Google - beyond the interview

Google - beyond the interview

Summary: I recently interviewed Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google, for a video series sponsored by British Telecom. You can see it either at BT.

TOPICS: Google

I recently interviewed Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google, for a video series sponsored by British Telecom. You can see it either at (registration required) or at interview iTunes. Or you can read on for my unapproved speculations about Google's future. I think it's clear Google needs to move more aggressively into personalization and also into more structured ways of looking at data/metadata. Note that Eric did not necessarily agree...

Personalized search

On personalization: It's inevitable, even though Google is reluctant to get caught up in the privacy issues around user data, especially after AOL's recent fiasco with user data...for which, not surprisingly, it is now getting sued.

Eric Schmidt

Yet it seems clear to me that in order to make its search better, there's little that Google can do other than to understand what each user is looking for. The fat front of search is has been fairly well covered; the long tail needs knowledge about the searcher. Of course, it does no good simply not to collect personally identifiable information. As AOL demonstrated, people give away a lot by their searches. Better, I think, to take the opposite route, and to work with the users: Tell them that you're trying to make their searches better, and ask them to help you. One way to keep management lean is to give managers too much to do, says Schmidt. Make it easy – really easy – for them to turn tracking on and off, and then rely on their common sense to figure out what they want to reveal and what to hide. By trying to be unobtrusive, services end up feeling sneaky. Imagine a service that said: "This is what we know about you, and how." And that then invited you to edit the metadata. In the end, social engineering will be as least as important as technical engineering to do this right. Some early examples include mSpoke and RootMarket, all of which let the user participate.

But once the users want to play, then the system needs to be good at matching behavior and demographics to what users want. On the user side, huge amounts of data, untouched by human hands, can be helpful in matching behavior - which may include all kinds of data other than previous searches, such as – with permission – surfing habits, the contents of mail or even a user's documents. If the user is writing a report on wine production in Italy, you can guess what he might want when he searches on "robust red."

On the searched content side, vendors can use data mining from users' behavior – where Google and other much-used systems will of course have an edge – as well as carefully constructed ontologies or taxonomies of specific domains such as movies and medical care. (Disclosure: I have investments in companies in both these areas, ChoiceStream and Medstory.)

The search service can also ask the user: Do you want personalized search? Do you want personalized ads? Over time, I expect more and more people will say yes – especially once it's clear what they are giving and what they are getting.

So how Google proceeds I don't know. But I'm sure that the company is doing more than it lets on, and that issues such as privacy are probably more of an issue for them than technology. It may be that Google will wait until behavioral targeting becomes more mainstream, and will then launch its own technology into a more relaxed world, where users expect to be followed, but they feel comfortable because they know what's going on.

Index more

The second area that I think Google must address sooner rather than later is indexing of stuff that is currently not on the Web. Here Eric was a little more forthcoming, mentioning that Google already does images and video...but I was thinking beyond that. First, there's indexing (which requires recognizing) all the things in the videos and images. More on that later, when I do the second half of a posting on pattern-recognition.

But there's also indexing all the objects out in the real world, starting with the inventories of every retailer. Here Eric agreed, though without any dates. How will this happen? Well, somehow one retailer will start making data derived from its RFID logistics system available in an effort to increase sales. Other retailers will follow suit in self-defense, and then pretty soon it will be widespread, just as most airlines now let you see what seats are available online. Those who make you wait until after you have booked will eventually lose out to those who let you know beforehand, and the same will happen with respect to product data: Information is added value.

Where does Google fit in? Well, this time it may do something like Froogle right, collecting data feeds from suppliers and making them available conveniently to users. If Google doesn't, someone else will. But this does seem to be something already on Eric Schmidt's mind.

Of course, you can't forget to ask about China. It was one of the hardest decisions the company has had to make, says Schmidt. It seems to me that it's better for Google to be in China than not, even though it's censored. It's not simply that it can still deliver some information. The habit of finding things out is almost as important as what people find least for now. People need to expect to find the answers to their questions. They should get into the habit of wanting to know things. Later on, they'll begin to wonder why there are certain things they cannot know.

Final tip: One way to keep management lean is to give managers too much to do, says Schmidt – with 40 or so direct reports. That way they're too busy handling real problems to interfere where they are not needed.

Topic: Google

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.


Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Message has been deleted.

  • Personalized Search

    I don't understand how personalizing the search results is a benefit to me. I would prefer that a search engine NOT bias my results based on past searches. Otherwise I risk missing any NEW items I might be looking for (even if I didn't know I was looking for them!). Possibly I'm just misunderstanding the concept?

  • Google does not want legal liabilities!

    I agree that the search engine could work much better with intimate knowledge of the searcher. This would be a great way to put more distance between Google and its nearest competitor.

    But I do not think it is likely to happen anytime soon. Google has grown up and gone corporate. They own the search business, and the paid-search/marketing business model is working well for them.

    They have a "real" CEO in Eric Schmidt and he realizes that they don't have to do anything. Incumbent firms are risk adverse because they have a lot to loose and not much to gain when things change. They cling to the status quo. Google needs a real competitor in the search business for them to stretch to the next level. Look at the creative chaos that has resulted from the Intel vs AMD rivalry.
    • RE: Google does not want legal liabilities!

      "I agree that the search engine could work much better with intimate knowledge of the searcher."

      I honestly don't understand...can you give a concrete example of this?

      • Example

        A rather unsophisticated example - Suppose two users, A and B, enter "transit" as their search term.

        User A has a search history which is rich in astrology oriented searches. User B's search history is littered with refernces to For, or cars. User A's search will return results about astrological transits. User B's search will return results based on the Ford Transit van. A poor example,but hopefully it might indicate how a heuristic searh might be driven by 'clues; from the user's past search habits (or occupation, for example).
        • RE: Example

          Yes, but doesn't this simply pigeonhole each user into only learning about topics they are already familiar with? Aren't you losing the synergy? If user A really wants to restrict his searches to astrology-oriented returns, can't he just include "astrology" as one of his search terms?

          • You're right

            What you say is correct, a 'good' search would be best initiated by lots of relevant search criteria. I guess what they're really talking about, is how best to profile a user so targeted and sponsored search results can be pushed at the searcher. Enter 'transit' on its own and both user A and B get a search result for Madame Astro's car shop and palm reading pizzereria :-) Seriously AI techniques would be the best way to endow a search engine with the capacity to return a set of 'most likey wanted' results, based on inferrals made from hundreds, maybe thousands of user information 'clues'. But at the end of the day the name of the game is generating revenue from each search and that is done by sponsored results and targetted ads.
          • RE: You're right

            Ok, got it. So this "targeted search" feature is for the advertisers, not the user. That makes more sense.

  • GoogTube is Google's Second Act

    I applaud Google's strong step forward in acquiring YouTube. It really is a whole new strategic move for them and one that will be seen by many as their Second Act beyond Search. I believe that Shona Brown played a major part in it:
  • Message has been deleted.