other search related companies here — including a social network for bird watchers (seriously).

Sugarrae: Google Pushed Twitter To NoFollow All Links?

Sugarrae: Google Pushed Twitter To NoFollow All Links?

While the rest of the world was distracted by the launch of Chrome, Sugarrae aka Rae Hoffman - definitely a woman who “pulls rank” - was covering the nofollowing of links over at Twitter at the behest of Google.

Her argument is powerful and once again challenges Google for pushing sites to do what they want. As she asks:

“If Google is the one who wants that web link nofollowed because some twitter profile pages may be automated bots or spammers, then it is time they realize that THEY are responsible for determining which of those individual pages is authoritative, trusted and legitimate enough to pass link popularity, by a method other than demanding that other websites and social networks change the ways they do business to help Google stop links being used as a form of currency and to manipulate their algorithm - an issue Google and Google alone created and profited from.”

This should be read by everyone in our industry. Leave the shiny new browser alone for a few minutes and see where our futures are going. Thanks for not being distracted by Chrome.

6 Simple Search Engine Optimization Strategies Guaranteed To Increase Your Rankings

Want to see your website dancing at the top of the Google rankings for your keyword phrases or your niche? Yes, it is possible. Simply read on to find out… Read more

What On Earth Is A Search Engine Algorithm?

Each search engine has something called an algorithm which is the formula that each search engine uses to evaluate web pages and determine their relevance and value when crawling them for possible inclusion in their search engine. A crawler is the robot that browses all of these pages for the search engine. Read more