First published Oct 27, 2004 in Mediapost’s Search Insider

Google’s beta release of their desktop search tool was their shot across the bow of the USS Microsoft Search. Following hard on the heels of promising technology releases from Blinkx and Copernic, Google is staking their claim to the desktop search space.

And Microsoft seems to have been caught flat-footed, as they continue to push back the deadline for the release of Longhorn, which will integrate desktop search with the operating system. Many seem to think a search related announcement out of Redmond, Wash. is imminent.

So, if one looks at what’s come out of the major search engine labs lately, you’ll see a rush of new technologies centered on the ideas of desktop search, local search, indexing of rich media, and personalized search. It seems that everything we’ve been talking about in the past three years is suddenly coming on the market in one fell swoop.

This has prompted a number of analysts to start asking where search is going. I’ve been firmly seated on that particular bandwagon, adding my own prognostications to the many that are out there. But sometime last week, I slapped my forehead and pronounced myself an idiot (beating several others to the punch).

It really isn’t the release of technology that will dictate where search is going. It’s the public’s acceptance of that technology. And I’m not speaking about a few techno geeks huddled in the cool blue glow of a LCD flat screen. I’m talking about the masses.

Innovation Only Makes a Difference When It’s Accepted

There is a dilemma that is inherent in technical innovation. As the innovators, we tend to get caught up in the possibilities of technology and base our business decisions on it. But the fact is that the success of technology only takes place with widespread adoption by the general public.

In the high tech business, we tend to be surrounded with others like ourselves. We are the classic early adopters, looking for the latest technological gizmo. We tweak our computers and other various electronic gadgets, spend hours tracking down problems with drivers, and happily put up with bug after bug to gain an edge over the less technically savvy.

In our biz, we all tend to be members of this relatively small segment of the real world. Unfortunately, we sometimes make decisions that seem valid because everyone we talk to agrees with us. It’s not until the public flatly rejects our innovations that we realize it was never capable of going beyond the research lab.

So, if you ask me, or any of the others who have been writing about this, which of the emerging search innovations will make the difference in the industry, you might be asking the wrong person. I’m a geek. Go ask your Aunt Mildred, but be prepared to spend some time explaining what you’re talking about.

Public Adoption Can’t be Rushed…

As early adopters, we work on a radically different time line than the general public. We tend to leap into new technology before it’s fully tested. We move in a matter of weeks or months to try the latest new thing. The rest of the world takes years. So as we try out local search, desktop search, and personalized search, remember that the latest developments will probably take a long time to trickle down to the average Joe… unless you leave no options!

This opens up a rather interesting advantage for Microsoft in the search game. Because of their domination of so many parts of our interaction with our computers, they can force adoption of a new technology to an extent no one else can. Every other player, including Google, has to convince us that their technological innovations are worth using. Microsoft can leave us with no choice. So Google will continue to roll things out of their search lab, and we will eagerly install the latest beta.

Someday (probably soon) a major development will come out of Redmond about Microsoft Search. We “in the know” will rush to pronounce it a failure, or success, but the judgment isn’t really ours to make. It’s the millions of people who have no idea that Google now has a desktop search tool, or that Microsoft is integrating search into their operating system, that will ultimately make the difference. And they will only bestow that success when they’re good and ready.

The winner of search will be the one who is the shrewdest about controlling that timeline.

First published in Mediapost’s Search Insider – September 28, 2004

Search engines are knocking on the door of the future. The 800-pound gorillas of search and brash new upstarts like Blinkx and Gurunet are working to find a way to make search more intuitive, ubiquitous, and intelligent.

Someday, search will be interwoven with everything we do and consequentially, we won’t lift a finger. Links to the sites we’re looking for will suddenly appear in a discrete search pane or a pop-up window. It’s inevitable.

Or is it? Is this what we as search users want? Do we want to hand control over to an omniscient, eerily cheerful search assistant that knows far too much about our user patterns and personal tastes?

Friendly Search Engine Seeking Single Middle Aged Woman

The personalization of search has been bandied about as the next big step forward in the industry. We need (so we are told) search engines that get to know us and what we like. Blinkx is already heading down this road, and Microsoft has a team of engineers busy in their Cambridge, England lab working on making their brand of search more attuned to the user and the job currently at hand. If you look at the type of people Google hires, you’ll find the following interest areas featured prominently: profiling, artificial intelligence, and machine learning.

But to make these search enhancements work to their full potential, we crawl onto the very slippery slope of user profiling. As the search engine observes us, it can create a profile of our interests, usage patterns, and other very personal information. It can then use this information to make its search results more relevant to the individual user.

Marketing Gold, Privacy Dynamite

The question is what happens to this profile? Obviously, each profile is worth its weight in gold to advertisers. With information, they can target their message to exactly the right audience. But even if search technologies offer this capability, the vast majority of providers have resisted the temptation.

The Google Toolbar has been around for four years, and if you install the advanced version, the End User License Agreement says that the toolbar will send information about every URL you visit back to Google.

While this is for the relatively benign purpose of retrieving that site’s page rank and other information, the fact is that Google has the ability to track each and every Web page you visit. At least Google is up front about letting you know. Other search tool bars and spyware apps aren’t quite so ethical.

Suranga Chandratillake, the CTO of Blinkx, indicated that they had the ability to incorporate a fairly basic level of artificial intelligence into the product to make the search suggestions more relevant to the individual user but had chosen not to. “Early users indicated they didn’t like this idea. Privacy is a big concern for them.”

It appears that search providers and contextual advertising providers are setting wheels in motion that will bring an inevitable head on collision between the wishes of advertisers hoping for better targeted vehicles and users concerned about their privacy.

At this point, the more ethical advertisers are standing on the right side of a gray and sketchy line that’s determining what should be done with the mounds of information collected from users.

Either contextual advertising is being served based solely on the nature of the job at hand with no reference to a stored profile, or the information is just sitting there, collecting dust in a data warehouse on some gargantuan hard drive. But no one’s saying they’re throwing that data away. I get the feeling they’re all eyeing each other nervously, waiting for somebody to step over the line.

Search has the ability to become smarter and more helpful. But as anyone old enough to remember “2001: A Space Odyssey” can tell you, an all-knowing, irritatingly polite computer isn’t always mankind’s best friend.