On Twitter today, Josh Young made an interesting observation to which I would like to call attention:
Ya, @jerepick, with “fauxpen” attached, google’s “nav. search as the top of the stack” is a fragile local maximum for the web.
This observation is a followup to the web-wide discussion that Google kicked off about the meaning of open. Essentially, Rosenberg says that all of Google’s products at that are not at search layers of the stack should work toward being open, but that the search layer itself should be closed. To protect it from spammers, you understand {cough}.
Earlier in the same post Rosenberg makes a distinction between open source and open data, calling for increased openness in both. However, when it comes to defending closed-search, this distinction gets lost. But this distinction between open source vs. open data is important. Here is how it translates to the search domain:
- Open Source = Open search algorithm is about letting the world know what features are used to rank pages and how those features interrelate (are weighted)
- Open Data = Open search results is about letting users refactor, remix, reuse, mashup, store and re-search locally any and all query results that the user issues. And about letting the user use any software that they want to accomplish this — not just Google software
The excuse given about why Google cannot open up is that of spammers would be able to game the engine. But if we look closely, we’ll see that it is an excuse that is primarily, if not exclusively, related to the “open source” aspect of openness. Black hat SEO algorithmic gaming is not an issue when it comes to user results re-use and remixing.
And so the point (I think) Josh is making is that by closing not only the algorithm, but also the results of that algorithm, Google has effectively declared a moratorium on Internet application stack progress along that vertical. Google is essentially saying to the Internet: Continue reading…
Recent Comments