Begin forwarded message:
From: Gerry Faulhaber <gerry-faulhaber@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: August 23, 2004 5:18:44 PM EDT
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [IP] More Is Not Necessarily Better
Dave [for IP, if you wish]--
The only "pause for thought" this note gives me is: how could such a
silly
thing be published in NYT? Of course the world is awash in
information;
trillions of bits per second is generated, almost all of which is
totally
uninteresting. Who cares if my grandmother just clipped her toenails?
Information, yes; interesting, no. We have always paid dearly for
someone
else to assimilate the firehose of experiential information and reduce
to
what we are interested in: we call them "editors." NYT itself is based
on
culling the good stuff from the junk and presenting it to us, and we
value
them for it. All newspapers, magazines, and indeed IP does exactly the
same
thing, and we value them for it. Are they "choosing what we see"? Of
course they are! That's their job. If they didn't do it well, then
competitors would unseat them.
Now search engines perform much the same function. They want to
present us
with the information we really want, not *all* the information. Google
became popular (you will recall) precisely because its results were
much
more relevant to us than the random results (perhaps even the paid
results)
of Alta Vista, et al. What's the best predictor of what I am
interested in?
Why, what everyone else is interested in. Call us sheep or lemmings,
but
this is how it works. Faulting Google for giving us what we want,
claiming
they have some insidious hold over us, is just silly. If they weren't
giving us what we wanted, then Yahoo, MS, or any of a number of
competitors
would eat their lunch. So far, I haven't seen that happen. If and
when it
does, then I'll believe Google got it wrong. But until that day,
claiming
their power is "disquieting" is just silly.
Professor Gerald R. Faulhaber
Business and Public Policy Dept.
Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania
Philadelphia, PA 19104
currently on leave
Penn Law School, University of Pennsylvania
Philadelphia, PA 19104
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Farber" <dave@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Ip" <ip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2004 11:24 AM
Subject: [IP] More Is Not Necessarily Better
Begin forwarded message:
From: Bob Rosenberg <bob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: August 23, 2004 11:07:43 AM EDT
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: NYTimes: More Is Not Necessarily Better
Dave
For IP.
Here's an interesting perspective on internet search engines. It gives
one pause for thought.
Bob
***************
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
More Is Not Necessarily Better
By MATTHEW HINDMAN and KENNETH NEIL CUKIER
Google's influence on what users can see and do online reinforces a
worrisome trend on the Web.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/23/opinion/23hindman.html?th
--
Bob Rosenberg
"A free society is one where it is safe to be unpopular."
--Adlai Stevenson
"You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a
reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating
the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for
independence."
— C.A. Beard
*****************
More Is Not Necessarily Better
By MATTHEW HINDMAN and KENNETH NEIL CUKIER
Published: August 23, 2004
Imagine if one company controlled the card catalog of every library in
the world. The influence it would have over what people see, read and
discuss would be enormous. Now consider online search engines.
Few people realize that 95 percent of all Web searches in the United
States are handled by two companies, Google and Yahoo, either directly
or through other sites that use their technology. In the case of
Google,
whose shares started to trade publicly last week, the company holds the
world's largest index of Web content, at more than four billion pages,
and handles more than 200 million searches a day. The influence of
search companies in determining what users worldwide can see and do
online is breathtaking.
As disquieting as this power may be, it masks a deeper problem. While
search engines are indispensable for finding information online, the
technology on which they are based serves to narrow the field of sites
that people see. In this respect, Google's technology reinforces a
worrisome feature of the Web: the trend toward consolidation that
affects everything from politics to news to commerce.
Google's use of links to find content essentially turns the Web into
the
world's biggest popularity contest - and just as in high school, this
can have negative consequences. Google's great innovation in online
searching, and the main reason it is so successful, is that its
technology analyzes links among Web pages, not just the content within
them. Behind Google's complex ranking system is a simple idea: each
link
to a page should be considered a vote, and the pages with the most
votes
should be ranked first. This elegant approach uses the distributed
intelligence of Web users to determine which content is most relevant.
But what is good for Google is not necessarily good for the rest of the
Web. The company's technology is so strong that its competitors have
adopted a similar approach to organizing online information, which
means
they now return similar search results. Thus popular sites become ever
more popular, while obscure sites recede ever further into the ether.
This winner-take-all system is not unique to the Web, but technology
seems to encourage it. That would explain the predominance of one or
two
sites in almost every category of online information, be it eBay for
auctions or Amazon for books. When people are given lots of choices,
they tend to concentrate their attention on only a few. (Studies show,
for example, that the majority of users don't click past the first page
or two of results when looking for information online.)
Google's business model is based on tapping into the collective
intelligence of Internet users, so it was hardly surprising that it
would rely on the same approach when it went public. It used an auction
to determine its share price, bypassing Wall Street investment banks in
favor of prospective investors who were allowed to make their bids
online. An argument persists over whether this method was a financial
success - the day before it began trading, Google was forced to reduce
both the number of shares it offered and their price - but it was
undeniably a popular triumph: because of the auction, many more people
had the opportunity to buy shares at the initial offer price than if
the
company had gone public the traditional way.
As Google begins its life as a public company, the question is not
merely how valuable it will be - it is how powerful it will be.
Investors will watch to see whether Google can preserve its dominant
position. For the public, however, of greater concern is how it uses
its
influence over information and, more broadly, what happens when we
place
so much control in the hands of companies like Google.
The $27 billion question - a figure based on the six-year-old company's
market valuation after its first day of trading - may be whether
another
innovation comes along that challenges both Google's market dominance
and its methodology. Companies are already trying to "personalize"
searches, for example, taking into account who and where a user is. So
a
search for "French press" will return results about journalism, dry
cleaners or coffee, depending on the user's interests.
None of this would be very important if the Web weren't so vital. Some
of the credit for the Web's vitality, of course, goes to Google itself.
And after last week, thousands of investors have a financial interest
in
Google. Yet when we consider what the company means for the future of
the Web, we all have a stake.
Matthew Hindman and Kenneth Neil Cukier are fellows at the National
Center for Digital Government at the Kennedy School at Harvard.