What is relevant? Only you can decide
Andy Beal reported on Google’s latest Universal Search news this week. Here’s me quoting him quoting Google:
“Google has continued to concentrate on improving the quality of search,” said Udi Manber, vice president of engineering at Google. “The level and speed of search innovation at Google has increased. Most of this innovation addresses basic ranking algorithms and is often not obvious to users. Users just see more accurate results, more often, in more languages, which is our primary goal.”
Andy himself goes on to say:
This is huge!… Users will benefit, as they’ll likely find Google’s search results to be much more relevant…
So Google’s primary goal is to be more accurate, i.e., relevant. Users recognize that technology that makes Google more relevant is huge.
But what is relevance? What comprises ‘accuracy’?
The answer to those questions is entirely subjective, and decided exclusively by the user. A search result is only ‘accurate’ if you decide it is. An answer is only relevant if it is the one you want.
Google’s Universal Search technology is taking the approach of bringing in different types of content—images, video—into the results list. Google’s iGoogle with personalized search is focusing on using history and demography-based algorithms to determine what it thinks is likely to be relevant to the user. And VortexDNA’s MyWebDNA is using purpose- and values-based algorithms to identify relevant results.
And, of course, it’s up to you to decide if any of these work. Or if they all work together. As Udi said, Google’s primary goal is more accurate results for the user. Without the user, there is no relevance.
What do you think predicts a relevant search result for you? Is it where you’ve been in the past, your core purpose and values, or some combination thereof? Or can it not be measured?
If relevance doesn’t exist without you, only you hold the answers.
May 21st, 2007 at 12:56 am
I agree, relevancy is what it’s all about and I agree it’s almost impossible for computers to say what is relevant to me at a given point in time.
However, I do see Google attempting to answer that by knowing where I am (Wellington NZ) and what I’ve looked for/clicked on in the past. And the results are, “good enough” - generally I get what I’m looking for.
However (part 2), your approach to use values is an equally valid input and the combination will move me from “good enough” up to “pretty good actually”.
BUT (of course) - what both systems are missing is context - why am I looking for ‘x’ at that moment in time? That’s very hard to grasp without asking loads of very annoying questions … or is it …
May 21st, 2007 at 10:28 am
[...] Google’s serious about users seeing more accurate results, more often, don’t you think this is something they should [...]
May 21st, 2007 at 10:41 am
Mike,
Great points. Demographics and history can take you so far. Values can take you a bit further. Is there a way of using machines to determine context? I don’t know, and I’d be interested to hear from anyone who does have an idea on the topic.
It seems that, with each new iteration of search technology, we are amazed by the computer’s ability to ever more quickly and accurately help us find what we’re looking for. I hope that the technology continues to outpace our capacity for amazement.
All the best,
Kaila