Until I tried it, everything 2.0 seemed like a joke to me. But the transition between Google, Yahoo, MSN Web 1.0 search engine and Web 2.0 environment is huge.
For those who remember using the card catalog at the public library, the transition is similar to the one you encountered using a computer to get a book for the first time. There are no endless cabinets for hunting cards. No cards are lost, which means you will not find the book you were looking for that day. Every book in the library is accessible with a single keyboard.
In 2.0, the information is faster. It moves at keyboard speeds and web form. A story from New York hits the West Coast as it takes a web page to be updated. And if a fast-paced network puts a premium on those sites and bloggers who can get information first, the news even touches the garden forums before they even reach the cable news networks.
This is a major change in the speed of information speed. With the advent of the printing press by Johann Gutenberg in 1440, the level of information spread rapidly. Oral communication was no longer the only way to receive news. Then came mail, newspapers, television, and 24-hour cable news. Each jumps forward from the previous media path.
Then came the Internet. Within a few short years, information was accessible everywhere with the click of a mouse. We can now store more information on our hard drive than we would find in a local library.
Now, with web 2.0, the filter and waiting time for search engines is removed. Some may say that this reduces accuracy, but over time, I think it will improve accuracy. Search engines try to guess what searchers want by using an algorithm for what they type in the form. With the new animal, humans are algorithms.
When I first started building my favorite library, I used to find new music from people who listened to the same kind of music I was listening to. If we both listened to Pink Floyd rather than get a chance to listen to some of the music they suggested to me. This is a much more effective way of getting new information than an algorithm. Let people be your algorithm. Allow links to be spread across a range of likes, themes, and interests rather than a direct line of search engines that require the user to know exactly what they want to find before searching.
There is also the aspect of time involved. Some search engine results are just old. They are not what you want. Some engines ensure that the links are old before they are given the right status.
At 2.0, the hour is longer and the moon is longer. If you search for tagged sites or feeds, the site may find up to 100 links per hour per tag. Normal search engine can't keep up with this. This type of link growth will have to be filtered to determine spam or other strategies to increase its quality. However, the baby is thrown out with bath water several times.
Traditional search engines support all of their ranking programs in the votes of people who are able to build websites or at least submit to forums. This is not very similar. Sitting on a computer screen, you can take whatever you want, but get out into the real world and try to talk to anyone about HTML. Then note that these online votes are not valid.
Marking and other web 2.0 technologies have brought more balance to the system, giving those, with tech-savvy stops bidding on eBay, the online right to vote. And when I finally got the chance to test it out by spending the last few weeks in web 2.0 streaming, I realized that my whole idea was a little off. Sitting in a box, typing code all day long, may distort your version of the world. Judging by the needs of the online audience, by the search for an online algorithmic system can further distort this view.
Web 1.0 is Plato's cave, the only source of real internet traffic. As Web 2.0 technology becomes more common, the common search engine will have to conform to the democratic union between “internet landowners” and those who not only surf, but who probably make up the majority of Internet users.
You must be logged in to post a comment.