MappingTheWeb //

Today, Yahoo added new search features and functionality. Video embedding (via Yahoo Video, YouTube, and MetaCafe), Flickr integration, event information (via Upcoming.org), and new Yahoo Shortcuts were all introduced. We’re seeing all this wonderful social media integration - so what’s the big problem? It’s biased. And search engines shouldn’t be biased.

To be honest, I’m genuinely upset about the changes. Not only do they add more clutter to the page, but they’re decreasing the overall quality and relevancy of the search engine. Furthermore, Yahoo is getting praise for these changes. Many are even saying that the company is catching up to Google. I even heard a whisper of the term “Google killer”. This is a bold statement and it can’t be farther from the truth. In reality, Yahoo is widening the gap. They are drifting further away from Google, as they are providing less relevant, more biased results. They are redefining ‘vertical creep’. On the occasion, Yahoo will have the most relevant result on the entire net, but more often than that, it won’t. What Yahoo needs to do is go back to the drawing board and work on their algorithm. This is the bread and butter of any search engine. Forget the web 2.0 app integration.

Pardon my rant, but I’m not a big fan of this move. It is company bias in a space where there should be no bias. All this new integration means that a given user will (in most cases) not be receiving the best quality, unedited, clean, no-strings-attached results. Rather, they are subjected to ’Yahoo’ results and links to Yahoo properties. In my opinion, this leads to higher short-term benefits (and revenues) for the company due to an increase in page views, but translates to long-term problems in the areas of relevancy and perception.

If Yahoo does want to include such results in search, place this information in the sidebar and provide disclosure around it. Numerous others have done it in the past, so why not Yahoo? By integrating company results into the natural search results, it confuses and/or deceives the user. This isn’t in the best interest of the company - at least in my mind. Another possible solution is richer functionality in the ‘vertical search tabs’. If I really want images or videos in my results, I search via Yahoo Image search or Yahoo Video search, not regular search. I think there is an opportunity here, but Yahoo is being greedy.

I say, “Just gimme the best damn results.” Google does a pretty darn good job of this. They haven’t cluttered the results or riddled the page with endless amounts of company-centric material.

One bright spot for Yahoo is Search Assist. This new tool (somewhat akin to Google Suggest) provides contextual suggestions and conceptual recommendations for your search queries. This saves time and hassle, and may indeed aide you in reaching the most relevant results. So why do I like this? As opposed to the other Yahoo features, this one is unbiased (at least I HOPE). It is based on user behaviour, patterns, and trends.

Below is a screenshot of Yahoo Assist (courtesy of Search Engine Journal):

In the end, I think what Yahoo is trying to do is capitalize on all their recent web 2.0 acquisitions by integrating them into search. I think it’s a valiant idea, but involved poor execution. As I mentioned before, I don’t think that integrating such results into the natural search results is the optimal strategy. Company bias and and self-fulfilling intentions start to play a role, and all of a sudden, people are starting to question the credibility and trustworthiness of search. Losing trust is probably the worst possible outcome for Yahoo at this point in the game.

Come launch day, your marketing department shouldn’t and running around like chickens. They should be relaxing and breathing a sigh of relief. Ok, I may be exaggerating a bit, but not by much.

The basic premise is this: all Internet marketing and advertising campaigns should be ready to go before launch day. That way, once the day arrives, a metaphorical switch can be flicked to activate the marketing machine.

What does this means? Well, some or all of the following should be ready prior to launch:

• PR initiatives (including a press release)
• Ad campaigns (online and offline)
• Blogger relationships
• Internal marketing functions
• Branding/positioning/messaging
• Search engine optimization
• Web analytics
• Company blog
• Contest(s)

So when launch day finally comes, you can simply ‘flick the switch’.

Some traffic will come from one-time sources (i.e. press release, news story, etc..), while some will come from residual sources (i.e. search engines, current users, etc…). The list above translates to traffic from the following sources:

• News sites
• Offline publications (newspapers, magazines)
• Blogs
• Current users
• Search engines

Such diverse sources will ensure a steady, consistent influx of traffic. The reliance on a single avenue is always risky, as it may not provide the intended outcome. Any marketing campaign should include multiple traffic funnels to maximize exposure and overall efforts. Often, the main, pre-determined source of traffic doesn’t live up to expectations and some overlooked avenue ends up driving a bulk of the traffic.

You’d expect that when a new player enters a space, it hopes to attract users from competitor sites, right? That isn’t the case with Mahalo. But then again, Mahalo claims to be in a space that it isn’t actually in. You follow? Mahalo is a search engine in an identity crisis. Heck, it’s not even a search engine. It’s a directory. The search function is nothing more than a glorified shortcut to an individual directory page. “Guide Notes” and “Fast Facts” aside, this is really nothing more than DMOZ.

Mahalo lacks a dynamic, continuous crawl process - it’s static. Therefore, I don’t see how it can be called a search engine. Personally, I’m not convinced that you can define a search engine as such without an algorithm. Having said that, it is of my opinion that Mahalo won’t be able to compete with the big boys. Simply put, I can’t see people switching from Google or Yahoo. Mahalo has quickly realized this and since introduced Mahalo Follow. Now, users don’t have to switch services - they can continue to use Google or Yahoo at their leisure. In the event that a Mahalo result is available, it is automatically displayed in the sidebar.

It seems that Mahalo Follow is a good, passive approach for the company. It may even be the business model in the end (in my mind at least). I respect that the company has only been around for a few months, but the fact that this ’search engine’ lacks ’search results’ for many popular queries is inexcusable. I won’t even touch on unique, long tail queries…

On another note, Mahalo founder Jason Calacanis has been quoted as saying, “SEO is bullshit. If you generate a web page with good content, Google will rank the page properly”. Hmmm… that seems pretty hyprocritical. You see… directories thrive on SEO. Their very structure and nature are tailored for search engines. Even quasi-directories like Wikipedia and IMDB drive a significant portion of their traffic from search engines.

Consider this: both Mahalo and a given directory site contain unique pages with keywords and phrases stuffed into important areas such as the page title, URL, and header tags. In other words, Mahalo is a ’search engine’ dependent on other search engines. SEO is a primary traffic source. Instead of competing against Google and Yahoo, Mahalo has cleverly positioned itself to reap the benefits of these search giants via SEO.

Basically, Mahalo plans to profit from the search results of the other search engines.

If you are still not convinced, type in “Berlin vacation” or “save on your energy bill” into Google? Which directory ’search engine’ has a front page result?… You should never see a given search result in another search engine results page - it’s ridiculous. Need I say more?

What’s your take on the situation? Do you think Mahalo is a search engine?

I’m not a big fan of Internet soap operas or gossip in general, although I do find the odd Valleywag headline quite amusing. In any case, there comes a time when a soap opera deals with real issues and real people. On rare occasions, respected individuals cross the line and push the boundaries. Only at this point do I feel the need to participate in the discussion and articulate my views.

This weekend I attended Gnomedex 2007 in Seattle. Friday evening Jason Calacanis stepped onto the stage and began speaking about Internet spam and disorder. His thoughts and insights were valuable and much appreciated. Having said that, he began promoting his new venture, Mahalo, half way through his presentation. This caused quite a stir among the audience, myself including. Gnomedex presentations are meant to spur discussions and conversations around trends, standards, principles, ideas, and concepts - not specific companies. In other words, this wasn’t the right time and/or place to engage in such an act. Dave Winer called it “conference spam”. I would have to agree with him. So did everyone else I spoke with.

With all due respect, this isn’t the first time I have disagreed with the actions of a so-called A-lister. Late last year, Jeff Pulver pulled a similar stunt that really pissed me off and left me questioning his credibility.

Both Jeff and Jason are well-known individuals with remarkable track records. They are admired among many, and regarded as pioneers in their respective fields. That is why it is so befuddling and perplexing when situations like these arise. These guys should know better. Suspect intentions and profit-seeking motives often get the best of everyone. Perhaps it was their turn.

The subsequent series of events from this episode on stage caused quite a stir in the blogosphere. Jason Calacanis was very upset by the backlash, most notably from Dave Winer - although I felt it was deserved. Dave Winer further expressed his views, only to apologize later. Aaron Brazell of Technosailor expressed his frustration with the whole situation, while Loren Feldman brought some humour to the ordeal.

Let me say this: I do not dislike Calacanis. I was actually looking forward to meeting him, even after this on-stage episode. I think that he is a smart guy with some smart things to say. However, he is living in a prominent role and must watch what he says sometimes. In this case, I disagreed with the way he went about presenting and/or promoting Mahalo. In the future, I think he needs to consider the consequences of his actions before acting upon them. Nevertheless, I wish him all the best with Mahalo and his future endeavours.

Google has always prided itself on aggregating user data. After all, their mission is “to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful”. A social network is a great way to acquire user information and data without bluntly asking for it. Millions upon millions of people have provided a detailed map of their lives in Facebook, for example. This information is priceless. Rather than fill out a lenghty, tedious registration form, users slowly complete their profiles over time.

At this point, Google really only has two options. It can:

1. Create a social network from scratch, or;
2. Acquire an existing social network.

With all due respect, Orkut just doesn’t cut it. I would even wager that the majority of North American Internet users have never heard of the service - never mind knowing that it is owned by Google. Furthermore, the percentage of English-speaking users is less than 8%, based on Alexa stats. 

An English-focused social network would tie everything together and create new opportunities for the company. The search giant would not only be able to leverage its highly successful Adsense platform, but also explore potential new revenue models. Further integration with existing social properties (i.e. Blogger, Picasa, Gmail, etc…) could provide a stunning value proposition for existing Google users, as well as potential new users.