Back in the middle of last summer (in what by internet time is almost four years ago) I wrote a piece explaining Google’s long-term strategy when it comes to the web and the indexing of its data.
The integration of Google+ into Google’s global search on the week starting 10th January finally shows that Google’s strategy has been what I predicted all along. Let’s for a moment forget the less well informed hysterics which have broken over “Google’s ruining of search” or the rants about “Google pulling the ownership of search trick” and focus on the functionality.
Anyone familiar with the Google Panda update knows that the social signal is a strong cue in search, something which Google officially confirmed at the LeWeb conference in Paris, last year. Google’s focus, when it comes to search, is in delivering the best possible results in terms of relevancy and freshness. This has been an uncompromising approach the company has never shied away from, even when it, at times, hurt its own properties. Its concern has been that should Twitter (with a 200 million Tweets a day volume) and Facebook (with 10% of the planet in its members base) wall off their content, Google will be hamstrung, its search engine suddenly rendered half-blind.
Worse, than that, a weakness in search imposed by others will help Google’s rival, BING, whose close partnership with Facebook allowed it to make inroads in both social search and semantic indexing, before Google even got started.
In terms of evolution in the online ecosystem that would aspire to survival not of the fittest but the most well-connected, something which to Google, whose search algorithm is so advanced, must be unfair and seem intolerable. Before G+ was anything more than a notion, Google repeatedly reached out to Facebook for closer cooperation and greater transparency only to be rebuffed and last summer, just as G+ came out Twitter refused to renew its search deal with Google where the latter indexed the data of the former. Fast-forward a few months and as Google integrates G+ plus into search Twitter comes out as the most voluble, allegedly wronged party in the affair.
Search technology is hard to understand and even harder to gauge as far as impact is concerned. As a result Google’s move has caused an online uproar as many who feel that it is a show of strength decry it as an unnecessary show of force which will hurt the quality of search.
Myth-busting time
Myth #1 – Google’s integration of G+ results into Google search violates the Google+ individual privacy agreement. The integration of G+ into Google search results has only opened the public data of G+ to search and linked it up to a personalisation of the profile which is entirely in keeping with trends Google has been developing for some time now.
Myth #2 . Google’s integration of G+ results into Google search now makes search deliver results only from Google’s own social network favouring it unfairly. Although this would appear, at present, to monopolise personalised search results with G+ data this is not the case. At present G+ data is the only meaningful social signal Google can index in its entirety and the personalised search is already nuanced by search results from global search, a move Google started back in 2009 (as a direct response to BING receiving social signals from within Facebook in its own search results).
Myth #3. Google owns search and is now using its ownership to directly promote and profit from its own properties. Global search is unaffected. Carry out a search without being logged into a Google account or go from personalised the global search and you get different results based upon that. Google’s search algorithm is working exactly as it should.
So What is Really Happening?
In a knife fight you only need to pay attention to whoever is not shouting and making sudden moves. They are the ones who usually carry a weapon and have the intent to use it. Amidst the noise of (mainly) journalists objecting to a change in search they do not clearly understand because, understandably enough, the picture of Google suddenly turning evil and behaving like a bully makes for a juicy headline and much reader interaction, the only other people protesting are Twitter (who suddenly seem to get what not being included in search really means) and the FCC, whose understanding of how search works probably matches that of congress on the implications of SOPA.
So who is keeping quiet? Facebook, which by all accounts stands to lose even the relatively meagre traffic it gets from Google search with the indexing of its public posts. Facebook is keeping quiet because a close analysis of Google’s social search may suddenly indicate that it would be in the public interest for most data on the web which does not violate the personal protection of data act, to be made transparent to every search engine
Such a move would crack open Facebook’s walled garden to Google search (amongst others) and render Twitter’s attempts to shakedown Google for the right to use its data, impotent. If either of these two things happen Google will have won the game in a single move. Its search engine is by far the most competent at indexing data and its sudden enrichment from the Facebook and Twitter’s hordes of it will give it a massive boost in the social search stakes and help it achieve degrees of personalisation in the search results which, until now, we can only dream of. Of course there is the chance that things will go south. The FCC might not quite see things Google’s way in which case there probably will be an unnecessary (in my opinion) tweak in Google search to deliver fewer results from G+ in the personalized search mode.
In either case, as Annie Infinite has already pointed out, you’d better make sure that your social media marketing strategy includes a Google Plus account at its core.
Google’s Social Search Move and How it Applies to Your Marketing
» Already a member? Login now to comment!
» Not a member? Register to comment!
Daniel Kauwe said:
I see your point regarding the importance of a quality search engine in order to adequately sift through the social info sphere. Certainly Google leads the world at present in this regard. It's funny, but until they introduced the social relevancy search process, I was pretty sure for the past few years that Google was going to fall on its face eventually because the pre-social relevancy search process does not account for emotional qualities in data, which for humans is a huge marker for meaning and value and allows us to handle and navigate unbelievable amounts of information.
That said, you're right I am looking more at folksonomies (even personomies) taking precedence in the evolution of Facebook, Twitter, and even Google, mostly because I believe that like augmented reality ideas (which haven't quite taken off like promised), people will saturate the social networks with their comments, likes, dislikes, photos, papers, favorite things, etc etc, and in time, i believe we will witness the emergence of web based personalities that are a function of their human counterparts, reflecting the complex and rich lives of a social networks users.
In this respect Google will have nothing on Facebook because while Google may have superior search algorithims, all that searching is not necessarily equivalent to complex personalities. On the other hand, you merely have to browse through Facebook to realize that in a sense, Facebook is a repository of people, literally. Some cases are more rich/developed than others, but overall, you have on average an incredibly rich repository that reflects the users' personalities. I do not think that Google will be able to catch up in this regard.
To me, this all becomes important when we consider the vaunted promises of augmented reality, which seem to not quite be materalizing as fast as I was expecting. Basically, when I was talking about a critical mass or inertia related to the social data stemming from the users such that the mere presence of millions of users drives forward the evolution of the social networking system, what I probably should have said is something more to the effect of this: if users' personalities are successfully reflected by a social network, imagine what could be accomplished.
Instead of mere ads, you could offer personal shopping services - afterall, if Facebook has years of data regarding your preferences, chances are that eventually sophisticated projections could be run to accurately predict what clothing, books, food, hotels, etc. you would like. In the political arena, your web avatar could act like a min-lobbiest interacting with various politicians on your behalf expressing your preferences and reacting to proposed politcal actions based on your recorded preferences. I could go on and on with various scenarios - the bottom line - it would be like having a personal assistant that intimately knows you because in essence it is you.
Granted, Google could harvest this data from Facebook, and then who knows what will happen, but for the time being, I would continue to hedge bets on Facebook emerging as a very, very powerful and influential web force to rival or even surpass Google. Moreoever, if I was Facebook, I would do everytihng I could to prevent Google from minining this information. So again, I guess we will have to wait and see how things play out.
I appreciate your responses btw :)
Daniel Kauwe said:
"Its concern has been that should Twitter (with a 200 million Tweets a day volume) and Facebook (with 10% of the planet in its members base) wall off their content, Google will be hamstrung, its search engine suddenly rendered half-blind."
i think that's the most interesting bit in this article. that is, how are Facebook, Twitter, and Google going to handle all socially tagged info that is flowing through their hands...
David Amerland said:
Daniel, point well made. Google's latest search algorithm update has been about creating the kind of sensitization to data that takes into account social media visibility, sharing and social media cues (such as 'Likes', re-Tweets and +1s) and running them through a complicated assessment designed to prioritise data, interlink it and then serve it in search localised (when it is relevant), personalised (based upon the extent of personal, social connections) and socialised (depending upon the depth and breadth of socialisation it has achieved). The end result, in theory at least, are search results which are more relevant to the search query than anything before. Google's business model is based upon there being transparent data and an open web, which is why it has no real intention to either create a search based solely on its G+ results (for that to happen we would all need to be memebrs and share information only through there).
Facebook and Twitter try, on their part, to hold onto the information they get and use it to more precisely target an audience through advertising. While their closed environments do not have breadth they have depth allowing, at present, greater ad targeting precision than Google can achieve through its own ad network (AdSense). In a web that is transparent to search, socially tagged data becomes an important cue for relevancy in search results. Of the three players only Google is really equipped to take advantage of that.
Daniel Kauwe said:
i'm curious why you are putting so much emphasis on google's abilities when Facebook has 700 million plus dedicated users...granted probably more people utilize of google's search engine, but i really doubt that the richness of social data is anything like what Facebook is sitting on top of...
i have a hard time seeing goggle+ catching up to facebook in the area of social data. i think the issue is that FB doesn't really know what do with the info they have. i'm not sure anyone does. it's like have a giant gold mine, except people don't even know what gold is and all they know is that it might be valuable and useful.
i sincerely think that social data has far, far more implications/uses/value beyond mere adverts. i realize ads generate money but really, ads are such a tiny fraction of the over all wealth of life.
David Amerland said:
Daniel this is a very good question and one which, unfortunately, has no short answer. You are right that social data, in itself, anywhere, is a gold mine. It has the ability to truly change the way content works by providing a personalized filter and a network-enriched environment which makes the data more pertinent. You are also right that G+ for all its fantastic growth to date and the considerable volume of data it collates is nothing compared to the horde Facebook and, even, Twitter are sitting on.
Here's the thing. social data without search is next to useless. It becomes too unwieldy, too fragmented and too biased (even) to create a lot of value. In a social data enriched universe search is navigation and here Google is king. If we think of how the online world needs to work so that is truly democratic and equally accessible to all users (not companies) then we need full transparency of data everywhere (sans that protected by the personal information act) and the best search engine available to index it properly (I don't care whose it is). Right now we have a search engine which is pretty good at what it does (Google's in this case) and walled gardens of information. I think that by integrating, fully, G+ into search Google is upping the ante and creating exactly this kind of debate. The questions then should be not why G+ is integrated but why Facebook isn't and why Twitter isn't?
You are right that social data has more value than just serving ads. As a matter of fact social data and social media are fully disruptive technologies. In the year that passed they were the cause of the public downfall of some of the biggest companies on the planet (I covered it in my 10 Biggest Social Media Disasters of 2011 video) and, this year we are seeing more of the same. Ads are a monetizing byproduct which made the importance of social media central for the development of corporate products (BING's social search, Facebook, Google's G+ to name but a notable few), however the true value of social media lies in its ability to create a truly interconnected world. Where that takes us, really, is open to question. The ansers, I suspect, will come as we go along.
Daniel Kauwe said:
I see your point regarding the value of social data as a function of search capabilities, which certainly seems to be Google's forte at the moment, and thus I can understand emphasizing Google in this respect.
I guess I intuitively see Facebook as holding more clout because it seems to me that because we are talking about social networking and social data - etc - Facebook has greater social inertia, at least that's how I perceive the 700+ million users of Facebook. Again, intuitively, I feel that there is a kind of fluid feedback between the users and the infrastructure such that the sheer inertia and volume of the users will contribute critical drive that will force Facebook, Google, Twitter, etc. to evolve. However, of all these, Facebook arguably holds far, far more social mass than any of the others. Thus, I would hedge my bets on Facebook taking a clear lead in the coming year or so, just because I feel that the users are going to drive that evolution forward. One thing that I think we have yet to determine regarding social networking infrastructures is whether a critical mass of users can dynamically drive the evolution of the infrastructure relative to the expicit contribution of the principal creators. Of course, this is all but speculation and as we say, time will tell :P
David Amerland said:
Daniel, nothing wrong at all with your grasp of social networking and a truly interesting comment, for which I am grateful. Let's go with the facts we have as a guide: 1. Google had, arguably, the greatest number of users than any website (last year's figures released by Nielsen put it ahead of Facebook in the US by over 20 million monthly visitors a month) and a highly active SEO community and the only time they made any meaningful change to theri algorithm was when they were faced with competition from BING (which forced Google to introduce Google Caffeine in 2009), BING and Facebook (which made Google introduce social search, the same year) and Facebook (which made Google introduce G+ in 2010). Similarly, Facebook started to change its platform to Timeline in response to G+. BING, aaahhh, what can I say about them without appearing uncharitable? - The point is that despite their respective membership base each service changed in direct response to competition by a rival. Which makes me skeptical about members ever being able to guide the evolution of a service. I am also not entirely convinced that this would be a wise thing to do either. We may be able to act as a check and control by saying what we do not like, but voicing what we like makes for such a lot of noise that the signal is often drowned out.
Reading the last part of your comment, of course, you are making a case for folksonomy over taxonomy. The former can only work within a social networked environment guided by specific rules so a wide open social network (like Facebook or G+) may lead to the accumulation of meaningful signals buy they would be drowned out by the noise, some kind of navigation is needed. This brings us back not just to search but social search. In the ideal scenario you visualise we woould need Facebook's social data and Twitter's and that of G+ all, equally, transparent to search. Then the weight would go Facebook's way in terms of accumulated meaningful data simply because it has so much of it, ahead of everyone else.
We are living, indeed, in interesting times and 2012 is going to be a critical year.
Jonathan Salem Baskin is an author who writes a regular column on Advertising Age & posts on his award-winning blog. More »
John Bell heads up the 360° Digital Influence team & teaches graduate studies in Digital Influence at Johns Hopkins University. More »
Don Bulmer is Vice President of Communication Strategy at Royal Dutch Shell More »
John Byrne is chairman & editor-in-chief of C-Change Media Inc. & the author or co-author of eight books. More »
Gini Dietrich Gini Dietrich is the founder and chief executive officer of Arment Dietrich, Inc. More »
Vanessa DiMauro is the CEO of Leader Networks & has been creating successful online communities for over 15 years. More »
Maggie Fox is the founder and CEO of Social Media Group & was named one of the Top 100 Marketers in Marketing Magazine. More »
Laurent Francois I lead the marketing&development hub @ Express Roularta Services, a media company. I focus on 2 main brands (L'Express, More »
Rachel Happe is a Co-Founder and Principal at The Community Roundtable & a blogger at The Social Organization. More »
JD Lasica is a consultant who is considered one of the leading authorities on social media & user-created media. More »
Brian Solis s author of Engage and is recognized as one of the most prominent thought leaders & authors in new media. More »
- YOU
- David Amerland
- Jay Baer
- Rohit Bhargava
- Andre Bourque
- Sandy Carter
- Vanessa DiMauro
- Debra Ellis
- Paul Fabretti
- Cliff Figallo
- Maggie Fox
- Brad Friedman
- Urs E Gattiker
- Paul Gillin
- Zohare Haider
- Rachel Happe
- Shel Holtz
- Edwin Huertas
- John Jantsch
- Beth Kanter
- Sandy Miller
- Rohn Jay Miller
- Pam Moore
- Steve Olenski
- Brett Relander
- Eric Schwartzman
- Brian Solis
- Hollis Tibbetts
Social Media for Defense Summit
When: Wed, 2012-05-23
Social Media Results Conference: Engage. Communicate. Measure. Profit.
When: Wed, 2012-05-23
Crisis Management & Communications in a Digital Age Workshop
When: Thu, 2012-05-24
From Dummy To Genius: Tips for Social Media Metrics - Webinar with Leslie Poston
When: Thu, 2012-05-24
Public Relations in Vietnam Conference
When: Thu, 2012-05-31
Interactive Day San Diego
When: Wed, 2012-06-06

About Social Media Today



