How Social Networking Could Kill Web Search as We Know It - Faceboogle - Google vs. Facebook

105 votes

popularmechanics.com — Google owns search for now, but as PM's senior tech editor explains in his biweekly column, the evolving nature of how we use the Internet has left an uncertain future for search—and it's all the fault of you and your friends.

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter

Explore Mixx

For sale: The house that Michael Vick built

For sale: The house that Michael Vick built

This was Michael Vick's abode, a stucco-and-gated-community testament to his amazing rise fro...

Related By Keyword

Related Photos

  • 11 Celebrities who are real geeks
  • Michael Jackson’s Death Dominates Twitter
  • Tila Tequila Twitter Tirade @ Perez Hilton - starcasm.net
  • Top 20 Social Media Jokes, Clips and Cartoons! May/June 2009

Comments (9)

  1. Search isn't dead
    It's just going to get better and better as it integrates more with social media

    • (0 Kudos received)
  2. @cGt2099 I agree- algorythms + the human element

    • (0 Kudos received)
  3. @cGt2099 hey hey my my web search will never die? evolution beats rust ... =)

    • (0 Kudos received)
  4. Sorry, but I think it's quite the opposite. I'm on the same page with cGt2099 and cmcgill

    • (0 Kudos received)
  5. @cmcgill yup. Web 3.0 are "they" calling it?

    i think in time the groups feature of Mixx will be the way most people will interact and share on here....could be the only way to really keep the s/n ratio high. i'm glad that Mixx has it...very forward thinking. perhaps in the future, you could do a MVC scenario where the user has greater control over the V part, by switching algo's.

    just a thought.

    (for non-C.S. people reading this: MVC=Model View Controller, a type of design patter in software, where the data is the Model, the View is how it's displayed, and the Controller controls the view. this is this the way the same database table can be presented in many different, user selectable ways.

    oh, C.S.=Computer Science)

    • (0 Kudos received)
  6. @allaboutdatiki are you not human, though? let's say someone searches on "brandy". that could mean "Brandy, the pop star" or "Brandy, the drink" very, very different. that is but a tiny example of why, after Google (which i hope lasts forever, truly) does it's algo magic, it'd be nice to then have some human element figure out your needs a little more.

    yeah, yeah, you could type in "brandy cocktail recipe" or "brandy latest outfit OMG" or whatever, but you see what we mean here?

    • (0 Kudos received)
  7. @yoda - I'll buy that for a dollar! The human element is all important in the results. I wonder if it's already there in some manner ... are there human beans in the machine?

    • (0 Kudos received)
  8. @allaboutdatiki as opposed to Java Beans, or even roasted java beans?

    i don't think in Google there really is, but you know, humans do the programming, and constantly tweak it, so yes and no.

    • (0 Kudos received)
  9. I think the search as such is not going to die. In my opinion there is an evolution in the way of searching. If you want to find something fast or technical articles begin by google. Now if you want a recommendation from music, a good book, a film, a bar or nightclub, partys. Social networks offer entertainment, a place to express themselves. If you want to advertise profitable, you must focus on that kind of announcement.

    • (0 Kudos received)

Login now to post your comment.