The future of search is not Google

Or another way to say it is that google's future is not search.

You may think I am out to lunch, but this is what I think.

No matter how successful google search is, and will be in the short term, it is not the future of search. The reason is simple, it is nothing but a dumb program.

What is so smart about google is not their algorithm, but the people behind it.

The google people realized that no matter how much they parsed a webpage or site, the algorithm could not see it for what it was, like a person could.

Given all of the processing power behind the program, a person could still determine in a few blinks of an eye whether or not a website was relevant and useful.

The really smart google people asked how can we determine, using our algorithm, what people think about this website. And thus the SEO industry was born.

No matter what predictions google CEO Eric Schmidt makes, or no matter how hard or how smart google genius Matt Cutts works, google search will always be dumb.

Google will still be able to process billions and billions of bits of data faster than either you or I can, but I can still make a faster and more accurate evaluation of a webpage, and I know webspam when I see it.

Asking a dumb program to figure out what people think by watching what they do will always be subject to manipulation because people are so much smarter than they look.

And what people do is not always what it seems. A dumb program cannot figure that out, just like it cannot laugh at a joke or know irony when it sees it, or better yet, parses it.

The only honesty in the search engines today is what people type in those little search boxes. Of course society does not want to admit what is really on our minds.

Recently I did some keyword research on "how to" and I was not surprised what people really wanted to know how to do.

The future of search is not a dumb algorithm.

The future of search is intelligent, edited results.

The question is how do you achieve intelligent editing without succumbing to spammers and those with an agenda.

Of course some may consider that this is like going back in time.

Didn't someone try this before?

To truly understand why we will go full circle is to understand why google became the dominant dog.

You can google google's history to see how they started in a garage, just like some of the other really big players. I kinda wonder which garage story will become a divine inspiration 500 years from now. Google actually started up as a university research study, but they did end up in a garage.

How did they dominate when there were already really big players ahead of them.

Quite simple, they wrote a truly innovative search algorithm. It was so good some of the big players actually started to use google's search results.

Their interface was simple and it provided better and relevant results.

Google was everywhere in the news and "to google" become synonymous with searching. They invented the better mousetrap and no one was yawning.

It was also unbiased, that is the nature of dumb programs.

But this dumbness is exactly why we will go back in time, back when the grass was greener, back when I had hair, back when no one talked about SEO.

So, who will take us on this ride back in time.

First, for a new search engine to evolve, they have to be timely, relevant, useful and unbiased.

To have intelligent editing of the web you need a lot of people, and when you have a lot of people you have a lot of spammers, not to mention biased individuals who live in a much smaller universe than you or I.

Of course because of this "people problem" you end up with a relatively small group of people creating dumb algorithms. It is so much easier to constantly tweak your program rather than dealing with managing people.

There is dmoz.org, however some say it is not very intelligent and likely corrupt, well actually I said that.

The problem with dmoz is that it is analogous to an insane asylum run by the inmates. I am not joking here, it is absolutely insane to allow editors to determine who can become editors.

And they definitely fail at being timely.

Then you have the community edited Wikia Search. You cannot trust the community to edit search results. As opposed to dmoz, everyone is an editor.

Wikea search will be as honest and as reliable as wikipedia. Remember above where I mentioned people who live in a small universe, well they all hang out at wikipedia.

What about all of the other social media type sites that may not appear to be search engines but they are places people go to look for information.

These sites are based on the model of democracy. On the surface this sounds like a good idea, but the reality is that democracy results in things like Bush being elected to two terms.

Should a search engine be based on popularity?

In my mind the answer is no.

In my mind a search engine should provide timely, relevant, useful and unbiased results based on what I type in that little box.

Google did this very well, at first.

Who in the immediate horizon is trying to provide us with a better search?

One company is Mahalo.

Google's mantra is "Don't be evil".

That is a great mantra and it is too bad that many people out in the web nebula do not follow it. If they did then a dumb algorthm would be able to do its devine mission.

Mahalo's mission statement is "We're here to help".

Not quite as holier than thou as google's, but from my point of view a lot more useful.

Google can be as evil or as good as they want but that does not help me with my search.

Who would you rather hang out with, someone who says "sorry, we can't do that because it is evil" or someone who says "here, let me help".

What is Mahalo?

"Mahalo is a human-powered search engine that creates organized, comprehensive, and spam free search results for the most popular search terms. Our search results only include great links."

The Hawaiians take their words seriously and mahalo is no exception.

Mahalo: "May you be in Divine Breath"

Try searching "Google Reader" at both google and mahalo and tell me which results are more useful.

Will they succeed, I certainly hope so.

`O wau nô me ka mahalo

.

The above hub was written over a few days and represents my opinion on search.

What I found interesting today is a post at WepProNews about the future of search.

It discusses a video interview with Brad Goldberg, manager of the Microsoft Search team.

Direct link to the video!

.