is Google the conversational nerd?
The more I immerse myself into the world of conversational technology, the more clear it seems to me that it best exists on a different plane from Search. I’m increasingly convinced that Google wants to treat conversations as a means of parsing and ingesting conversational questions into a search answer. Converting right-brain exploration into left-brain challenges of synthesis and order – as if the entire point of a conversation is to derive an answer to a question.
Perhaps we have the proverbial nail-hammer mindset in action. I’ve characterized Google in the past as the awkward nerd at a party. You know the type. A tad desperate to fit in socially, invariably trying too hard to win over the guests with encyclopedic interjections. The conversational nerd rarely fits in, as he tries to complete every conversation with a “best answer” completion of a dialog, versus a participatory comment.
The beauty in conversations revolves around serendipity and discovery – free-wheeling dialog where questions are often answered that were never really asked. A tremendous amount of knowledge is developed through collaborative discovery; conversational technology seems to hold the unique promise to ignite this knowledge development. However, the phraseology of search seems ill-fitted to the party. It’s damn frustrating for someone who generally knows more to step back and let a conversation meander.
Yet, how often does the conversational nerd get invited back?
After just reading a GoogleBlog post from the SVP of Product Management, I couldn’t help but to add-on to this post, with a few select quotes that continue to build a profile of how Google looks at conversations. I’m not one to quote ValleyWag, but their title “The Height of Google’s Hubris” seems very fitting.
From this “state of the world” posting from Google Senior Management.
…We won’t (and shouldn’t) try to stop the faceless scribes of drivel, but we can move them to the back row of the arena….
…No one argues the value of free speech, but the vast majority of stuff we find on the web is useless. The clamor of junk threatens to drown out voices of quality….
…Putting the power to publish and consume content into the hands of more people in more places enables everyone to start conversations with facts. With facts, negotiations can become less about who yells louder, but about who has the stronger data. They can also be an equalizer that enables better decisions and more civil discourse….
To me, this seems to reinforce the way Google views mainstream conversational media: the majority of what everyday people have to say is “drivel” that deserves to be sent to the “back row of the arena” while “voices of quality” are pushed forward. Pretty illuminating commentary from the guy in charge of products.
February 25th, 2009 at 9:48 am
There’s an article that was in the O’Reilly Radar a while back. The writer quoted a friend of his as saying…. “He pointed out that cultural artifacts have always been divided into popular culture (on the tips of our tongues), cached culture (readily available in an encyclopedia or at the local library) and archived culture (gotta put on your researcher hat and dig, but you can find it in a research library somewhere).”
(Quote from: http://radar.oreilly.com/2009/02/the-kindle-and-the-end-of-the.html)
Let’s say we try and apply this pre-Internet information sources. As information progresses through the “arena,” (rather than being in the seats, the information or (dare I use a buzz word) meme is a gladiator fighting for its existance), it goes from disposible to more durable and from fringe to pop culture to “tradition.”
Developing Culture: Social Groups/Locations, Newsletters, ‘zines
Popular culture: Newspapers and Popular Magazines
Cached culture: Popular Books
Archived culture: Library reference books
I would even go so far as to put Twitter (and user generated sites like 4chan) as Developing Culture, where concepts like the 25 things or LOL Cats are developed as well as “live” news, etc.
Developing Culture: Twitter, 4chan
Popular Culture: Blogs, FARK, Digg and other news aggregates (because they tend to comment on established news stories or ideas that may have survived the previous “era” and become popular)
Cached Culture: Google
Archived Culture: Amazon (?)
Google seems to try to influence either side with less than spectacular results (Orkut in the US on one side and Google Book Search on the other). What Google can control, at least somewhat, is what and how something enters cached culture and, maybe to a lesser extent, what gets “archived.” I think what the Google VP doesn’t get is that they aren’t going to be able to control the information or who is a “quality voice” and remain useful. They’ll be like the librarian who tries to keep Harry Potter off the bookselves. People will just go elsewhere.
I’m more likely to google an aggregate movie review or a Pad Thai recipe than take my chances with my social network (not a proper Thai chef in the lot). I don’t need Google to index that I took my kids to basball practice today but I might want friends to know as an update. I really don’t need “facts” for that. That’s not to say that social media has no place in cached culture (“what was the most popular Pad Thai recipe six months ago?”).
In the end, Google is best as a library, not a salon. At least that’s what I hope they’re trying to get at. I don’t think they’re nerds they’re just not in the conversation business. (But like any socially impaired nerd, they want desperately to get invited to the party.)
April 15th, 2009 at 10:50 am
Hey, nice tips. I’ll buy a bottle of beer to the person from that chat who told me to go to your blog