I saw an interesting blog post from Danny Sullivan today summarising that there are three reasons why people use search engines. These were:
1) to hunt down breaking news (ie to confirm a rumour they've heard)
2) to research a particular subject (a theme or a company)
3) A loose hunt for information (the example given is 'best summer books')
This sums the search process up pretty well but what it doesn't mention is how often the search engine can provide disappointing results. For example, hunting down relevant breaking news insinuates that you already know that news and you're simply looking to confirm it.
Searching for specific areas of detail on a company or theme can be exceptionally difficult. Example, how do you best find out about management changes (which could include terminology like sackings, appointments, retirements mixed with directors, CEOs, bosses etc) at a company like Mint? You will be swamped with noise.
The only way to ensure you're hitting breaking news is to set pre-defined filters on topics you know you're interested in, example: management changes at Mint and have a semantic system in place that enriches both the search term and the company name to make sure you're not drowned by noise or miss a trick.
This then makes research easy. If you've got a system in place just searching for your specific filters, organising archived material just comes with the territory. You can't get that service from a search engine. So why start the hunt for information there? More to the point, why hunt at all when what you're searching for can just come straight to your doorstep?
0 comments:
Post a Comment