Searching beyond Google (Part 2)

Jeremi Karnell, CMO & Founder | One to One Interactive
April 30, 2004

Introduction

What do Apple, Netscape, Oracle, and … Google all have in common? Microsoft. And when it sees a significant market opportunity, there is no doubt that Microsoft moves with full force to stake its claim[i].

Barring a striking resemblance to its foray into the web browsing space, Microsoft is late to the game when it comes to web searching. In fact, in a rare self-effacing moment during his talk at the World Economic Forum earlier this year, Bill Gates admitted that "Google kicked our butts". And like Microsoft's foray into the web browsing space, it plans to not only catch up, but to dominate the marketplace.

This is the second in a two part series entitled "Searching beyond Google". The first part was dedicated to exploring the search landscape and the new and old players who plan to take on Google ( Searching beyond Google (Part 1)). In this issue, focus will be spent entirely on "The Player" — Microsoft — and the moves it plans to make to Netscape Google.

The Player

Document retrieval, the discipline from which search engines sprang, is nothing new for Microsoft. The firm already has a 97% market share in PC operating systems and a 90% share in office software (including +95% of the web browser market).

How exactly does Microsoft plan to over take Google? The answer is baked into its next operating system release scheduled for 2006, code named "Longhorn". Microsoft's primary focus, instead of developing a new algorithm to rank web pages, will hone in on how, what, and where people conduct searches. "Right now, when you want to search for information, you basically stop everything you are doing and pull up a separate application, run the search, then try to integrate the search results into whatever you were doing before," says Microsoft information retrieval expert Susan Dumais. "We are trying to think about how search can be much more a part of the ongoing computing experience."[ii]

Embedded into the new OS will be new software from Microsoft Research, also code named respectively "AskMSR" and "Stuff I've Seen".

AskMSR

One of the more remarkable pieces of search software that Microsoft Research has in the works is "AskMSR", which promises to allow users to enter questions in simple English and get a direct answer back. The application achieves this by turning plain-English questions into formal search queries and polling the Web for consensus answers. For example:

1. Question	How many eggs are in a baker's dozen?
2. Rewrite Query	"There are" + "eggs in a" + "baker's dozen" "A baker's dozen has" + "eggs" "baker's" + "dozen" + "eggs"
3. Collect Search Results	"A dozen usually has 12 eggs, so how many eggs does a baker's dozen have?" "The Baker's Dozen Cookbook" "Why are 13 eggs called a baker's dozen?" "13 eggs make a baker's dozen"
4. Extract answers from text and present most likely answers	13 eggs (81% likely) 12 eggs (7% likely)

The software relies on an advanced artificial intelligence algorithm, language rules learned from an extensive database of sample sentences, and results from all of the major search engines.

By not forcing users to worry about selecting the "right" keywords, linking them together with the "right" Boolean operators (and, or, not, etc.), and scrolling through pages of results, Microsoft will play a serious role in changing how searches are conducted.

Stuff I've Seen

"Stuff I've Seen" is a Microsoft Research project focused on how, when, and where individuals search instead of the mechanics of search engines themselves. The current experimental interface in the Longhorn operating system is a persistent search box inside the windows task bar. When a user submits a query, "Stuff I've Seen" will search and display an organized list of related links to e-mail messages, calendar appointments, address book contacts, office documents (stored locally and on a network), and the Web.

Another feature of "Stuff I've Seen" is called Implicit Query. The core of this concept centers on the notion that where people are working on their computer provides valuable insight into the type of information they are looking for. Microsoft envisions "Stuff I've Seen" to understand that a user is currently working in Microsoft Excel, for example, so it will display a box with a list of related database, text, and word document files relevant to the content within the spreadsheet. Furthermore, it could list the names, e-mail addresses, and messages of all of the recipients of prior versions of the spreadsheet, as well as any available and relevant web content.

Conclusion

 As information accessible via the Internet grows, so does our need to find better ways to find and consume it. There is no question that the search industry is still in its infancy. As Google's Technology Director, Craig Silverstein, states: "It's clear that the answer [to search] is not a ranked list of websites. No one expects to approach a librarian, ask a question about the Panama Canal, and get 50 book titles in response."[iii] An army of information retrieval experts, as well as significant advances in probabilistic machine learning and natural language processing, will be required to develop software that will deliver to users the same experience as a well-trained reference librarian.

With its impending much-hyped IPO, all eyes are on Google to lead such innovation. However, there are limits to this company's ambition to dominate ubiquitous search. None of the new applications coming out of Google Labs represents an innovation on the order of magnitude of their original PageRank Algorithm. Nor are they in the same league as Microsoft's effort to reinvent Windows and integrate the applications that run on it.

Only time will tell what lies in store for Google. There is one thing for certain: competition in the search space will only benefit the end user with faster, more comprehensive, and relevant results. There is no doubt that Google will profit for the contributions they make to the industry. The real question is how much … something even its own search engine is unable to answer.

[i] "MIT Technology Review". Pg. 36 March 2004 Issue
[ii] "MIT Technology Review". Pg. 44 March 2004 Issue
[iii] "MIT Technology Review". Pg. 45 March 2004 Issue

back to White Papers