tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6569681.post114226445513303626..comments2024-01-15T13:17:33.771-08:00Comments on Geeking with Greg: Erik Selberg on the future of searchGreg Lindenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09216403000599463072noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6569681.post-1142280913434368552006-03-13T12:15:00.000-08:002006-03-13T12:15:00.000-08:00Or: Yes, I would very much agree that the spelling...Or: Yes, I would very much agree that the spelling link was added in a way that was integral to the search experience. That is a very good thing. I argued a few days ago that any useful search widget must operate in this manner.<BR/><BR/>But I am not convinced that what MS is proposing contradicts this. Yes, I don't use most of the rich features you get from the desktop experience, as Greg says. But the ones I do use appear in the context that I need to use them. Think of those right-click menus. They don't pop up every single feature available. They pop up only those features that are appropriate to the situation. It is extremely useful when I want to save, left-justify, enlarge, or whatever, some object. I use those those features, in context, all the time.<BR/><BR/>I have no particular love for M$. I'm just saying that I buy their argument more than I do the one coming out of Google. I do think that Google tries to hard to do everything for you, and doesn't really offer you much choice. I would rather have a search engine, any search engine, that popped up the contextually-correct set of widgets at the appropriate time, and let me make modifications to my search intentions, as necessary.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6569681.post-1142276230236329572006-03-13T10:57:00.000-08:002006-03-13T10:57:00.000-08:00Jeremy, I can't answer your question, since I also...Jeremy, I can't answer your question, since I also asked it(though admittedly I tend to have accepted the conventional wisdom on it)<BR/><BR/>But wouldn't you agree Jeremy, that even when google offered that spelling link it was done in a way that made it seem like part of the search experience. It did not *feel* like an extra feature or like its being forced on the user; it more felt like part of the search process (like the engine is guiding the user). One box results sorts of feel the same.<BR/><BR/>The difference with what I'm hearing from microsoft, unless I misunderstand, is adding extra, rich features like in a desktop software. The ajax features in Windows Live Search kind of shows that approach. Many users will have to *take time to learn* the benefit those features. Can that work? Maybe, I just don't know.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6569681.post-1142270713059554412006-03-13T09:25:00.000-08:002006-03-13T09:25:00.000-08:00"or"'s writes:So MS is pushing these features in f..."or"'s writes:<BR/><BR/><I>So MS is pushing these features in front of you, but haven't other search engines tried this before? And haven't other experiments with doing that showed most users usually don't take advantage of them?</I><BR/><BR/>I know that is the conventional wisdom.. that search users are lazy and won't use the features if you give 'em to them. But as I too-verbosely argued with Greg a few days ago, that's not always true. Google had a spelling-correction feature that most users did not use. It was only when Google "forced" the feature on people, by putting an explicit link to it in a place where people were likely to see it and be thinking about it, that people actually started using it. And use it they did: Google claims that when that feature was "forced" on people, their traffic literally doubled! That means the feature was being used, <I>on average</I>, once for every Google search issued.<BR/><BR/>That seems to contradict the conventional wisdom, and suggests that users really do use a feature when you offer them the <I>choice</I>. <BR/><BR/>What I really would like to see is a real-world study of this stuff. "Or", are you aware of any published papers or journal articles talking about this? Greg, how about you? I'm serious here.. have there ever been any large scale experiments where a search engine offers features, tries different ways of offering them, etc. And finds that no way works? <BR/><BR/>I guess I'm just not convinced by conventional wisdom or "oh yeah we tried that and it didn't work" anecdotes. Because in my own experience as a user, I either (1) have not seen any search engine actually offer all these features, and (2) when they do offer them, anything from Google's spelling correction to Altavista's query expansion to Vivisimo's clustering, I have and do actually use those features. Regularly.<BR/><BR/>So yeah, if anyone knows of a link to an actual study, please post it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6569681.post-1142267213715981992006-03-13T08:26:00.000-08:002006-03-13T08:26:00.000-08:00I dont agree with Erik Selberg. Maybe I misunderst...I dont agree with Erik Selberg. Maybe I misunderstood him.<BR/><BR/>He talks about features. What about "Google Homepage"? It is easy way to customize Google and put information that you want on your homepage.<BR/><BR/>Lots of features can although be simple!okileehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16822910212014192321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6569681.post-1142266271035088312006-03-13T08:11:00.000-08:002006-03-13T08:11:00.000-08:00But the thing is google does provide additional to...But the thing is google does provide additional tools for users: advanced search, Q&A, define, google suggest, my search history and so on. The difference in google's approach is that they don't push this in your face - if you are a power searcher most likely you know about them.<BR/><BR/>So MS is pushing these features in front of you, but haven't other search engines tried this before? And haven't other experiments with doing that showed most users usually don't take advantage of them?<BR/><BR/>The thing with MS though is that they usually have a way of making all the extra features in the software and apps look sexy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com