<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: A Lofty Goal</title>
	<atom:link href="http://thenoisychannel.com/2008/05/12/a-lofty-goal/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://thenoisychannel.com/2008/05/12/a-lofty-goal/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 May 2012 21:42:15 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark Watkins</title>
		<link>http://thenoisychannel.com/2008/05/12/a-lofty-goal/comment-page-1/#comment-47</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark Watkins</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 May 2008 13:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thenoisychannel.com/?p=27#comment-47</guid>
		<description>Now that would be powerful</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Now that would be powerful</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Daniel Tunkelang</title>
		<link>http://thenoisychannel.com/2008/05/12/a-lofty-goal/comment-page-1/#comment-46</link>
		<dc:creator>Daniel Tunkelang</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 May 2008 02:53:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thenoisychannel.com/?p=27#comment-46</guid>
		<description>If I may draw an analogy to selling, search engines should learn &lt;a HREF=&quot;http://www.wikihow.com/Sell-More-Effectively-by-Asking-the-Right-Questions&quot; REL=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;how to sell more effectively by asking the right questions&lt;/a&gt;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If I may draw an analogy to selling, search engines should learn <a HREF="http://www.wikihow.com/Sell-More-Effectively-by-Asking-the-Right-Questions" REL="nofollow">how to sell more effectively by asking the right questions</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark Watkins</title>
		<link>http://thenoisychannel.com/2008/05/12/a-lofty-goal/comment-page-1/#comment-45</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark Watkins</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 May 2008 16:47:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thenoisychannel.com/?p=27#comment-45</guid>
		<description>Daniel, I couldn&#039;t agree more. My experience with Powerset was similar to yours - while the user experience was fun and pleasing, I didn&#039;t find anything I wouldn&#039;t have found using more traditional search (i.e. Google). &lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;While what Powerset has done is technically impressive and fun to use, I don&#039;t think it will have staying power, because it attacks the wrong problem. The future of search is not &quot;a better search box and 10 results&quot;. General purpose search is done. Even assuming one can deliver &quot;better search results&quot; (arguable in the case of Powersearch), how will it win out over the reach and brand power of Google? Answer: it won&#039;t. &lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;I think the future of search is task-centric information access that supports both findability and exploration in the context of specific objectives - say, finding a new book to read, deciding what neighborhood to move to, getting your next job, deciding where to eat, etc. The shortcoming of major search engines is that, while they can happily parse your query and give you some web pages to read, they have no idea what you are trying to accomplish - and therefore cannot adapt their experience to support your task.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Daniel, I couldn&#8217;t agree more. My experience with Powerset was similar to yours &#8211; while the user experience was fun and pleasing, I didn&#8217;t find anything I wouldn&#8217;t have found using more traditional search (i.e. Google). </p>
<p>While what Powerset has done is technically impressive and fun to use, I don&#8217;t think it will have staying power, because it attacks the wrong problem. The future of search is not &#8220;a better search box and 10 results&#8221;. General purpose search is done. Even assuming one can deliver &#8220;better search results&#8221; (arguable in the case of Powersearch), how will it win out over the reach and brand power of Google? Answer: it won&#8217;t. </p>
<p>I think the future of search is task-centric information access that supports both findability and exploration in the context of specific objectives &#8211; say, finding a new book to read, deciding what neighborhood to move to, getting your next job, deciding where to eat, etc. The shortcoming of major search engines is that, while they can happily parse your query and give you some web pages to read, they have no idea what you are trying to accomplish &#8211; and therefore cannot adapt their experience to support your task.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

