« Windows Live Hotmail launches in 36 languages | Main | Silverlight and Expression getting rave reviews »

May 07, 2007



Well speaking about Search and Innovation I believe you should not forget InfoCodex:

The thing I do not like about Google and Yahoo is, that they do not recognize documents with similar content. It happens often on the Web that a post or document is spread out over more then 50 websites. Now that is great for the author but not for the searcher because it blows up your search result unnecessarily. With InfoCodex this will not happen because the linguistical database recognizes similar documents and puts them into groups. This does not blow up your search result unnecessarily.


Three things Google should do:

1. Automatically classify a document according to its content.
2. Automatically generate an abstract of a document.
3. Generate a Heat-Map of the Contents of a Search Result.


Mukund Mohan

The "next Microsoft" was Google. The "next Google" will not be in search is my personal opinion, just like google was not the next desktop personal computing paradigm.

Beating Google in doing "better search" is interesting but the next frontier has to be about a technology and business model change than paid text ads.

Yihong Ding


I would partially buy Mukund's vision. From one side, Mukund pointed out one important thing: "next Google" would not be built on the current model, similar to that this Google is not built on the older model. On the other hand, it is not obviously why the next Google will not be in the realm of web search. In fact, web search is a spirit of WWW. Really novel innovations on web search may definitely lead to the rise of another Google. The problem is, however, which type of innovations on web search can really be addressed as novel?

Most recently, I am doing a research about the evolution of World Wide Web. The most recent post about this topic can be found at here: http://www.deg.byu.edu/ding/WebEvolution/evolution-dream.html

Part of this article I discussed the future of web search. Though Google is looked like unbeatable at this moment, it certainly has its unavoidable problem that may leads to its sunset. But I doubt anybody could beat Google in web search if they try to follow Google's way to search the web. Even if we have listed all these 17 different ways, they still can hardly beat Google. With its money and human resources, Google can easily beat any competitor in any of these 17 ways in the global scale. Indeed, I doubt any company, including Microsoft, might beat Google in web search if these companies still stick on the so-called "oracle-based" web search model. Google has created the greatest oracle ever and barely anyone could build an even greater one.

To beat Google, we must overthrow the current oracle-based web search model. From AltaVista to Yahoo to Google, we have witnessed the rise of greater and greater oracles on the web. We humans are dreaming of building the "God of WWW" who knows everything on the web and can answer any questions about the web. The success of Google has pushed this God-making progress to a height that no one else has ever reached. The problem is, can this God-making progress be continued further? Is it possible to build a real "semantic God (Google)" that knows everything on the web not only by keywords but also by meaning? Honestly, I don't believe so. If our ancestors failed at building the Tower of Babel, we either could not be successed in building a new Tower of Babel.

Google will continue expanding its power by building this Tower of Babel. This ambitious path will not succeed to the end. For the ones who really want to beat Google, they should not follow the same way. In contrast, they should look at the history of mankind after the Tower of Babel. This history provides the hint for the future web search.

I have presented a detailed discussion about "collaborative web search model" in my article. The spirit of this search model is to allow individuals sharing their search results instead of relying on instructions from an oracle. This model is fundamentally different from the current oracle-based web search model. From one side, it is a simulation of search within the real human soceity when WWW had not been invented. On the other side, it is also motivated by two very new technologies---semantic desktop and semantic search.

Despites the detail of this search model, which could be found in the article, I would like to point out that Microsoft is a great company that may lead this transition. That I would suggest this to Microsoft is not due to its great power, but because of its domination on the current desktop operating system. Based on my vision, the future of web search will be back to the basis of desktops. Is it ironic? Yes, it is. If Microsoft stick on the current MSN search, even if it also merge with the Yahoo search, this combination would still not beat Google. But if Microsoft may take the advantage of its desktop computation, and lead the migration of web search model on the basis of the vision of web evolution, Google is going to decline.

Would Microsoft be like to discuss more on this new vision? Or would anybody else be like to discuss more about this new search model with us? I would like to have email discussions with you.


The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter