Greg Sterling at Search Engine Land cited an intriguing quote the other day from Marissa Mayer, VP of Search Products & User Experience at Google:

Mayer characterized Google personalization as “one of the biggest relevance advances in the past few years.” She added that “personalization doesn’t affect all results, but when it does it makes results dramatically better.”

Google’s personalization, of course, is based primarily on search history and location. If you visited something in the past, you’re likely to visit it again. And, as Mayer says, this approach can be effective.

Now imagine that the type of reactive personalization being employed by Google were combined with proactive personalization such as that offered by MyWebDNA. If you’ve been reading this blog, you’ll know already that we just announced the validated results of MyWebDNA’s ability to predict the relevance of Google search results, but I’ll recap the important bit for those of you just tuning in:

Users are 14% more likely to click on a Google search link with a high VortexDNA relevance score than on one with a low score.

Because this type of relevance is based on who the user really is, rather than the way the user behaved in the past, it can be predictive rather than reactive. It doesn’t rely on the user having visited a particular site before. And that’s where its power lies: in its ability to map unchanging values onto a changing webscape.

Mayer and everyone else at Google understand the importance of relevance. What I’m suggesting here is that there are different qualities of relevance. Geographic relevance says my location is what’s important. Historic relevance says what I did yesterday is what’s important. Values-based relevance says who I am is the driving force.

The results show that it works. They also show that if who I am is aligned with who you are at the deepest level, we will be more likely to click on the same links than not. Our demographics don’t matter to this technology. Our history doesn’t matter to this technology.

In the same piece, Sterling describes an interesting aspect of Google Gadgets:

Google also uses collaborative filtering to present Gadgets: people who liked Gadget X, liked these other Gadgets.

MyWebDNA follows a similar logic, but takes it to a far more profound level: people who share your values liked Gadget X. People who share your values liked Widget Y.

I’m interested what you have to say on this. Do you believe your values can impact which sites you choose? I’d love to hear from you.

Oh, and if you’d like a copy of the validated results, just shoot me an email: kaila at vortexdna.com.

VortexDNA has just announced that the effectiveness of the MyWebDNA plug-in has been tested, proven, and independently validated. The key line from the findings is this:

VortexDNA technology has proven its ability to increase click rates by up to 14%–an increase that, for a company like Google, could translate to additional revenue of more than $300 million per year.

This news is huge.

VortexDNA is a company that started with a hypothesis: if you can find a way to mathematically represent purpose and values, you can map that onto virtually anything.

The hypothesis grew into a technology: the MyWebDNA plug-in for the Firefox browser that circles the two most relevant Google search results for you, based on your unique purpose and values.

Eight months and 15,000 searches later, the hypothesis has proven to be true:

…users are 14% more likely to click on a Google SearchTM link with a high VortexDNA relevance score than on one with a low score.

Think about the implications of this—not just for Google or VortexDNA, but for what it means about how we live our lives and the decisions we make. This research shows that two people with the same purpose and values are likely to find the same things relevant, even if the things themselves don’t seem to relate to values.

If I share the same values as you, I am likely to choose the same pizza parlor.

Would you have expected that to be the result? I know I had my share of questions along the way. What, exactly, does a pizza parlor have to do with my purpose in life? And, of course, the reverse is not true: just because two people like the same pizza parlor doesn’t mean they share the same values.

These findings show us how powerfully purpose and values affect our lives without us even being aware of it. They show us that our most mundane decisions are colored by who we really are and that which we hold most dear.

To me, they reinforce the vital importance of understanding what truly matters to us. So frequently, we think that this sort of deep introspection is something that we’ll do when we have time, that first we have to do the laundry or finish our homework or pay the bills. Worrying about purpose and values is for hippies.

But if everything in your world is filtered by who you are, wouldn’t it make sense to try to understand that first? Who I am affects how I do the laundry. Who I am affects how I do my homework. Who I am affects how I pay the bills. If it’s inescapable and omnipresent, wouldn’t it be to your benefit to be as aware of it as possible?

The MyWebDNA findings have tremendous business implications, of course. But, to me, their most powerful message is about people. Do you think your purpose affects your everyday choices? I do, but I’m only one opinion, and I’m deeply interested in knowing: what do you think?

In a move they’re comparing to Bell Labs, Yahoo has just added researchers in economics and sociology to their team. Elinor Mills got this interesting quote for her ZDNet piece from Prabhakar Raghavan, head of Yahoo Research:

Having researchers who aren’t focused on computer science will not only help Yahoo improve its product and service development, but could lead to advances in the development of technologies underlying the Internet. The viewpoint and way of thinking (of researchers) is different from people like myself who come from a computer science background.

Brav-o, Yahoo! I thoroughly applaud that move. Essentially, what they’re saying is this:

If you want to be able to serve people, first you must seek to understand them.

Not only must you seek to understand them, but you must seek to understand them for who they really are, genuinely, independent of their direct connection to your product or service. That’s how you ensure that your decisions are driven by what people want and need, rather than trying to tailor people’s wants and needs to your decisions. That’s why it’s so smart for Yahoo to set up the researchers as a distinct department, not as a subset of the marketing department.

All of our previous discussion about Web 3.0 notwithstanding, I believe this is also an opportunity to reflect on the different stages of a maturing marketplace. You could say this: In Web 1.0, we were surprised that we could even post text, and everything seemed impressive. In Web 2.0, we started to test the boundaries of the technology for technology’s sake, and marveled at our newfound power. I propose that Web 3.0 will be the merger of rapidly evolving technology and continuous adaptation to the wants and needs of the audience that technology is meant to serve: us.

Tell me how you feel—would you prefer Yahoo and others spend time to understand what makes you tick, or do you think they’re straying into territory that shouldn’t concern them?

Barry Schwartz at Search Engine Land connected two interesting news items today when he pointed out that Microsoft had just bought CareerBuilder while Google was contemplating the purchase of SimplyHired.

Why so much interest in job search? Given that roughly half of our waking hours are spent working, finding the right job has a dramatic impact on our day-to-day experience. And we’re willing to pay to get it right: job search is a multi-billion dollar industry, with the 10 largest search firms in the U.S. passing $1 billion in revenue as far back as 2000.

Finding a dream job is akin to finding the perfect mate. We have to be able to clearly articulate what it is we really care about in our employment. We have to be able to understand what it is that we don’t like but are willing to ignore. And we have to understand our potential employer, so that we can know whether this is a match made in heaven or one destined to crash and burn.

Research abounds proving that companies perform better if they have a clearly articulated purpose and values, shared by all of the employees. In Built To Last, Collins and Porras found it to be the single most consistent identifying characteristic of visionary organizations. When everyone is working in alignment, the door is opened to extraordinary performance.

Job search engines, like Monster and CareerBuilder, focus on descriptions and keywords to help people find their employment. You look for work in your geographic region, in your area of expertise, or in your salary bracket. Overlay that with VortexDNA technology, though, and you could look for work in companies that share your core purpose and values. Don’t you think that would be important?

Companies seeking to hire describe the skills and attributes they need: IT architect, proactive problem solver, proficient with Microsoft Word. Imagine, though, if the companies had a simple and consistent way of finding out whether new hires share the organization’s deepest reason for existence. This sort of powerful connection could have a profound impact on the ultimate success of individuals and the company itself.

What do you think? Would you rather find a job, or a career where you could unleash your grandest vision of who you are? For me, I can’t distinguish who I am from the work that I do, but I know some people think a job is just a job. What is it for you?

Last week, in an article entitled Discovery: The Anti-Search, David Berkowitz described the trend towards greater integration of discovery in a user’s search experience:

Through discovery, when you read your favorite newspaper online, you’re presented with a wealth of links from around the Web that should be of interest to you, including other articles, related books or products, or video clips, whether or not you’d expect them to be directly relevant. Amazon.com does this regularly, such as when it told me that customers who bought the Black & Decker 3.4 PS550B Handsaw also bought a 5-pound bag of Haribo Gummi Bears and the movie “Borat.”

Berkowitz rightly notes that discovery can’t replace search—they’re more effective together, like hunting and gathering—but that it absolutely can enhance search, in his word, ’serendipitously’.

What a glorious word, ’serendipitously’. It fairly rolls off the tongue. What’s so beautiful about it is how it niftily combines an element of happenstance with a portion of positive fortune, and that’s exactly what Berkowitz is pointing at here: you shouldn’t just stumble on random sites, but on sites that happen to be specifically interesting to you.

In the early days of the Internet, everything was so new that it all seemed serendipitous, like the old saying that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. As we continue to grow in our experience, though, we need ever greater depth if we want to retain that wide-eyed amazement. The original Godzilla is fun to watch now, but if we want to believe in the special effects, we need Peter Jackson.

In the case of Amazon’s handsaw/Gummi Bear/Borat combination, the algorithms are working purely on historical statistics of other users. Surely, they reason, if one person bought our handsaw and then our mockumentary, someone else will be interested in the same combination. And, like those early movies, the initial results have been impressive. If Amazon doesn’t get it right, you give a giggle or ignore it and move on. If they nail it, though, you can’t believe it: “How did they know I love Gummi Bears? They must really care about me!”

They’re bound to nail it sometimes, because it’s not unusual for people to make similar purchase combinations. Surely, though, you know someone who shares your love for handtools but not much else.

This is where companies like VortexDNA come in, allowing serendipity to occur not based a single instance of external behavior, but rather on an expression of who you are. Maybe 100 people who bought the saw also bought the Gummi Bears, but only two of them share your core purpose and values. At the same time, 40 people who are aligned with who you really are bought a Donna Summers CD. VortexDNA suggests that Amazon is more likely to score a sale by suggesting Donna than by pushing the Bears.

Serendipity in search is what continues to maintain the Internet as an exciting and vibrant place of discovery. Caring about who the user is will keep it that way.

Last month, Matthew Berk discussed first principles in an article in Search Engine Watch. Among the examples he gave was this gem:

To deliver value to advertisers, focus first on being relevant to the consumer.

Matthew Berk is a smart man, in good company. He’s agreeing with titans like Dale Carnegie, who, as far back as 1937, wrote about the necessity of being genuinely interested in others:

You can make more friends in two months by becoming interested in other people than you can in two years by trying to get other people interested in you.

Carnegie’s comments fit perfectly with Berk’s principle. If you want consumers to care about you, or your advertisers, you must first care about them. And, as Carnegie stresses in his must-read relationship guidebook ‘How to Win Friends and Influence People’, you must be genuine. If you are faking, people will know.

Human nature is such a funny thing. I recently had the privilege of helping a friend who is just starting out in business.

“Let me pay you,” she said, “I value your time and I don’t expect you to give it away.”

What would your reaction have been? Mine was this: because she valued my time, I was happy to give it to her. Had she been unappreciative, I would have charged her or not gotten involved at all.

Carnegie and Berk are reflecting a near-universal truth of the human condition: when we feel valued, we are more inclined to value others.

So what does all this have to do with search? Berk said it: focus first on being relevant to the consumer.

What is relevance, if not caring? What is relevance, if not a reflection of the user’s needs, wants, and values? Without caring about the user, our search for relevance would fall dramatically short.

When people praise Google, they do so because Google seems to know what they want. When they criticize it, it’s because they’re getting stuff they don’t want. In other words, people praise Google when it’s relevant, and condemn it when it’s not.

Think about this from the user’s perspective. What the user is telling us is this: “I want you, the search engine, to understand me. I want you to know that just because I check my spam folder doesn’t mean I’m interested in recipes for Spam.”

At the same time, we get another message over and over: as much as people want the search engine to know who they are and what matters to them, they don’t want technology to figure it out by spying on them. What is ’spying’? Tracking search history, for example.

These two parameters, ‘understand me personally’ and ‘don’t track my personal behavior’, may seem to be at odds. We propose, however, that truly understanding someone doesn’t come from knowing whether they visited a certain site in the past. The premise of VortexDNA is that we need to get to know you before we can even begin to serve you. We want to comprehend your core purpose and values, your deepest drivers. If we do our job properly, there will never be any need to track search history, because that’s not the basis for our understanding of who you are.

On that note, I’ll invite contact from anyone who cares about personalized search, whether you agree with the VortexDNA premise or not. The truth is, I genuinely care about what you have to say, and it’s not just because it’s a first principle.

It’s because, without you, there’s not much point in what we do.