Why Google is a primitive search engine
Man, that’s a tough title, I hear you say, but bear with me for a moment and read on to see what I mean. Google is the king of Internet search for over 10 years and has no real enemy on this niche (big niche I must admit), but does this mean being the best is good enough?
Google search is primitive
Well, when we talk about search today I think Google results are not that good, where good is defined by the quality of the answers people get. What Google does is match the search term with results in its internal database and returns the user a list of results it thinks are the best. It does that rather efficient, fast and manages to get regular website in its index very fast (better than the competition), but that’s pretty much it: many times results are not what you’re expecting and are the base for further personal investigations.
It’s like you go to a library, ask for a particular Jules Verne book and get his entire work on the desk, all books without titles. Then you start looking into each and everyone to find what you’re looking for.
What can’t Google do?
- search into picture contents with advanced filters for color and so on
- search into videos
- search into other content than your birth language and automatically translate relevant results
- compose similar pages with the same topic into one single document (text, images, video and social media mentions)
The future of search as I see it lies in the quality of the results, not the speed. That was also the case when Google enter the market and was more relevant than the competition at that time (competition that now has narrowed down significantly). If Google doesn’t do something to stay ahead of the game and come up with something evolved (I’m not talking about Caffeine) we’re looking at a dead man walking, don’t you think?
