Is Search Really 90% Solved?(techcrunch.com)
techcrunch.com
Is Search Really 90% Solved?
http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/09/07/is-search-really-90-solved/
17 comments
I too was thinking about what 'X is solved' means:
http://scrapbook.akkartik.name/post/49196712
In this context, when google says search is 90% solved, they mean:
a) Any enhancements we or our competitors can make are unlikely to impact more than 10% of the market.
b) Any enhancements that would impact more than 10% of the market are too hard to implement right now.
I'm not sure I agree with them, especially since I just figured out what they mean!
In this context, when google says search is 90% solved, they mean:
a) Any enhancements we or our competitors can make are unlikely to impact more than 10% of the market.
b) Any enhancements that would impact more than 10% of the market are too hard to implement right now.
I'm not sure I agree with them, especially since I just figured out what they mean!
Totally.
Google has it locked up as far as profitability goes but the user experience has a long ways to go. Until I can spawn off a search to find the cheapest VPS host, returned with a spec sheet of every offering alongside speed tests of five sites hosted on each, we're not even in the ballpark.
Search should be able to solve problems all the way through, not just offer possible resources that may or may not help in your hunt for a solution. Which is, as you say, AI-hard/a mindbogglingly batshit crazy undertaking.
Which, in turn, means that someone will eventually succeed and make a lot of money doing so.
Google has it locked up as far as profitability goes but the user experience has a long ways to go. Until I can spawn off a search to find the cheapest VPS host, returned with a spec sheet of every offering alongside speed tests of five sites hosted on each, we're not even in the ballpark.
Search should be able to solve problems all the way through, not just offer possible resources that may or may not help in your hunt for a solution. Which is, as you say, AI-hard/a mindbogglingly batshit crazy undertaking.
Which, in turn, means that someone will eventually succeed and make a lot of money doing so.
I agree.
An analogy could be the motor vehicle business. 90% solved by the 50s or 60 or 80s or whatever you place it at. But obviously cars still get better with time.
The short answer is that search isn't even 10% solved.
It's mind-boggling to me that people are so content to accept search the way it is right now. All anyone has right now is the first step.
And I'm not just talking algorithmically, I'm talking about user experience and interaction as well! Right now google's linklist format basically does nothing to help you refine and dissect information from your initial search. It doesn't extract meaningful data and bios out from links. It doesn't help you do common word sense disambiguation. It doesn't help you when your search terms can be taken in multiple ways.
And there is more yet to be done even in the keyword space search. For example, if I type "Who is running for president?" (or the keywordese: president candidates 2008) this may mean something different for a frenchman than an englishman than an american. Google doesn't really do a lot to help you here
It's mind-boggling to me that people are so content to accept search the way it is right now. All anyone has right now is the first step.
And I'm not just talking algorithmically, I'm talking about user experience and interaction as well! Right now google's linklist format basically does nothing to help you refine and dissect information from your initial search. It doesn't extract meaningful data and bios out from links. It doesn't help you do common word sense disambiguation. It doesn't help you when your search terms can be taken in multiple ways.
And there is more yet to be done even in the keyword space search. For example, if I type "Who is running for president?" (or the keywordese: president candidates 2008) this may mean something different for a frenchman than an englishman than an american. Google doesn't really do a lot to help you here
Except England, or even the UK, doesn't have a President so we tend to assume such discussion relates to the US.
The point is valid though.
The point is valid though.
10 Years ago Yahoo thought they had search figured out.
I Mr. Arrington here confuses the process or algorithm of search with the data on which search operates. Apart from talking about natural language, everything else speaks to the data, which is of course an interesting problem (decoding data in streams computers can't currently interpret), but it's not a search problem.
When google says search is mostly solved it means that search engines are unlikely to have major user-visible improvements.
what is the meaning of 90%?
[deleted]
I guess it would depend on how you define solved. I'd say it's close enough that I don't find myself trying search engines other than Google these days.
Indeed - if you're definition was "getting people to realise search is important", then yeah, 90% might be right.
If 90% is "where did I leave my keys?", then I think we all have a way to go (me personally more than most).
If 90% is "where did I leave my keys?", then I think we all have a way to go (me personally more than most).
Well someone here said it best " The last 10% of your project will take 90% of your time "
10 Years ago Yahoo thought they had search figured out.
Nope.
I think it is reasonable to claim that the business of search is 90% solved. To me this means that Google has reasonable solutions in place for what they see as 90% of the search market (by revenue/profitability/etc) in the medium term. They still have plenty of things to improve upon, but what is the likelihood of another Google (in terms of growth, dominance) coming out of search?