Google's Not Past Tense, "Now" Is Just Compressed

Original by sam lessin's modest proposals & more...

3:13 pm - Fri, Oct 23, 2009: 16 notes

Google’s Not Past Tense, “Now” Is Just Compressed

mikehudack:

lessin:

mikehudack:

lessin:

so, from what I have read - I am totally in accord with the concept that google is past tense - as parker seemed to suggest here

same theme, but my reasoning/phrasing - from an old blog-post, is a bit different.

the value of information is based on probability — google can only now support highly probable answers, static search results. The capital of Colorado used to be a relatively more improbable answer than it is now

— Facebook and Twitter are pipes for the improbable.

I’m not smart enough to understand this. Pipes for the improbable? Please help. How is the capital of Colorado an improbable answer?

so - basically — the value of information is f(probability)…. if an answer is easy to find / commodity then knowing it is worthless. Knowing that the capital of the US is Washington is worthless because everyone knows it, so no one will trade you anything for the information… the probability of information is always changing, evolving as information diffuses down the curve, from highly improbable and valuable to highly probable and worthless.

20 years ago, I would say ‘what is the capital of Colorado’ - two options:

1. you ask the guy next to you — instant answer, but high probability that he is wrong
2. you look it up in a trusted source in a library — slow answer, but high probability that it is right

10 years ago, Google became the way to pipe to a whole bunch of static information. They were the game in town for answering static questions with a high probability of trust at fast speed. They probabalized tons of information, and harvested the value.

So, the problem for google at this point on the web, answers to static questions - like ‘what is the capital of Colorado’ is totally commodity —- potential knowledge has been converted to universal knowledge. I don’t need to know the answer — i can pluck it from a whole bunch of services — it’s value is fully diffused.

Just like there was a time when knowing that the world was round was a valuable piece of information, and now it is worthless commodity

The new valuable information is in facebook and twitter, because they catch information directly from people on the edge/before it becomes commodity. I follow you personally because you generate high value edge information before it is worthless dogma that everyone knows.

Facebook and twitter provide pipes to sources of non-commodity improbable information.

So - static information’s value has been harvested down the probability curve. now, dynamic personal private information is the game.

OK. Makes sense. Why not use the word “accessibility” instead of “probability”? Just to be cute? Let’s grab a beer tonight.

Yes on the beer… late is good tho? 11pm?

Probability is the way to go *I think* - beer will decide.

gbattle sez:

I too have an old blog post about this subject in a more generalized sense here.

The value of information is not just a matter of the probability of finding the right answer. The value, or in economics speak, utility of information is a function of timeliness (urgency), availability (dissemination) and agency (trust), where the probability you speak of is embedded in the three factors.

The idea that Google only supports high probability answers is absurd - this may be true if you are simply hitting the “I Feel Lucky” button. If the value of a resource is a summation of the utility of all the information it provides, Google’s dominance is secure (especially given the firehose deal with Twitter this week). Search has been a proxy for social, or more specifically, the link economy has been a proxy for agency/trust. It is only with Facebook/Twitter that we are coming up with a better approximation of agency, a more direct route. Though Google may not have the social consciousness/presence of a Facebook or Twitter, they don’t have the memory capacity of a Google. Even with the cloud, Google’s caching of the internet - and multiple iterations of it over time across heterogeneous media types - is a tall task. If you believe all answers lie within the ephemeral ether that is Facebook and Twitter, good luck with your future knowledge recovery (though yes, the social web does enable Google surrogates, making the snarky comedy of http://lmgtfy.com/ be a hint of real social genius).

I think we all agree that Facebook and Twitter represent a further compression of what “now” represents, what “on-demand” really means, and that this is only the beginning of the evolution from pull to push. However, the social web’s answer to the agency/trust issue, though an iterative next step to link economy, is still imperfect. Creating a contextual reputational overlay within the social web is difficult. Matching the demand of intent with the supply of social answers on FB/Twitter is woefully limited. This contextual reputation/matching framework/discovery engine/answer economy is necessary to realize the value both Sean and Sam are speaking of - to enhance the availability of questions and high probability answers beyond the opportunities/bottlenecks inherent in your limited circles of influence within the social graph.

OK, I need a beer where someone pushes a pint glass and pulls a tap.