So... instead of using a tool that will search virtually every source of information on the internet for you to bring you the most relevant results, you are blogging about how you limit your search breadth to single places that you happen to participate in...<p>...yawn
Specialized search is what it is, specialized. Google actually supports that, but it does involve a slight effort.<p>For example:<p>How was the finale of Breaking Bad?<p>Twitter:<a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=How%20was%20the%20finale%20of%20Breaking%20Bad%3F&src=typd&f=realtime" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/search?q=How%20was%20the%20finale%20of%2...</a><p>Google:<a href="https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=Are+people+able+to+finally+login+to+GTA+Online%3F+site%3Atwittercom#hl=en&q=How+was+the+finale+of+Breaking+Bad%3F+site%3Atwitter.com&safe=off" rel="nofollow">https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=Are+people+ab...</a><p>Are people able to finally login to GTA Online?<p>Twitter( had to shorten the string => more effort ):
<a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=login%20GTA%20Online&src=typd&f=realtime" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/search?q=login%20GTA%20Online&src=typd&f...</a><p>Google:
<a href="https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=Are+people+able+to+finally+login+to+GTA+Online%3F+site%3Atwittercom#hl=en&q=Are+people+able+to+finally+login+to+GTA+Online%3F+site%3Atwitter.com&safe=off" rel="nofollow">https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=Are+people+ab...</a><p>Google seems to be doing just fine IMO.
I do think that Google becomes paradoxically less useful as it gets more effective, but not because other websites are displacing it. I'll use a personal anecdote to explain what I mean, though I acknowledge that not everyone shares my situation.<p>In college, I used Google for 90% of my assigned research papers. I would rattle off questions, fetch some quotes and start synthesizing them into my writing. The other 10% of the time, I had professors who required book sources and sometimes ask me to bring the books to class.<p>Retrieving book sources always seemed like a pain in the ass. It required the labor of traveling to the campus library, finding a call #, etc. But a certain perk went along with all that labor: I was much more strategic and deliberate in my research. When you don't have an instant answer machine at your finger tips, you have to plot your course more carefully.<p>Interestingly, in my case, I spent about the same amount of time doing library research as I did using Google, even though Google should have been much faster in theory.<p>I was very impulsive and non-strategic in how I used Google to gather information. This is my shortcoming, of course, but I think Google enables it - more so as it becomes faster and more effective in returning information.
For what it's worth, I'm desperately trying to switch to Duck Duck Go, and so annoyingly often I have to go back to google. In the end, that tells me google is still the most relevant search than the next best non creepy alternative.
I think Google Search is quite relevant, because it aggregates information from all of these sources. You don't have to think about which site would give you the best search results for a given query; Google does that for you.
A huge one that was omitted, questions of the class: how much does this thing cost? Is this thing any good? What's the best X I can buy?<p>Amazon.
I don't agree.<p>While yes, very often, I will land on the same few websites when searching for something (wikipedia, stack overflow, google+/google maps reviews, youtube videos), I still use google to actually get there.<p>Google still has, after all, a better search results ranking than wikipedia, twitter or stack overflow.
The OP is stating a truism that I agree with (true with all truisms). Google is your default search engine for any query where (you believe) Google offers the highest probability of delivering the intended content/ answer.<p>So any product, in any vertical, that can respond to a query with greater utility than google - and condition it's userbase that that is the case - has the potential to supplant google for those queries. Great example is the drift of search traffic for flight travel on google to direct traffic to sites like kayak and expedia. (another example is the shift of people search).<p>The challenge of competing against kayak-like companies that offer great products in specific verticals, will only grow. So if you believe search traffic will not naturally decline over time you are effectively arguing that google will be able to outperform the pace at which new products will be built that have kayak (flight search) / linkedin (people search) / coverhound (auto insurance search) - like potential.<p>And I think Eric Schmidt would agree. <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeIIpLqsOe4" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeIIpLqsOe4</a>
This needs to be analyzed from a revenue viewpoint. How much money does someone make when I search for how good the finale of breaking bad vs when I search for car insurance or home mortgage rates. Both searches are likely to some revenue but it's hundredths of a penny vs thousands of dollars over the lifetime of the customer.<p>Is google becoming less likely source for some searches? Maybe<p>Can I buy car insurance or get a mortgage on Amazon?
Not yet.<p>The day I can go direct to Amazon for these items is a scary day for google.
The OP's argument is a bit weak. Really, you would search for opinions (e.g. finale of Breaking Bad) by looking throughout Twitter? That's the OP's idea of efficient consumption of information?<p>Twitter is great for what's happening <i>right now</i>. In any case, when I want to know that kind of thing with some immediacy. it's good enough to search for "Breaking bad finale" and Google would've gotten you some of the latest reviews from half-decent publications, and those reviews and their comment sections would make for better reading than tweet streams.<p>I do, however, agree with the OP that the knowledge silos are getting much better. But when I have a slightly obscure technical question, I never go straight to Stackoverflow...I use Google, and 80% of the time it takes me there. But for the harder problems in which my exact error message may have been discussed in a technical forum, Google is great for sussing it out. But as the silos get better, I wonder how that hurts Google's bottom line? By using Google as a way to get to StackOverflow, I'm consuming Google resources but not clicking on any adds. There's only so much use they can get out of my usage data...
While I may not discount the search for "opinions" has passed Google by I think the search for information with Google is still quite relevant. Google does a pretty good job with indexing SO, Yelp, and Wikipedia that nearly always my top 3 results are a link to one of those site for a question that I would generally find on those sites.
Anecdotally, this seems true only for some iPhone users. For Android users (myself included) it's still supremely convenient to slide up and speak or tap my search. I end up on StackOverflow a lot too, but Google gets me there.
I'd summarize this as 'Some guy prefers to find answers on twitter'.<p>I, on the other hand, personally never use twitter. So I guess that evens things out for Google. Larry can sleep easy now.
Stackoverflow, Twitter, etc. may have all the information but as the writer says the results from long tail search results which are most accurate are still from Google.<p>Google is still useful in searching if what you need is not just in a 1-2 word search. It's more the ethics of the search company which I think is the problem.<p>I personally started using Duck Duck Go because of all the targeted ads which Google seems to bombard me with.
I find myself using reddit more for its search function rather than for general browsing. If I have a certain question I need answered or need advice about really anything, it's very likely that 5 other people already asked the same question before. Plus, it appears to be a much more effective way to cut out the junk results from Google and give more honest and straightforward answers.
I tried to delete my YouTube account today as a test. I failed because it seems the only way now is to delete all your accounts on Google, including Gmail and Google Docs. Google basically wants to take over my identity and manage it. "You can check out but you can never leave at Hotel Google" is what I fear. What if I did delete everything? Would that even work? Don't know.
If you liked this article you might like Challenging Google’s Search Engine: <a href="http://blog.databigbang.com/letters-from-the-future-challenging-googles-search-engine/" rel="nofollow">http://blog.databigbang.com/letters-from-the-future-challeng...</a>
My recent search tendencies are very similar to the OP but for an entirely different reason: Google results have gotten really bad for me. I almost never find something I'm looking for on first try. I often do with StackOverflow and Yelp, though.
The flipside of his argument is, of course, is it <i>really</i> a good idea to rely on silos like Twitter, Yelp, StackOverflow, and Wikipedia for all our knowledge resources? Those then represent single points of failure, which can be taken down by an errant backhoe or intercepted (and surreptitiously altered?) by the NSA. Google, on the other hand, will aggregate more sources of information than just those, and it's unlikely they can be taken out by a backhoe. (The NSA is still a problem, at least for interception, but perhaps not for alteration...)
I consciously try not to use Google but when I do it's with ad blockers. For products is Amazon directly--they are usually #1 anyway after the many ads Google puts on top. Ironically Google is training people to go directly to the top sites by putting them on top for virtually anything.