Earlier this year, Nova Spivack called for a better “decision-support engine” (my phrase; he prefers “help engine”, which is definitely catchier). He doesn’t say much about what form such an engine could take, either as perceived by the user or……

In the last 30 years we pumped tons of digital information on our servers and today we discover that we lost control. Most full text searches are getting so big that the results are getting every day more stupid and irrelevant. First our computers have to start understanding words or basic concepts. After that we have to create context. At the moment we a living the explosion of spacial context (maps). Only now we are discovering that information makes only sense in a context. In the past this was common sense, but the power of full text searches intrigued us all.

Whatever will follow search has to be contextual. My personal feeling is that regardless on how we call it, the process will be in the center of it. Having realized many ECM projects, I learned that not the information, but the process is in the center. In other words, I foresee that 95% of backoffice processes will be accomplished by computers. Finding the best flight, hotel or restaurant is definitely something a program or “agent” can do. We simply have to instruct the machines on what our parameters and wishes are.

We will see technology which enables us to express our personal preferences. Just think of the incredible amount of stupid tasks, which could be accomplished by a computer….

Another important issue about the end of search is the automatic classification of digital information during it's creation. When we create a content it, will be immediately logically linked to relevant processes. Therefore the need of search will dissappear.

Automatic processing will replace search. Information will come to us and we will have no need to dive for it.

In the last 30 years we pumped tons of digital information on our servers and today we discover that we lost control. Most full text searches are getting so big that the results are getting every day more stupid and irrelevant. First our computers have to start understanding words or basic concepts. After that we have to create context. At the moment we a living the explosion of spacial context (maps). Only now we are discovering that information makes only sense in a context. In the past this was common sense, but the power of full text searches intrigued us all.

Whatever will follow search has to be contextual. My personal feeling is that regardless on how we call it, the process will be in the center of it. Having realized many ECM projects, I learned that not the information, but the process is in the center. In other words, I foresee that 95% of backoffice processes will be accomplished by computers. Finding the best flight, hotel or restaurant is definitely something a program or “agent” can do. We simply have to instruct the machines on what our parameters and wishes are.

We will see technology which enables us to express our personal preferences. Just think of the incredible amount of stupid tasks, which could be accomplished by a computer….

Another important issue about the end of search is the automatic classification of digital information during it's creation. When we create a content it, will be immediately logically linked to relevant processes. Therefore the need of search will dissappear.

Automatic processing will replace search. Information will come to us and we will have no need to dive for it.

In the last 30 years we pumped tons of digital information on our servers and today we discover that we lost control. Most full text searches are getting so big that the results are getting every day more stupid and irrelevant. First our computers have to start understanding words or basic concepts. After that we have to create context. At the moment we are living the explosion of spacial context (maps). Only now we are discovering that information makes only sense in a context. In the past this was obvious, but the power of full text searches intrigued us all.

Whatever will follow search has to be contextual. My personal feeling is that regardless on how we call it, the process will be in the center of it. Having realized many ECM projects, I learned that not the information, but the process is in the center. In other words, I foresee that 95% of backoffice processes will be accomplished by computers. Finding the best flight, hotel or restaurant is definitely something a program or “agent” can do. We simply have to instruct the machines on what our parameters and wishes are.

We will see technology which enables us to express our personal preferences. Just think of the incredible amount of stupid tasks, which could be accomplished by a computer….

Another important issue about the end of search is the automatic classification of digital information during it's creation. When we create a content it, will be immediately logically linked to relevant processes. Therefore the need of search will dissappear.

Automatic processing will replace search. Information will come to us and we will have no need to dive for it.

Utilizing Semantic Web technologies is not a 1960's, naive prusuit. It is forward-thinking. It is what will drive the Web into th

Utilizing Semantic Web technologies is not a 1960's, naive pursuit. It is forward-looking thinking. It is something Twine has been doing since its inception. See these: http://www.novaspivack.com/science/minding-the-…
and
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/twine_firs…

Instead of looking out for the next way to gather what you need – look in. Model the digital world after our real world. In the real world our social networks are organized and are fluid to accomplish a task at hand.

The human element, people in our social networks, will reemerge as the central pillar of technological innovation for search. It's why, for example, I love Twine – kinks and all. People make it work – not technology (in case you were wondering – I have no affiliation with Twine – honest

What will replace search technologies? Look no further than your peeps (kinda has that Wizard of Oz flavor doesn't it)

Judy Shapiro

Instead of looking out for the next way to gather what you need – look in. Model the digital world after our real world. In the real world our social networks are organized and are fluid to accomplish a task at hand.

The human element, people in our social networks, will reemerge as the central pillar of technological innovation for search. It's why, for example, I love Twine – kinks and all. People make it work – not technology (in case you were wondering – I have no affiliation with Twine – honest

What will replace search technologies? Look no further than your peeps (kinda has that Wizard of Oz flavor doesn't it)

Judy Shapiro

I was looking at this from the perspective of how do I put together knowledge from what I find. I see your approach as looking for results that are themselves the user's desired action (rather than pointers to it), so I really enjoyed reading your take here.

Regarding this coming from Google or outside the realm of existing search engines, I'd argue that Google is probably closer to solving this now than the others. I felt Bing was marketed as a decision engine but fell short of accomplishing anything like that, it still feels to me like it's playing catch-up to Google, which cannot be billed as much of a decision engine either.

Some of the comments on this post push for social context as aiding the process, which makes great sense. Another important thing is the individual user's history.

Based on what Google provides and tracks I think it largely has the context and the history as background information. It's in Google's search histories and various forms of social networking relationship data. Although it's spread out through the myriad services Google provides, looking at each of those you start to see that they have an awful lot they can connect to anticipate a user's tastes.

Additionally, Google foreshadowed the good point you make: “to minimize the need to search, and to make any search that is necessary as productive as possible.” Its deceptively simplistic “I'm Feeling Lucky” button, which gets equal billing to the “Google Search” button on the homepage.

Perhaps an “I'm Feeling Lucky” button doesn't sound so valuable because of its comical lable. But when it comes down to it, it functions (or could function with additional background intelligence) in service of minimizing the need to search. In fact, the “I'm Feeling Lucky” button suggests that Google's supposed disincentive to decrease search time is not an issue.

I don't mean to come off as promoting Google… just observing what direction this could go based on what is currently available.

You pointed out the idea that “The goal should be to get consumers to what they really want with the least amount of searching and the least amount of effort, with the greatest amount of confidence that the results are accurate and comprehensive.”

I'm wondering a few things about your perspective in that. First is just a point of clarification: by “consumer” do you mean people consuming the service the help engine provides or do you mean people using the service in order to find something they'll consume (like buying airplane tickets)?

I ask, because if it's the latter, then I understand you're talking about a very specific sort of service as opposed to one with a much broader purpose. In which case, as someone seeking to purchase something, it makes a lot of sense to me to get to my target purchase as directly as possible. Actually even if I'm not going to purchase something but just want to find out news about relief efforts in Haiti, for example, it probably makes sense to get me there as directly as possible.

On the other hand if it's the first sense of consume, I think it may change what the help engine is providing. It may then be useful for me to know about multiple sources of information. It may then be best to provide me with a range of results that would be relevant to the sort of activity I'm engaged in.

Determining the difference between these, I think is probably a significant challenge for any help engine (or evolved search engine) that comes along.

I was looking at this from the perspective of how do I put together knowledge from what I find. I see your approach as looking for results that are themselves the user's desired action (rather than pointers to it), so I really enjoyed reading your take here.

Regarding this coming from Google or outside the realm of existing search engines, I'd argue that Google is probably closer to solving this now than the others. I felt Bing was marketed as a decision engine but fell short of accomplishing anything like that, it still feels to me like it's playing catch-up to Google, which cannot be billed as much of a decision engine either.

Some of the comments on this post push for social context as aiding the process, which makes great sense. Another important thing is the individual user's history.

Based on what Google provides and tracks I think it largely has the context and the history as background information. It's in Google's search histories and various forms of social networking relationship data. Although it's spread out through the myriad services Google provides, looking at each of those you start to see that they have an awful lot they can connect to anticipate a user's tastes.

Additionally, Google foreshadowed the good point you make: “to minimize the need to search, and to make any search that is necessary as productive as possible.” Its deceptively simplistic “I'm Feeling Lucky” button, which gets equal billing to the “Google Search” button on the homepage.

Perhaps an “I'm Feeling Lucky” button doesn't sound so valuable because of its comical lable. But when it comes down to it, it functions (or could function with additional background intelligence) in service of minimizing the need to search. In fact, the “I'm Feeling Lucky” button suggests that Google's supposed disincentive to decrease search time is not an issue.

I don't mean to come off as promoting Google… just observing what direction this could go based on what is currently available.

You pointed out the idea that “The goal should be to get consumers to what they really want with the least amount of searching and the least amount of effort, with the greatest amount of confidence that the results are accurate and comprehensive.”

I'm wondering a few things about your perspective in that. First is just a point of clarification: by “consumer” do you mean people consuming the service the help engine provides or do you mean people using the service in order to find something they'll consume (like buying airplane tickets)?

I ask, because if it's the latter, then I understand you're talking about a very specific sort of service as opposed to one with a much broader purpose. In which case, as someone seeking to purchase something, it makes a lot of sense to me to get to my target purchase as directly as possible. Actually even if I'm not going to purchase something but just want to find out news about relief efforts in Haiti, for example, it probably makes sense to get me there as directly as possible.

On the other hand if it's the first sense of consume, I think it may change what the help engine is providing. It may then be useful for me to know about multiple sources of information. It may then be best to provide me with a range of results that would be relevant to the sort of activity I'm engaged in.

Determining the difference between these, I think is probably a significant challenge for any help engine (or evolved search engine) that comes along.

Except the user should not longer tell a computer what to do, they should do their work and the computer should, through observation, learn how to help them … I have no idea how to call such a technology.

Except the user should not longer tell a computer what to do, they should do their work and the computer should, through observation, learn how to help them … I have no idea how to call such a technology.

Querying the system would provide personalized, meaningful results, not the rote one-size fits all results that search engines currently provide. One possible appellation for this type of system could be “intuition engine.”

I have a few ideas on how this could be accomplished without resorting to AI.

Querying the system would provide personalized, meaningful results, not the rote one-size fits all results that search engines currently provide. One possible appellation for this type of system could be “intuition engine.”

I have a few ideas on how this could be accomplished without resorting to AI.

You practically wrote my manifesto. I could just put it on my blog word-by-word. We may have different ideas on what the specific substitute for search will be, but I think we agree on that the age of keywords, on which today an entire industry is based, has to pass.

I came up with this idea of “content mapping” that, almost entirely relying on the crowd could ensure that every piece of content is placed in (and followed by) its ideal context on the web. What we called “search” in the past 20 years, would simply turn into “looking around”.

Please read my two posts under http://collectiveweb.wordpress.com/category/web…. Now that I know you're thinking about the same problem I'd be honored to hear your opinion on content mapping.

@DanielStocker

You practically wrote my manifesto. I could just put it on my blog word-by-word. We may have different ideas on what the specific substitute for search will be, but I think we agree on that the age of keywords, on which today an entire industry is based, has to pass.

I came up with this idea of “content mapping” that, almost entirely relying on the crowd could ensure that every piece of content is placed in (and followed by) its ideal context on the web. What we called “search” in the past 20 years, would simply turn into “looking around”.

Please read my two posts under http://collectiveweb.wordpress.com/category/web…. Now that I know you're thinking about the same problem I'd be honored to hear your opinion on content mapping.

@DanielStocker

Great article – thanks! I agree: for far too long, we've all assumed that the end game for search was just faster, better, more precise search. There has to be a better way – and chances are, it won't come from a company like Google that makes most of their money from search.

Search won't be needed when computers can actually anticipate what you need before you need to find it. Or when it's incredibly obvious where you need to go to find it.

I like your approach to this problem. You're thinking about this from the user's perspective rather than from the company perspective. Put another way, you're thinking about the solution to a problem rather than a technology product alone. I write a blog about solution marketing and this is an excellent example of solution thinking.

Thanks,
Steve Robins
The Solution Marketing Blog