Twitter v Google, Wikipedia, Digg & Yelp

A couple of nights ago Laura Fitton and Ken E. Kaplan were guests for a small dinner in my home. Laura, known universally on Twitter as Pistachio, gushed for a while about how Twitter had made her lazy. Whenever she needed to now something, she just asked on Twitter and she would get a half dozen answers on anything from tech tools to where to eat while traveling.

Yesterday, I posted a simple Tweet saying that I wanted to know more about China and asking about blogs and books. Within 30 minutes I had an entire anthology. Like Laura, I often ask about what to see and where to eat on Twitter when I travel. I use a great amount of what gets recommended to me and almost always I am happy with the results.

This started me thinking. A real "duh" statement is that search is about the most killer of all killer apps. Scoble and I co-authored a book, writing it in only five months. Among the biggest time savers was using Wikipedia as a research tool rather than a Dewey Decimal System at the local library. I've used lots of online user generated sites to pick restaurants, products or blogs to read. They are all good. Google Search, despite the hair that can be split, is one of the most world changing products of the past few decades.

But I am coming to trust Twitter as my personal search tool more than any of these others, and here's why: I can consider the recommender. Much of the information comes from people I already know and have chatted with online. Most of the rest comes from people I can check out very quickly and draw some sort of conclusion on whether I should take their word on a restaurant, hotel or book.

Digg is an extremely popular place to discover and share. But too often, the people recommending or panning are people who have criteria different than my own. Wikipedia is, from my experience, a highly credible resource, but its entire system is designed for impartiality and often I want a partial opinion. Yelp struggles to prevent it, but it's content can be too easily corrupted by people with vested interests.

But Twitter is like asking a neighbor. The neighbor really wants to share with you something you'll enjoy. The neighbor is someone you'll most likely see again and his r her reputation will have been adjusted based on their recommendations.

Twitter is so many things to so many people. Most of them were not intended by its founders. But as a personal search tool its value, in my book, just keeps getting higher and higher.

Comments

[Amy Worley]

I agree that Twitter is the BEST for quick, trusted answers. Ironically, though, if you're searching for tweets on a specific topic, Google does a better job than any of the Twitter search tools. I've consistently found that Google returns more tweets - and more relevant tweets - in its results for specific queries; especially if they're older.

[John S. Rhodes]

Smart post.

I think one thing missing is what I'll the dimensionality of your search. You've left out the fact that when we search there is some context. That's one dimension. You included the fact that you sometimes want bias. That's another dimension. I could easily go on describing various dimensions.

Another point is that the speed of the response my matter. I can hit Google or Wikipedia and get an *instant* answer. However, with Twitter, I have to wait. And, if I twit at the wrong time of the day, I'll have to wait for responses or I won't get responses at all. Time of day can drive quality of results; nutty but true.

I do agree that "Twitter Search" continues to improve. It's really obvious considering the network effect. Add more people and the value goes up exponentially. Well, that's not quite accurate with Twitter but the principle is accurate.

By the way, I did write about Twitter Search a few days ago. Quite appropriate given your blog entry:

"How to Search Twitter"
>> http://imsimple.com/how-to-search-twitter/

You might find some real nuggets in that blog posting I wrote. Enjoy!

~ John

[Leo Bottary]

Great post. And so true. There's also an added reliability to receiving info from people with whom I interact every day.

[Gautam Ghosh]

Hi Shel

I guess the difference is that one 'asks' on Twitter. While one 'searches' on Google, Wikipedia etc.

Asking assumes a conversation and context of familiarity. Searching is impersonal and usually between a person and objects/information.

[Craig Hepburn]

I have been reading some fascinating blogs and and websites recently on social search engines. New search engines such as Maholo.com. Mahalo is a human-powered search engine that creates organized, comprehensive, and spam free search results for the most popular search terms. Our search results only include great links.

I still feel that current search technology is poor and i spend so much time each day filtering through the noise to get the information i am looking for. Now recently i have been using twitter, friendfeed and other social services where i am connected or following specific people or organisations which in turn has helped me pro actively seek out new and interesting information that i would never have know about. In other words a human social pro active search engine....phwuuu now that's a mouth full. Over the past 4 weeks i have heard about 8 up and coming events i am interested in, 5 whitepapers on web technology, 27 new interesting website, 64 blogs and a whole host of interesting snippets and facts which have helped me in my current role.

Twitter is my personal find engine - google is relagated to second place in the hunt for information im afraid.

Craig

[shel israel]

Gautam, You border on another point I've been thinking about. "Search" is not what we want to do. If we did, we'd stick with the Dewey decimal system. We want to find. It's the results we want and the more relevant the better.

[Nancy Stall]

A joke on Twitter to your point.

How many social media experts does it take to change a lightbulb? I'd like to hear your answers.

[James Governor]

Word. twitter - you're either on it or you're not part of the conversation. summize/twitter search changes... a lot.

[kenekaplan]

What a wonderful dinner -- corn was divine -- and great company. Thank you and your sweet Paula. I enjoyed meeting Laura outside the Twittersphere. What a forward moving force in real life, and one of the most descriptive writers on Twitter.

I hear a lot of innovation wizards inside Intel talking about search in a different way. Today we use search to find what we're looking for, then collect data to put that data into context.

Soon it will all come to us wherever and whatever context we may be in. Their vision is that Internet connected devices will be location aware and able to translate languages or blend your past experiences to identify something even better than you were hoping for. Oh, you have an iPhone...you're livin' it!

Information finding up...that might be the next step, but I'd say Twitter is doing this already! It brings me lame drivel, but what it also brings me tasty nuggets of knowledge, timely news snippets and insights from people I know or like or would like to know.

Feels like the potential for Twitter keeps unfolding into the future.

[Ryan Kuder]

I couldn't agree more about that it's like asking a neighbor. Because when you want to know what's going on in your neighborhood, who knows better than your neighbors?

[james svenson]

I (had) about 120 followers - not like you guys but more than most. I ask a question on twitter and RARELY do I get a response or an answer..in fact, never. I don't ask questions all the time, but when I did...nothing. No response. Zero. Now, this may be "me" but I don't think so. I think twitter is really hard to get "normal" non insider, non geeky people really into. I just do. I've really been trying on twitter and I've found it "cool" and somewhat addictive, but unless a bunch of people you know are on there (which usually means techy people) its just not that useful. I've tried getting a TON of friends on there and there is just PURE resistance...no one gets it, even the ones who have tried it out..its like "why am I on here? who do I follow?". Its really tough. And hence I feel like more of an outsider.

I'm trying to get a friend in Portland on. He's a lawyer. We have friends across the country. I'm pandering almost..pleading my twitter case to no real avail so far...but we'll see. Hopefully we'll be "shown" the light..he'll get on..he'll see cool posts...another friend will get on...another one...but so far, nothing!

[GeekMommy]

I search for information on Google/Wiki/etc - but I search for opinions on Twitter.

I can find data faster, more easily, and more accurately using any hierarchically organized search engine - but I can't weight the value of it appropriately.

The things I ask for on Twitter usually consist not of "what restaurant is nearby?" but "what nearby restaurant is the best one?"

Social networks - be they twitterish, blogs, facebook, or the back fence have *always* been a better source of trusted opinion.

[Ben Lucier]

Shel, interesting post, but the grammar and spelling is atrocious and does you a disservice.

[juliejulie]

Yes, like asking a neighbor. That's exactly it. And your neighborhood is global, which is nice. You pick where you live, and you pick who you follow on Twitter.

[Morriss Partee]

A realization came to me as PodCampBoston 3 wound down last weekend: Twitter is like having a room full of friends inside your head. Especially if you access twitter on your mobile phone.

[Linda Sherman]

Shel, I agree that Twitter is so much more than "what are you doing now".

I had the pleasure of meeting my TwitterBud Laura Fitton at BlogHer. I have to congratulate her on the effective use of her trip to the Bay Area. I keep seeing reports of her presence at the coolest tweet-ups.

[Stephen Baugh]

Hi Shel

Love your articles, thank you

I basically agree with this post, but not completely. Pistachio has 5031 followers and you have 3882, in comparison because I am less famous and new to twitter I have 76 followers.

This highlights one thing missing from your article. To get an answer on twitter requires someone needs to be listening for your question.

With the number of followers you both have I am not surprised you get great responses, I however only get them sometimes.

So for someone like myself, I prefer the neighbor type answers on Twitter and the ability to have a conversation with the person that gave it. However I can't rely on getting an answer at all other than searching twitter or seeking out someone to ask the question of directly ... I can however expect to get an answer from google every time.

[Smack MacDougal]

Shel Israel writes, "Wikipedia is ... highly credible ... designed for impartiality."

Wikipedia reflects heavy indoctrination from government schooling.

Most entries have start with a chronological fact yet little truth about the subject, often showing heavy political bias.

Any attempts to bring an entry into an objective view brings out the entry writer who subverts truth back into a Wikipedia Reality.

In short, Wikipedia is useless for all but a handful of entries.

The first word entered into every Google Search ought to be -wikipedia.

Where Twitter and others fail is the lack of reputation, of street cred by the posters.

How can you trust the opinion of someone when you cannot discover if they are worthy to trust?

[shel israel]

Smack,

It's interesting that on this particular statement you make broad sweeping statements as an authority. But, Pierre, you don't even use your own name in signing your Comment. So how do we evaluate you as a credible source n anything?

[frank]

I would have never thought of Twitter like this ... thanks for sharing your insight (even though I'm late to the party!)

One thing that may cause Twitter to be a bit ineffective as a search tool is the # of people you have following you (or friends). If you don't have many ... the chances of getting the amount of info back that you need to make an informed decision is much more slim.

But I guess that is what also makes Twitter fun ... connecting, learning, engaging ... over time the friends will come and the 'search results' will get better.

Oraganic search at it's finest.

--
http://twitter.com/franswaa

[Smack MacDougal]

Shel writes,

"Smack, ... you make broad sweeping statements as an authority ... but, you don't even use your own name in signing your Comment." So how do we evaluate you as a credible source n anything?"

What are you, sixteen in your maturation?

That you would divulge something given to you in private, in trust, only to try to hurt someone says much about you.

Your feeble-minded ad hominem against me made me laugh.

I'd like to meet your mom and dad and see what pieces of work they must be.

Good luck with your lowly character, effeminate ways, Shel.