What Would Google Do? by Jeff Jarvis

I just finished reading What Would Google Do? by Jeff Jarvis and was rather disappointed. I saw Jeff Jarvis speak at the Next Web 2009 and he is an excellent speaker and certainly knows how to entertain his audience with stories. However, as a writer I am not so impressed. The book is filled with numbers and figures of revenue, clicks, marketshare etcetera. On top of that it doesn’t read like a coherent argument.

Jeff Jarvis at The Next Web 2009

Please note that this is not a book review but a collection of notes of everything that I got out of this book for my research. I tried a new notetaking system for my research: Evernote. Instead of underlining passages I took pictures of relevant paragraphs with my Google phone, the Nexus One (the pictures in this blog post are taken with my Nikon D90) and directly uploaded them to Evernote. Evernote makes my notes available everywhere and it applies text recognition to everything that I upload so my pictures become searchable.

Evernote text recognition

Life is a beta

In both the Perceived Freshness Fetish and Identity 2.0 I describe the web 2.0 culture as a beta culture. I would like to argue that web 1.0 was always ‘Under Construction’ while web 2.0 is always ‘In Beta.’ The main difference is the disruption of the updates for the user or visitor. Websites that are ‘Under Construction’ are unfinished or are in the process of being updated. They bear signs of inaccessible construction sites that depict roadblocks. It is a disruptive update process. Services such as Google’s products that are in a perpetual beta state are invisibly being updated. Platform updates do not go unnoticed to users (as can be seen in the case of privacy settings in Facebook and Google Buzz), but it does not immediately disrupt their webflow. Updates are less disruptive because they are being performed in the backend instead of the frontend.

The term beta is also a social construct in the Google world similar to the Under Construction signs indicating “I’m sorry” or according to Jeff Jarvis a way of not having to say sorry:

“Beta” is Google’s way of never having to say they’re sorry. It is also Google’s way of saying, “There are sure to be mistakes here and so please help us and fix them and improve the product. Tell us what you want it to be. Thanks.” (Jarvis 2009: 91)¹

Google’s products often start in Google Labs before they graduate for public use. The next step is usually a few years in beta which in Google terms means that the product is mature enough for public launch but that it may come with flaws. In the summer of 2009 Google decided to remove the beta label from its major products:

Today we’re paving the road. We’re taking the beta label off of Gmail, Google Calendar, Google Docs and Google Talk to remove any doubt that Apps is a mature product suite. (Rahen 2009)²

Recent Google experiments are launched in Google Labs or labelled with a Preview label instead of a Beta label, as in the case with Google Wave. Beta, as Google’s way of not having to say sorry, seems to have disappeared. However, the introduction of Google’s new service Google Buzz forced Google to publicly say sorry to its users. The service, similar to Twitter, was introduced overnight without the infamous beta/preview logo. It just appeared as a new feature within/on top of Gmail. Its default privacy settings revealed a list of contacts of “people you email and chat with most.” After complaints from users about the sudden publication of their contactlist Google admitted the ‘Buzz social network testing flaws‘ to BBC News. Products are usually extensively tested with friends/family or a relatively small set of users in a private beta. Buzz was launched without these tests and users immediately pointed to its privacy flaws. While Google considers our life to be a beta where experimentation is key, Google Buzz showed that its users base is not quite ready or interested in living life as a beta.

 

Life is a beta

1. Jarvis, Jeff. What Would Google Do? New York: Harperluxe, 2009).[↩]
2. Sheth, Rajen. “Paving the road to Apps adoption in large enterprises.” Official Google Enterprise Blog 7 Jul 2009. Web. 26 Feb 2010.[↩]

Last month Google announced the launch of their Real Time Search engine. By including real time search results Google has now officially embraced the updatesphere as a subsphere of “The Web,” as may be seen in the following figures.

Fig. 1: Part of the main index

Fig. 2: Updates as a subcategory of index results

Fig. 3: The updatesphere

In my real time web results Google is indexing updates performed within the three popular micro-blogging platforms: Twitter, FriendFeed and Identi.ca. Notably absent are the status updates from the social networking site Facebook because of its partial walled garden structure. However, it may not be long before these updates will be included as well because Google recently made a deal with Facebook¹. However, it is interesting to note that Google will only receive Facebook updates from public updates on pages (such as fan pages) while competing search engine Bing will receive updates from public profile pages (personal profiles) that are marked as visible for everyone.

Already in 2008 Google started expanding its indexing focus to actions within social networks but the indexed actions were quite messy, for example:

• silvertje has started 0 topics. silvertje has made 1 reply. … silvertje replied on May 13, 2009 06:25 to the question “We want all …”
• Anteek added a contact: Anne Helmond. MyBlogLog Action submitted by Anteek -
• Uploads from Anne Helmond, tagged… – http://www.flickr.com/photos/silvertje/tags/amsterdam/
• Qik | Anne Helmond | Untitled. Streamed by Anne Helmond. More at http://qik.com/silvertje.

These actions performed on social objects² such as Flickr photos, blog posts and videos, seemed to be Google’s first steps into real-time search. By partnering up with Facebook, MySpace, FriendFeed, Jaiku, Identi.ca and Twitter, Google has now officially welcomed the updatesphere.

Twitters’ status updates have been included in Google’s index for a while but they are now actively promoted on the main site:

Google Social Search and the statussphere

Please note that this screenshot shows the Social Search experiment, part of Google Labs > Experimental Search. It seems that -while writing- Google removed the real-time social results from the main site and moved it to its Labs.

Status updates are moving from the Web sphere to its own distinct sphere: the updatesphere. Google is acting as a demarcating engine in the construction of the updatesphere.³

1. Google its official partners are: “Facebook, MySpace, FriendFeed, Jaiku and Identi.ca — along with Twitter, which we announced a few weeks ago.” Google, Relevance meets the real-time web[↩]
2. social because they the objects are part of social web services that allow other people to participate in the objects by tagging, rating, leaving a comment, embedding or favoring for example[↩]
3. For more on web spheres: R. Rogers, The End of the Virtual: Digital Methods, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2009. (38p) [pre-print pdf][↩]

I appear as an actor in the official Google Chrome OS UI Concept Video on YouTube. Fame at last!

Thanks to @jvdgoot for noticing.

Konrad Becker Book Presentation: Deep Search. The politics of Search Beyond Google

Conference visitors

Siva Vaidhyanathan

Richard Rogers, University of Amsterdam

Florian Cramer

Society of the Query conference photography for the Institute of Network Cultures by Anne Helmond. More pictures on Flickr.

At PICNIC09 Christian Nold challenged me in the the Mediamatic RFID installation Ik win: Challenge someone with your web popularity, and let’s see and show other people how high you’re ranking based on the number of Google results. For more info see the Mediamatic Ik win website.

Winner: Christian Nold! Congratulations.

Thanks to Esther for making the pictures! More PICNIC09 pictures on Flickr.

Internet researchers are confronted with an instable object of study, the ephemerality of the object. The question is how to make the medium permanent so we can study it with care? The shape of the archive informs what I can ask the archive.

This perspective on archives is placed within Weltevrede’s research into National Webs. To think nationally with the web might seem counterintuitively at first because dominant ideas of the web are so global. This originates from the 90s idea of  Cyberspace which is a universal space with ideas of disembodiment and identity play. Crucially, cyberspace is a place that is disembedded from reality. After 2000 cyberspace was confronted with what Weltevrede calls “the national turn.”

This may be seen in a number of places, probably most familiar is Google.com redirects you to the location you are at, for example Google.nl and you get a totally different result page. Another example is “This video is not available in your country” intellectual property is really dominant in the nationalization of web content. You might also think in the terms of language. English used to be the dominant universal language, there is a lot of clustering happening on the web based on a shared language.

To move to the web archive, the most exhaustive project in the field is the Internet Archive which originates from the cyberspace period (1996.) This can also be seen in how the archive was set up. First of all, the scope of the collection is the “whole” internet which is a very broad collection aim. Secondly, when you look at the interface of the archive, the Wayback Machine, what you immediately notice is that you query it by URL and browse from that point on. It is characterized by browsing instead the current dominant form: searching. The Internet Archive therefor privileges single site histories instead of researching its context.

The Internet Archive emerged from the web company Alexa and Alexa provides all the crawls and donates it to the archive. This means that the selection of sites is based on traffic data. If you have the Alexa toolbar installed every page you visit will be included in the archive. It is a very smart way to start thinking about which pages should be included in the archive. After the Internet Archive in 1996 a number of initiatives emerged with a national focus. The general thought behind that was that national web archives can best serve local wishes and demands and serve the community (researchers, general public) best.

As an example we will look at a Dutch web archive maintained by the Royal Library of the Netherlands, the KB. Before we go into the actual project, let’s get a size of the Dutch web. The .nl domain is the fourth largest country domain with 3.2 million sites, an enormous amount.

How to demarcate the national web

1. .nl is the 4th largest country domain
2. A second way to look at the national web (.nl is not the whole Dutch web you could argue) we can look at all the domains registered by the Dutch (sidn.nl 2008)
3. What do we Dutch people find relevant sites? We can look at the most visited websites as listed by Alexa. We find these sites important through the number of visits.

These are three ways to think of how to define the national web by web means. The definition of the national aspect as used by the Royal Library is. They created a new definition of what is Dutch content.

• A: Website in Dutch, registered in the Netherlands
• B: Website in another language, registered in the Netherlands
• C: Website in Dutch, registered in another country
• D: Website in another language, registered in another country, topic aimed at the Netherlands.

All of these options seem technically feasible except for the last one. We cannot technically or automatically define content that is aimed at the Netherlands. It makes it highly unlikely that this Dutch web can be archived. What the Royal Library has done, is leave this definition and manually select sites. They started with 100 sites, it became 400 and now just over a 1000. They archive those sites really well.

As an internet researcher Weltevrede is particularly interested in the dynamics of websites. The contribution she would like to put forward is how else can we approach the object of collection, the Dutch web?

If you start web archiving the most easy and effective method is to follow the possibilities of the medium. You can automate a lot of things and besides that you can also focus on the context and prominence of the website in a particular period. The first point calls attention to the challenge to develop methods that follow the medium to automate the collection process. You could
schedule Google.nl for the query “.nl” because Google takes into account what is relevant, links to a website. These are not only considered relevant by Google but by a large group of people. Hyperlink structures are human acts of association, links die and emerge, what would that information provide us about the context and its network? If you would schedule it over time you could see the relevance of a particular source in a particular period. It would provide context for sources or websites, the born digital.

The final questions are:

• What would the national Web archive look like when the focus is on capturing hyperlinks, search engine results, and other digital objects?
• What aspects besides the digital document are relevant to save and why?
• Can we learn from how born digital devices (e.g. search engines, platforms and recommendation systems) make use of the objects, and if so, how can such uses be repurposed for Web archiving>

Final personal note: The day after this presentation (this morning) my friend and colleague Esther Weltevrede graduated Cum Laude from the University of Amsterdam on her research on Archiving Web Dynamics. She will continue her research on National Webs as a PhD candidate with the Digital Methods Initiative. Congratulations Esther!