Google jeopardized – a future scenario

Imagine that Google’s search results would show exactly what you were looking for. Would you ever click on one of the sponsored links, if this was the case. Of course not. And if no one clicks on the sponsored links on Google, then Google’s entire business would be jeopardized.

The Google Dilemma
Google is in a dilemma. People use Goggle because of the useful search results Google provides. But if the results becomes too good, Google will lose their ad revenue, the very foundation for the Google empire.

Strategy: Do not improve the search algorithm
Within the last 2-3 years Google’s sponsored links have been improved greatly. They are now more targeted then ever. However, the search results haven’t improved much.
Could this be a part of Google’s strategy; not to improve the search results, but instead improve the revenue generating links? From a business perspective it makes sense.

Ads more targeted than search results
Google’s search results are only related to the keywords that you type in. The sponsored links use a more targeted algorithm. An algorithm that seems to combine the keywords, with whatever data Google has about you.
I am not saying that Google is evil, just that they do business. So does Microsoft, Apple, and countless other companies.

Better search results – no ads
I think Google should offer an ad free search option, and use the targeting data they have about their users for generation better search results, instead of better ads.
In round figures, Google’s yearly revenue is about $10 billion per year. They have close to 1 billion users, so this equals $10-15 per user.
I would gladly pay $10-15 per year for better search results and no ads.

Wikipedia – democracy or quality?

A seven year old boy lies on the street, there is blood everywhere. His bike is in pieces. The front of the car that hit him is deformed, and the right front light is splintered. The driver takes a deep breath, then tear the door open, and runs to the boy. Some seven-eight other people have already gathered around the boy.

Calling 9-1-1
The driver jerks his cell phone from his inner pocket.
“You don’t have to call 9-1-1, I already did it”, a lady in a green suit says quietly. The mans eyes flickers, he looks at the boy, then the woman, the boy, his cell, the boy. Then he sticks the phone back in his pocket, and kneels beside the boy.

“What have I done?” he mumbles, now with tears in his eyes.

Everyone around the boy is shaken, waiting impatiently for the ambulance to arrive.
Suddenly another man, dressed in bermuda shorts, a loose t-shirt, and sandals pushes his way through the crowd, and kneels beside the boy, placing two fingers on the side of the boys neck. The group stares at him.
The man leans forward, with his ear over the the boys face, while moving his hand gently to the boys chest.
Swiftly he unbuttons the boys shirt, and examine the neck with his fingers. Then he rearrange the head a bit, and begins to blow air into the mouth of the boy.

What do you think you are doing?
“Wait a second” the driver says, and push the other man away from the boy. “What do you think you are doing?”
“I’m a doctor, don’t worry” the man smiles, and leans forward again.
The driver pushes him back again, this time more aggressively. “And?”
“Please let me do my job, Sir. If not, we will lose him”, the doctor says friendly, but firmly.

True democracy
The driver is clearly not content. “Listen, I don’t care if you are a doctor or not! I believe in democracy. Just because you think it’s better to blow air into the poor kid, doesn’t mean we should do it.”
The driver looks around, then he continues: “Okay, the doctor has made his point clear, does anyone else have other suggestions? Speak up, and then let us have a fair and democratic vote. The idea that gets the most votes will be applied. Okay?”

The doctor gets up. “He is dead” he says.

Traffic and technology
Why a story about a traffic victim in an article about technology?

The point I am trying to make with this (extreme) story is that democracy isn’t necessarily the best approach always. No, I am not a communist, and I urge you not to judge me just yet. By all means, fell free to judge me – but do it after you are read this article to the end, with an open attitude.

This article was strongly motivated by Chris Wilson’s article “The Wisdom of the Chaperones” in Slate, February 22. In this article Wilson criticize Wikipedia for not being truly democratic, since more than 50% of the content seems to be supplied by less than 1% of the contributors. Such a critique I find extremely amusing, and even more sad.

Do you want democracy or the truth?
There are, from my point of view, many good reasons to criticize Wikipedia, but not for not being democratic. Britannia is not democratic in any way. It’s written by a selected group of experts to assure a high quality of content. And that is all that matters.
As a user of an encyclopedia (or in the case of Wikipedia, something that pretends to be one), I care about one thing, and one thing only – accurate and concise information. Nothing else.

The content could be written by a handful of people, a million people, one man (or woman), or a robot. Frankly, I don’t care, as long as I can trust the information. However, if we are just a little realistic; one man (or woman) will not be able to write an encyclopedia with qualified information on every topic. Neither will a million people, since qualified content requires expertise, and not everyone is an expert. And since this is not the year 2029 (according to the BBC), a computer can’t do it either.

A beautiful idea
Democracy is a beautiful idea, no doubt about it. But that doesn’t mean that we need to pursue it all the time. It’s simply a matter of being pragmatic, and not fanatic. In a similar way, I think blue is a beautiful color, in fact it’s my favorite color, but I do not paint everything blue. I apply blue when it’s appropriate, not as a matter of habit.

One idea can’t solve a billion problems
Life is complex, and no single idea can sum it up. Clinging onto the idea of democracy (or any other idea), and pursuing it blindfolded, is guarantied to lead to problems – and not a better world.

Back to Wikipedia, and the 1% of the contributors who write 50% of the material. This might not be a democratic scenario, but who cares? Most users don’t.

Wikipedia – not a social experiment
If Wikipedia was a social experiment in democracy you could argue that it failed, and that it didn’t live up to the expectations. However, I would claim that for more than 99% of Wikipedia’s users, Wikipedia is not a social experiment (and even if it was, they don’t care). For these people Wikipedia is a source of information, a place to visit to find some answers to a haunting question or a quarrel.

Our favorite tool
Democracy should be applied when it is beneficial. We need to think and choose our tools (democracy being one) with care, instead of drilling holes in everything we can with whatever happens to be our favorite tool.

Wikipedia’s aim
By all means do criticize Wikipedia, but not for not being democratic – it’s completely irrelevant. An encyclopedia should be qualified, not (necessarily) democratized. We always need to know the purpose and/or aim of something before we can make any qualified evaluations about it. And correct me if I am wrong; the aim of Wikipedia is to be a good encyclopedia.

I’m not a f…… pirate!

Not an angel either
I just went and bought yet another DVD. I don’t claim to be an angel, but when it comes to movies and music I am one of the few people I know that always buys, instead of just getting a free pirate copy.

I will steal them
For some reason the movie business time and time again motivates me to become a pirate. Yes, that’s right. If you are in the movie business, take this as a warning, or at least as a good advice. One day my irritation will take over, and my morale will deteriorate – and I will no longer buy my DVD’s, I will steal them.

Why are they telling me this?
When I plugged in my new DVD, that I just spend $23 on, I was excited, and really wanted to get going. However, once again I was meet with a propaganda flick telling me that piracy is a crime. I f…… know that! And since I just bought the DVD, there is absolutely no reason to tell me this.

The movie business people might argue that the propaganda isn’t meant to bug the people who legally bought the DVD, but to remind the criminals that what they are doing is illegal. Well, if this is how the movie business rationalise, they have a lot to learn.

The “funny” thing is that it’s only the people who hand over their hard earned money to the movie business that are bothered by the propaganda. And of course it’s impossible to skip or fast forward over this flick. Every time you want to see the movie you bought you are forced to watch this stuff.

Pirates watch movies, not propaganda
And what about the people who just got a freshly burned illegal copy of the exact same movie, will they also see this annoying propaganda? Of course not. No one who makes a pirate copy of a movie would ever include the propaganda flick. So when a pirated copy is inserted into a DVD-player the happy pirate is instantly presented with the menu. The legal buyers are the only people who ever sees the propaganda.

Happy pirates
So the bottom line is this: Remove the propaganda – or I (and most likely other legal buyers as well) will become happy pirates. It’s that simple.