Google's New Algorithm

Yesterday, Google announced via its blog, that it had made some changes to its algorithm.  For certain queries, they are going to show more results from a specific domain.  In their own words, "For queries that indicate a strong user interest in a particular domain, like [exhibitions at amnh], we’ll now show more results from the relevant site:"  It looks like it will mostly only effect the results for Big Brands but not the small ones.

The Good
Its sounds like a great idea for companies who are trying to manage their reputation online.  It will be easier for them to dominate and get more of their own, and therefore more positive, results in the top ten.

The Bad
What if I am a user who is looking for what others think about the company and not what they think of themselves?  I will have to dig a little deeper and may need to go to the second and third pages to get someone else's opinion.  Not a big deal, but still pushes down possibly important info.

There are some good things to this and some bad.  For some users it will be helpful to see more results from the Big Brand domain.  For others though, it will be less than helpful.  And I am not sure there is any good way to distinguish between the two users searching for info on a big brand.

Google vs. Facebook - The War

The social networking war is heating up.  With Google's purchase of Slide and Jambool, Facebook has gone to DEFCON 1 and ordered Lockdown across the company.  The Lockdown, noted by the neon Lockdown sign on Zuck's office door, has been declared for the next 60 days to prepare Facebook for the upcoming launch of Google Me.  Its all out war.

Both companies seem to be drawing the battle front on technology and features.  This draws the conclusion that better technology makes a better social networking experience.  But I don't think technology is the real battle front.  The keyword is social not technology.

Its Where My Friends Are
No amount of technology can overcome the one great challenge that Google faces and Facebook already owns.  Its where my friends are.  Sure, Facebook doesn't own me or my friends, but its where they all are.  I suppose if all my friends were on MySpace, I probably would be there too.  And technology alone just can't overcome this social inertia that Facebook has (ie 500,000,000 people and growing).

Newton's second law of motion:

"by which every body, as much as in it lies, endeavors to preserve in its present state"

It won't work to get a few early adopters to move and hope the rest will eventually follow.  No one wants to be on a social network all by themselves.  For me to move, you would have to get all of my friends to move.  And all of their friends.  And all of their friend's friends. And so on to the tune of 500 Million because we are all connected. And do it all at once.  Basically you need a digital Moses to lead a mass exodus to the social promised land.

But it happened with MySpace.  No, not really.  MySpace was big, but it didn't have the social inertia that Facebook does.  It never reached the critical mass that Facebook has.

If Google wants to win, they need to figure out the social aspect of it and not worry so much about the technology aspect.  Otherwise they will just end up with another Google Buzz.

Zuckerberg Is Out of Touch

I can't tell if Mark Zuckerberg is just completely out of touch with his users, or if he's just completely ignoring them.

Why? Because every recent change Facebook has made to its platform has been met with opposition from its users. Just look at these two Facebook Groups.

We Hate The New Facebook, so STOP CHANGING IT!!! 1,643,343 members

group: i love the new facebook design 70 Members (and this is the largest group)

People can't tell you how to innovate or how to make something better. But they sure know when something is wrong. And if the groups are any indication, something is definitely wrong.

A good CEO is in tune with his audience. He gets them. He looks out for them. He does what is in their best interest because he understands that when his users are happy, his company is happy.

Z is the complete opposite. He is out of touch with the users and isn't building Facebook in their best interest. He is building it for himself. The way he thinks it should be. And right now, how Z thinks they should use it and how users actually want to use it are at odds. Which is not a good thing.

Case in point.
Facebook has announced new privacy settings to make privacy EASIER on the user. Total lie. The only thing easier about the new change is how much easier it will be for Google to get your personal data. I guess this is to keep up with Twitter. But I can't figure out why.

If Z learns anything from reading this post(yeah right) its should be this:

Facebook is Private and always should be.

Twitter = public. Facebook = Private. Two totally separate things. They don't have to be like each other. They shouldn't. We shouldn't even be comparing them.

People like their privacy. That's why Facebook has been so great. I can talk with all my real friends without the entire world watching. (sure there are loopholes, but for the most part it works pretty well.)

How's this for a business model? Make it more private. Make it a safe harbor where I can go online without fear of someone stalking me, watching me, spamming me or interrupting a private conversation. That's the value. Privacy. There aren't many, if any, private places online. Make Facebook the most private place online. That will make you some money. Guaranteed.

With the new changes, Facebook has taken away some of our privacy. They have told us what the world can see of our profiles when they should have given us the option to decide for ourselves. Actually, I think it shouldn't even be an option. Make it private. Keep it private.

Remember MySpace. It died because it got to be too public. Facebook is the next MySpace.

The World Needs Another Search Engine.....

....Like It Needs Another Energy Drink.

There are a million energy drinks out there, but no one, no matter what they try, can even put a dent in Red Bulls sales.

The search world is the same story, just with different players. Google owns search(67% worldwide) and not even Microsoft's Bing will put a dent in Google dominance. Everyone else can see this, so why can't Microsoft?

Maybe the same people behind Bing are the same people who thought the Zune was a good idea?

Microsoft is in the business of trying to compete with companies who already own a category. They need a new business.

Microsoft needs to be in the innovation business, and they have the money and power to do it.

Monday's post will be an idea on how Microsoft can innovate.