<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>O&#039;Reilly Radar &#187; E.A. Vander Veer</title>
	<atom:link href="http://radar.oreilly.com/eavanderveer/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://radar.oreilly.com</link>
	<description>Insight, analysis, and research about emerging technologies</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 11:00:26 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>5 assumptions about social search</title>
		<link>http://radar.oreilly.com/2011/02/5-assumptions-about-social-search.html</link>
		<comments>http://radar.oreilly.com/2011/02/5-assumptions-about-social-search.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Feb 2011 14:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>E.A. Vander Veer</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Future of Search]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Web 2.0]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[@home]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Facebook]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[future of search]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[social search]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.oreilly.com/radar/2011/02/5-assumptions-about-social-search.html</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&#34;Facebook: The Missing Manual&#34; author E. A. Vander Veer considers some of the deeper implications of social search. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As any comp sci major knows, data is nothing more than a pile of facts. It takes meaning to turn data into useful, meaningful, actionable information.</p>
<p>And applying meaning to a pile of data is exactly what&#8217;s behind the <a href="http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=437112312130">recent partnership between Facebook and Microsoft&#8217;s Bing</a>. The idea is to use social information to select the most relevant search results from the staggering data pile that is the Internet.</p>
<p>Instead of assigning relevance to a given web page the old-fashioned way &mdash; because of, say, how many hits it received, or how many times your search phrase occurs in its tags, or how much the page&#8217;s owner paid to have it appear at the top of the search result stack &mdash;  the Facebook-Bing partnership aims to use a new relevance factor: What your friends like.</p>
<p>The reasoning goes like this: Most of us turn to our friends for recommendations when we want to hire a plumber or buy tickets to a play.  By tapping into the websites our Facebook friends have surfed to and &#8220;Liked,&#8221;  Facebook and Microsoft hope to be able to serve up search results that are more meaningful.  Rating content based on what other people think isn&#8217;t new, of course. Amazon has been doing it for years.  The thing that makes social search different isn&#8217;t just that it attempts to rate content &mdash; it&#8217;s that it attempts to rate content based on the opinions of people you know and trust.</p>
<p>And therein lies the rub.</p>
<p>Social search makes five assumptions that may or may not turn out to be accurate:</p>
</p>
<h2>1. That &#8220;Liking&#8221; something is relevant to all (or at least most) searches</h2>
</p>
<p>If you&#8217;re researching a mobile phone purchase, you might care what your pals think. If you&#8217;re looking for the most reliable, comprehensive site for prescription drug interactions, &#8220;relevance&#8221; probably means something other than popularity.</p>
</p>
<h2>2. That a single click can convey what someone actually meant when they &#8220;Liked&#8221; a site</h2>
</p>
<p>The popularity of the &#8220;Like&#8221; button (currently on an estimated <a href="http://techcrunch.com/2010/09/29/five-months-in-2-million-websites-using-facebooks-new-social-plugins/">2 million web pages</a>) is due in large part to its ease of use.  Just a quick click gives people the emotional satisfaction of getting to weigh in on something, of getting to make their voice heard.  Trouble is, clicking doesn&#8217;t really tell you a whole lot.  Did your pal like the site design?  The product being hawked on the site?  The company?  The picture of the celebrity endorser next to the &#8220;Like&#8221; button?  Or did his cat jump on his desk and step on the mouse by accident? There&#8217;s no way to know.</p>
</p>
<h2>3. That you trust the people who clicked &#8220;Like&#8221; (or even know them)</h2>
</p>
<p>It&#8217;s possible to create multiple Facebook accounts even though they violate the <a href="https://www.facebook.com/help/?faq=12840">terms of service</a>, and some users are <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/10/facebook-friend-request-spam_n_821584.html?page=3">quite indiscriminate</a> about accepting friend requests. As such, there&#8217;s a chance that some of your Facebook friends are duplicates &mdash; and that others are folks you&#8217;ve never met.  Both of these factors can diminish the relevance of recommendations.</p>
</p>
<h2>4. That the people companies say &#8220;Liked&#8221; something actually did click<br />
a &#8220;Like&#8221; button</h2>
</p>
<p>If we&#8217;re extending the real-world scenario (&#8220;I care what my ex-workout-buddy  thinks about that pair of shoes I want to buy&#8221;) we could do worse than consider the real-world case of the aluminum-siding salesman who insists that all of your friends and neighbors are already buying (&#8220;Come on, you&#8217;re the last holdout on your block!&#8221;).   In other words, it&#8217;s not inconceivable that companies who pay a little extra may turn out to be &#8220;Liked&#8221; just a little more often by your Facebook pals than sites who don&#8217;t pony up.  After all, how many of us are going to contact all of our friends to confirm?</p>
</p>
<h2>5. That people won&#8217;t get weirded out by having their Facebook and web-surfing worlds collide in such a visible way</h2>
</p>
<p>It&#8217;s been a long time since industry pundits (and Facebook members) were up in arms over <a href="https://developers.facebook.com/blog/post/108/">Connect</a>, a Facebook technology that shared member information with third-party websites on an opt-out basis.  The fact is that Facebook&#8217;s partnership with Bing (and other websites) does the same potentially scary thing: It melds what you and your friends do on Facebook with everything else you and your friends do on the web.  The jury&#8217;s still out on whether the average Facebook member realizes that what he &#8220;Likes&#8221; today could show up in his boss&#8217; search results tomorrow &mdash; and if he&#8217;ll care.</p>
<hr />
<p>Whether or not social search turns out to be useful for the average web user, there&#8217;s no question that it will be successful for Facebook &mdash; which is perhaps more to the point. Facebook&#8217;s deal with Bing virtually guarantees mass adoption of the &#8220;Like&#8221; button. If getting a good search ranking requires webmasters to get their visitors to click their &#8220;Like&#8221; button, that&#8217;s exactly what they&#8217;ll do.  And that&#8217;s great news for Facebook, whether or not Joe Searcher ends up better off.</p>
<p></p>
<p><strong>Related:</strong></p>
<ul>
<li> <a href="http://radar.oreilly.com/2010/11/for-social-search-similarity-t.html">For social search, similarity could trump friendship</a></li>
<li> <a href="http://radar.oreilly.com/2010/02/search-is-the-webs-fun-and-wic.html">Search is the Web&#8217;s fun and wicked problem</a></li>
<li> <a href="http://radar.oreilly.com/2011/01/visualization-facebook-friendships.html">Visualization deconstructed: Mapping Facebook&#8217;s friendships</a></li>
<li> <a href="http://radar.oreilly.com/2010/02/facebook-redesign.html">Why does Facebook keep redesigning?</a></li>
</ul>
<p></br></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://radar.oreilly.com/2011/02/5-assumptions-about-social-search.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
