Search and receptivity

A short one this morning from Practicalist (ever worth reading) asks, What comes after search? Heck it’s short enough to reproduce in full:

Reading about the epic battle against Google that Microsoft, TimeWarner, and Yahoo continue to lose, I have to wonder if it’s really such a world-beating thing to own search. Right now it is, since the search box is the interface to much of the Internet for people. But isn’t that a sad, pinched state of affairs? There’s a lot more valuable information in Twitter and Facebook than in Google. Won’t something that lets me tap into that be much more valuable, and soon?

My first reaction is: Yeah! My second is: Wait. Is there a lot more valuable information in Twitter and Facebook than in Google? What kind of information, and to whom?

  • What kind of information? The real-time-now kind of information, largely (there’s more, but I won’t address that now). As this recent ReadWriteWeb post put it, “[Google] indexes the historical web, and it does it better and faster than anyone else. It finds me after-the-fact reporting on major stories from major media companies.
    But it misses the real-time story. And that matters today.” Authority vs. currency.
  • To whom? I think to anybody who likes new stuff and being surprised or delighted or simply aware. Google helps you find things. Twitter and Facebook help things find you. Which relates in a way to Mike Arauz’s post from a month ago on why discovery is so much more valuable than interruption. But he didn’t quite address that (giant) middle zone, where you’ve neither discovered nor been interrupted - just kept an ear to the ground.

To the bigger question of what comes after search, I don’t know, but for the moment I imagine it’s something like receptivity (as distinct from reception).

Filed under Commentary | About , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Voice and signal in the age of aggregation

A stray thought.

Standard advice for bloggers starting out: Find your voice and stick to it.

But how many blogs or bloggers - or Twitterers for that matter - could you identify by the text of a single post?

Rarely do I visit individual blogs. What I have is a couple hundred feeds in Google Reader - organized and read by tag/folder. Which means unless a specific post really stands out and I star it, at any given moment I’ll know what but not necessarily who I’m reading.

As content aggregates, the more anonymous it becomes.

Voice is part of what makes your writing worth reading. Signal can make it instantly recognizable.

Ever read A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court? There’s a passage where the narrator interrupts a story being told to him because he can’t keep track of the characters:

This is not good form, Alisande. [He] talks like all the rest; you ought to give him a brogue, or at least a characteristic expletive; by this means one would recognize him as soon as he spoke, without his ever being named… You should make him say, ‘In this country, be jabers, came never knight since it was christened, but he found strange adventures, be jabers.’ You see how much better that sounds.

That’s signal.

So it might be a trademark interjection, a standard sign-on or sign-off, or some other verbal flourish. Maybe it’s something you do not just on your blog but in commenting and such as well. No big idea here; that’s it.

But I’m interested in feedback - am I talking about a cheap trick? A self-marketing tool? Or something else entirely?

Filed under Commentary | About , , , , | 4 Comments

Link(s) of interest

Filed under Links | Leave a comment