Search 3.0 - Web Search in Evolution
Guest Author Yihong Ding
Department of Computer Science
Brigham Young University
If the Web is evolving, searching the evolving Web must also evolve. A few days ago, AltSearchEngines summarized a few viewpoints on how Web search may evolve from Search 1.0 to Search 3.0 and further. I, however, want to add one more thought on this topic from my vision of Web evolution.
What is Web search? There may be varied answers. I believe, however, Web search is the process of producing proper Web link resources that match specified requests. Following this definition, every evolutionary stage of Web search can be uniformly determined by the quality of its produced link resources. In specific, Search 1.0 means the produced link resources are 1.0-level quality, Search 2.0 means the produced link resources are 2.0-level quality, and so on.
The quality of link resources on behalf of Web evolution is not how precisely the search results match the search query request. Such precision is a quality measurement but in another meaning that is, however, unrelated to Web evolution.
On behalf of Web evolution, the quality of a link resource is measured by the degree of vulnerability the link resource has. For example, the 1.0-quality link resources are anonymous, hardcoded Web links, while each of them connects two and only two Web nodes. The 2.0-quality link resources are tagged, self-organized Web threads, while each of them connects many other nodes to the same label. The 2.0-quality link resources have higher quality because they are more resilient to the landscape change of the Web (which happens regularly). The evolution of Web search is to allow us producing link resources that are less and less vulnerable to the evolution of the Web.
By contrast, precision of search query results is another degree of measurement for link resources. We may produce 1.0-quality link resources with very high precision, but at the same time they may be vulnerable to the changes on the Web. On the contrary, we may produce 2.0-quality link resources in lower precision according to search requests, but the produced link resources could be more valuable in productivity since they become more consistently consumable by users.
Hence the following is my summary from Search 1.0 to Search 3.0.
Search 1.0: producing 1.0-quality link resources
Search 2.0: producing 2.0-quality link resources
Search 3.0: producing 3.0-quality link resources
Readers can easily continue the definition indefinitely, if necessary.
Applying this criterion to evaluate the current Web search engines, we may surprisingly find that almost all of them belong to just Search 1.0, no matter how they have labeled themselves. Some search engines may have great records on its performance (such as Google), some search engines claim to be advanced in integrating new technologies (such as Hakia), or some search engines declare to bring revolutionary new experiences to the world (such as Powerset). Ironically, nearly none of them have thought of presenting users a new quality of link resources due to the Web 2.0 evolution though Web 2.0 has already become main stream for years. Upgrading their products from 1.0-quality Web links to 2.0-quality Web threads; it might be the most important strategy for alternative search engines to compete to Google.
In summary, Web search is a process of producing link resources in addition to the traditional thought of matching content to requests. For a long time we have overlooked the study of link resource quality. On behalf of Web evolution, the quality of a Web resource is really about the degree of productivity it may bring to the world. In specific to link resources, the quality is about how vulnerable it is when being manufactured by the other Web processes. Understanding this quality specification is the key to grasp the evolution of Web search. Especially for companies that dedicate themselves to Web search, this understanding might be crucial for them to survive from the cruel battle field.
July 22nd, 2008 at 4:42 pm
For that matter, we are doing Search 4.0, if you follow hakia’s main messages on its corporate site. The full effect is yet to be seen, but hakia is taking the road of credibility very serious, and that cannot be solely guaranteed by any kind of Web standard. Web standard is not and cannot be an information standard. Information standard is a science itself, mastered by librarians and other experts. Not many people understand the science of librarians and quality assessment procedures. The ideas in this blog are very good, but incomplete. You have to address the science behind it, which has been around decades. How is that for a thought?
July 22nd, 2008 at 5:49 pm
Riza,
Thank you for the comment. Surely hakia is doing excellent work on Web search. In person I agree that hakia is among the few best alt search engines that may challenge Google.
However, when we talk about the evolution of Web search, it is somehow different from what you argued. As I said in the article, companies can produce good search results at any evolutionary level, no matter they are in Search 1.0 or Search 4.0. The criterion to measure stages of evolution is not about how well the search results are but about in which quality of productivity the search results are produced. The “high quality” (on behalf of Web evolution) link resources can be easily further manufactured and thus are more productive than the “low quality” link resources. This is the key of my viewpoint of Web search evolution.
Certainly, however, there are several other opinions of Web search evolution that Charles has summarized earlier. My viewpoint is only one of them. Since none have been actually proved by history, we have to wait to see which one indeed explains the reality of Web evolution.
Yihong
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:01 pm
Riza,
To make my viewpoint be clearer, I want to add one more comment.
There are two basic types of quality you need to consider when you run hakia.
1) there is a quality about how well the search results produced by hakia match the specified user requests.
2) there is a quality about how hakia has produced the link resources based on the search results so that the produced hakia links become more feasible to be further manufactured.
It is the second but not the first quality that measures the stages of Web search evolution. You need to consider not only how well hakia search is for end users but also how well hakia search is about producing manufactureable link resources. Think of hakia to be a factory in addition to a service provider. It may help you design better strategy for the future of hakia.
Yihong
July 23rd, 2008 at 5:07 pm
Interesting idea. I agree with the notion that links are a critical resource in the search lifecycle. However, they are one step removed from results, so I would classify the evolution a bit differently. Consider the search term ‘Barack Obama’.
Link 1.0: Static page, e.g. http://www.barackobama.com
Link 2.0: Dynamic page, e.g. http://www.google.com/search?q=Barack+Obama
Link 3.0: Type-sensitive link. The term is recognized as a “PersonName”, and the link redirects to a People Search engine, e.g. http://www.linkedin.com/search?search=&keywords=Barack+Obama
Link 4.0: Personalized link, which varies by user. Based on your preferences, the link is dynamically constructed to redirect to a People Search engine of your choice, e.g. http://www.spock.com/q/barack-obama
July 24th, 2008 at 10:25 pm
Hi Ranjit,
thank you for the comment. You have presented an interesting description of link representations. As I said, until now there is actually no one single “correct” answer on how Web search may evolve. So everybody can suggest his own beliefs, just as you did. And I believe that such an effort is valuable because it helps us think of the problem in various directions. Eventually, it helps the progress of Web search in general.
In specific to your thought, I think you still focused too much on the “format” of link presentations. Although presentation formats matter, I believe, however, it is the power of productivity that matters more on the aspect of Web search evolution. When we discuss the issue of productivity with respect to a particular type of resources, we are discussing how easily they can be manufactured to produce higher quality products. For example, the quality of refined steel is higher than the quality of iron ore because it is much easier to produce higher quality products (such as cars) by using refined steel than directly using iron ore. This is the quality evolution I mention with respect to the evolution of the Web as well as the evolution of Web search.
Yihong