Trackbacks

[…] Wikia search is a not a search engine, but a project to build a search engine that will base its results on the users’ feedback. Unfortunately for this new wikia project the media and some bloggers misunderstood its purpose and they already criticize its scope. Personally I see the potential and what is more I see the functionality. Fortunately there are still journalists able to relate a story in an unbiased manner. addthis_url = ‘http%3A%2F%2Fwww.seoltd.co.uk%2Fsearch-engine-optimisation%2Fwikia-search%2F’; addthis_title = ‘Wikia+Search+%E2%80%93+A+New+Startup+in+the+Search+Industry’; addthis_pub = ‘bvashton’; […]

[…] Posted by Cyndy Aleo-Carreira on January 12th, 2008 This week saw the launch of Wikia Search, and the revelation that Mahalo is still relying on Google for most of its traffic, using SEO strategy to drive it. And while everyone wants to be the search engine that actually succeeds in drawing users away from Google, no one really thinks that a contender has appeared yet. […]

Comments

Wait one, Cindy…

First of all, you gotta be kidding me! You DO NOT compare wikia value with Mahalo dribble! Well, unless you are paid by Jason Calacanis, but I suppose he would never waste his time and money on profy. Or is he that desperate? Excuse me!

Now, quoting you

Wikia search is still going through pages of user-created data in the wikis.

- doh! This is why it is called WIKIA! So is Powerset - still in alpha - and if you don’t understand what you are writing about, do us all a favor and don’t waste profy space and our time!

Cindy, Web 2.0 is about the people! PEOPLE If Wales believes in PEOPLE he is doing the right thing. The … let’s not say “Web 2.0 thing,” because obviously it is out of your reach. But let’s call it Web 3.0 and I hope you have no problem with that.

My only advice: do not write about what you apparently don’t understand. Or if you do, do you homework before.

Now, according to the headline (which is actually the thing that really pissed me off) where is the twist?

Your boss should give you a bonus. You made a PR wonder where does Mahalo fit in your equation. It is not that I do not like Mahalo. I am an user. But… compared to the potential of Mahalo search (translated: close to nothing)… the company you write against is way superior to your analysis. I have the feeling youth and inexperience still have a lot to say in your writing. I could be wrong about your age. But not your Web experience. And I do not mean an offense here, but profy holds a higher standard than this article. Just my 2 cents.

And Cindy, this is absolutely the first time since I read Profy that I am so incensed with the quality and the approach to describing some of the web’s most innovating and anticipating technology.

The fact of the matter is, Wikipedia and Wikia search are no more 3.0 than Google Search is. Yes, I compared Wikia Search to Mahalo, because, in my opinion, both are trying to give a human factor to search and honestly, neither one is going to do it.

I don’t want my search results passing through people who think they know what I might be looking for. A quick entertainment search (I went for the lowest common denominator) shows that not even an official site for a celebrity comes up, which should be the first thing any human adds into the equation.

That’s why I said I’m waiting for Semantic Search. Judging by most of the information I find on Wikipedia when I’m looking for something, I don’t trust unpaid volunteers to know what exactly it is I’m looking for. I want something that’s going to learn MY way of searching for things and seek out things I’D be interested in, or need to know. Wikis are a great tool, but not for search. If I thought a herd could tell me what to do or what I should read, I’d be a sheep.

Mig, first of all you’re a self-important buzzword-bingo generating twat. Web 3.0? Puhleaze. Now onto the “content” of your comment.

Search is search and all of your useless fapping about PEOPLE is pointless. The comparison with Mahalo is valid. How can you not see that? Just because you’re probably spending 12 hours a day as a Wikipedia editor or something doesn’t mean you shouldn’t pull your head out of your azz once in a while to see what else is out there.

The larger point is that both of these efforts are pointless. The internet is big. I mean really really BIG. BIG BIG BIG. Bigger than you can imagine. Bigger than either of these “Web 3.0″ (hahahahaha) sites can hope to sift through with their million monkeys pounding furiously at their keyboards and flinging their poo at the screen can hope to circumscribe.

Mig, next time you decide to be a condescending prick, can you please do a better job hiding your obvious investment in one of the sides of the argument, and, oh, I don’t know, try not to sound like a clueless VC-pitching, hype spewing poo monkey? Thanks, we all appreciate it.

Mig, I’m afraid I finally have to join the conversation as the Profy editor though honestly I would prefer not to. First of all, I would want to let you know that you are one of the most valuable Profy readers and your comments are always welcome here. But here your comment sounds way too offensive for me personally. I have never heard any of our sponsors using the word “wasting” about the money they paid us. And though Jason definitely never paid us anything (and if he did, Cyndy would have been obliged to disclose this fact for the readers), I don’t think that the words you use here are actually appropriate.
And in general instead of talking about Profy and Cyndy’s age (which you have mistaken about), I would really have preferred you focusing on the content only.

Svetlana, I stick to my comment, and I find it ridiculous that Cindy was comparing something that just launched in alpha with something that’s been in beta for a long time.

BTW, wikia is not Wikipedia, but disregarding that, Svetlana, isn’t profy about the people? Isn’t profy a web 2.0 company with high standards when it comes to content quality? This was what my comment was all about.

Mig, just admit that you are personally invested in the Wikipedia / Wikia world, and any article you feel impugns the dignity of your lord and master must be destroyed. It’s ok. Acceptance is the first step. Leaving your parents basement is the 2nd, then maybe you can meet some of the “PEOPLE” you rave about.

Mig, you most certainly are mistaken. I was a developer before I switched over to writing, and have been around since pre-Web 1.0. I don't jump on every "trend" because having been part of the industry for so long, you can start to spot what will ultimately work and what won't. There are some things that succeed that I don't personally like, but can see why they are succeeding. But I can also spot things that people are throwing money at that aren't going to work. I don't think Mahalo is going to work any more than Wikia Search is. As Grendel pointed out, the web is HUGE. How on EARTH can humans find the best out there? Even in alpha, there's no voting functionality to help sort out what might actually be worthy information. Alpha releases need to be good enough so that people other than Wikimedia zealots will jump on a bandwagon. It's not even close. This whole 2.0 movement of "people search" is like going backward in technology. We HAD searches like this back in, oh, 1994 or 1995. Of course, back then, the web was small enough that you could say "meet you in chat tonight" and go to maybe five sites that had text-based chats as well. This isn't anything new. And it isn't moving anything FORWARD.I might also point out that EVERY MAJOR TECH NEWS OUTLET has had the same conclusion about Wikia Search, from Wired to Business Week. It's not ready for prime-time. Not even close.

I don’t see why the mainstream media shouldn’t be greeting Wikia with open arms. Only because Mahalo started first? And why, if web 2.0 already HAS one thing, there’s no place for a competitor? If we turned back time to the beginning of web search, we could say that Google was only Yahoo with a twist, couldn’t we? And look at their market share today.
I don’t know if either Wikia or Mahalo will prove to be a viable search solution over time, but at least media should give them a chance and let them prove their value. The results will speak for themselves.

Cindy, in many points I agree with you. I also understand that you don’t like Wikipedia - the reasons are unclear, but then again, I am not an Wikipedia fan either. Liking or disliking wikipedia is not the point. What we are talking about is a more or less ethical approach to the news. Profy is an authority site, which cannot afford to be accused of partiality. If this was your personal blog - then you could chop wikia and its ideals to pieces. As things are now, all you had to do is to keep the personal feelings aside and offer us a documented analysis of the two. When you compare you usually make a list of pros and cons, advantages and disadvantages and clearly state why wikia will not work. That reason should not be that you don’t like the search results to be influenced by the people.

No “alpha” product was ever ready for prime time. I see now profy launches an alpha too - how would it feel like if the media reacts all negatively about and instead of really testing it and giving it a real chance we’d start chopping its value and saying “wordpress with a twist?” Or comparing it with something of even lower value than wordpress. That wouldn’t be fair, would it? Wouldn’t that hurt, Cindy? Think about it.

Cindy, I apologize for the harsh language I used before. I hate hurting people’s feelings. I know I did yours, and I promise this will never happen again.

Wah wah… Someone has to call a turd a turd.

This is a reactionary knee jerk kick back at Google for encroaching on Wikipedia’s space. Business plans need to be given due diligence up front, or you end up with colossal money sucks and it makes the whole industry look bad. This one wasn’t well thought out from the beginning. Any application of reason or computer science analysis would tell you that if you’re trying to catch up to an O(n^2) problem space, you don’t choose an O(n) solution.

The mainstream media is right to be skeptical of these things… In fact, this exact thing has been tried before and never went anywhere. Am I the only one who remembers the Netscape Directory, which was managed by people to give the most relevant links based on a hierarchical category grouping? It preceded Google, I believe, and yet, Google is a multi-billion dollar business, and Netscape Directory has apparently been all but forgotten…

Shoot… Netscape has been all but forgotten. Mig, alphas are meant to be critiqued, which is why they are alphas. Since I'm not coding the Profy app, I wouldn't take it personally. Most things are quite naturally derivative of something else in this space, because innovation springs from seeing something as it is currently being done and doing it better. I don't see this as doing it better. I see this as reverting to an idea whose time has come and gone. Back in the day, it was possible for a human component to manage search, which, if you remember, Yahoo originally was. Two guys compiling links of sites. It's impossible to harness the scope and breadth of the Web in its current state using people. It just can't be done in any manner that's going to yield relevant information. No matter how cool it sounds. I also think that you are confusing a blogger with a network anchor. It's not my job to present the news in a completely unbiased manner. If I did that, I would just be regurgitating press releases and whatever comes off the wire services. My job is to give my opinions on what I think is great in this space and what isn't, and what we should be paying attention to and what isn't worth the time. That's why multi-author blogs exist; so more than one opinion can blend together. My colleagues here at Profy and I have disagreed on many facets of this space, and often debate them in the comments. That's one of the great things about Web 2.0.