From Official Google Blog

So when we were asked to make the vision Marissa describes about universal search into a reality, we admit we were a little daunted. Googlers had tried before to do this without success — several times. Finding the best answer across multiple content types is a well-known hard problem in the search field. Besides that, we wondered if we had become too big a company to pull off a project this complex.

Here’s the challenge in a nutshell: Until now, we’ve only been able to show news, books, local and other such results at the top of the page, like this example for [trends in education]. But it’s a tall order to earn placement at the top of our search results, so plenty often we end up not showing these kinds of results even when they might be useful. If only we could smartly place such results elsewhere on the page when they don’t quite deserve the top, we could share the benefits of these great Google features with people much more often.

One challenge was being able to regularly search through all of the additional content types to find relevant results. After all, you don’t know if there might be a minor news story or an obscure book relevant to your query unless you go and check. But Google’s massive compute cluster — and much effort by our infrastructure experts — gave us a leg up on that one, and we can now search these disparate types of information about as efficiently as we search our massive index of web pages. We may have melted down a data center or two along the way, but then bugs are part of life in this business!

The next challenge was deciding when and where such results should blend in. Fortunately we have some of the world’s experts on ranking, and have been able to apply the lessons learned on web search to ensure that we show news only for newsworthy queries, scanned books only when there aren’t better web results, etc. It can be tricky. As we learned the hard way, just because everyone under the sun is writing about Anna Nicole Smith doesn’t mean news about her should show up for the search [baby names].

Lastly, we faced the challenge of the user interface you see on the screen — the UI. The new UI for these results is subtle, but this is one reason why the project is fun for our designers and usability experts: they get to focus on creating a simple experience for you. For example, with news results they designed a compact look for the result that includes helpful items like an image and a date, but is limited to just the most salient information. Or take our book search results, which call out the author and number of pages in the book. (Of course, we learned that sometimes you don’t even need to design a user interface. In one early usability study, shortly after Barry Bonds broke Babe Ruth’s home run record, we asked people “how many home runs has Barry Bonds hit?” hoping they would type [barry bonds] into the search box. Instead, each and every one simply blurted out “715″.)

We also called on experts from each of our feature areas such as News and Local, and were delighted to find our startup mindset is alive and well. Folks from all over found spare time and pitched in to get us to the finish line. There were many nights when we went to bed knowing that plenty of the team’s IM status still reported they were online.

And after all this elbow grease, finally we have something that works. What does it mean for you?

Although it’s just a beginning, this first pass of universal search focuses on video, news, local and books. Now you’ll be able to get more information Google knows about directly from within the search results. You won’t have to know about specialized areas of content. If you’re looking for the [atkins southwestern pork fajitas] recipe, we can now link you right to that page in the book. Or if, like me, you’ve been busy these past few days and have not caught up with your Tivo, don’t type [sopranos] into Google, because our news result will be a giant spoiler. The search for [rachmaninoff concerto 3] includes a video of Vladimir Horowitz performing this piece (scroll down to see it), and [Animator vs. Animation 2] is pretty cool as well. (And as Johanna notes: I was delighted to see that when querying for my son’s name a video showed up too.)

This is just the tip of the iceberg in making Google results more comprehensive and useful. It has involved launching a number of new systems that will make it much easier for us to continue making improvements so you get the most relevant information from our varied content areas. We hope you like it. And finally, we’re especially happy to know that Google is still very much a place where we can get big things done!

Google Introduces New Search Features and Unveils New Homepage Design MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif. (May 16, 2007) – Google Inc. (NASDAQ: GOOG) today announced its critical first steps toward a universal search model that will offer users a more integrated and comprehensive way to search for and view information online. The company also introduced an updated homepage design and several new navigation features that make it faster and easier for users to find the information they are looking for.

“Our focus has always been making our users’ search experience as simple and straightforward as possible,” said Marissa Mayer, vice president of search products and user experience at Google. “The ultimate goal of universal search is to break down the silos of information that exist on the web and provide the very best answer every time a user enters a query. While we still have a long way to go, today’s announcements are a big step in that direction.”

Google’s vision for universal search is to ultimately search across all its content sources, compare and rank all the information in real time, and deliver a single, integrated set of search results that offers users precisely what they are looking for. Beginning today, the company will incorporate information from a variety of previously separate sources – including videos, images, news, maps, books, and websites – into a single set of results. At first, universal search results may be subtle. Over time users will recognize additional types of content integrated into their search results as the company advances toward delivering a truly comprehensive search experience.

For example, a user searching for information on the Star Wars character Darth Vader is likely interested in all the information related to the character and the actor – not just web pages that mention the movie. Google will now deliver a single set of blended search results that include a humorous parody of the movie, images of the Darth Vader character, news reports on the latest Lucas film, as well as websites focused on the actor James Earl Jones – all ranked in order of relevance to the query. Users no longer have to visit several different Google search properties to find such a wide array of information on the topic.

The Power of Google Technology
Google is also in the process of deploying a new technical infrastructure that will enable the search engine to handle the computationally intensive tasks required to produce universal search results. The company is also releasing the first stage of an upgraded ranking mechanism that automatically and objectively compares different types of information. As always, Google™ search results are ranked automatically by algorithms to deliver the best results to users anywhere in the world.

“Google has continued to concentrate on improving the quality of search,” said Udi Manber, vice president of engineering at Google. “The level and speed of search innovation at Google has increased. Most of this innovation addresses basic ranking algorithms and is often not obvious to users. Users just see more accurate results, more often, in more languages, which is our primary goal.”

New Navigation Features
New dynamically generated navigation links have been added above the search results to suggest additional information that is relevant to a user’s query. For example, a search for “python” will now generate links to Google Blog Search™, Google Book Search™, Google Groups™, and Google Code™, to let the user know there is additional information on his or her query in each of those areas. As a result, users can find a wider array of information on their topic, including data types they might not have initially considered.

Google’s homepage and a number of applications have also been updated with a new navigation bar to provide easier access to popular Google products. Now, instead of having links above the Google.com homepage search box, users will see a navigation bar on the top left side of the page with various Google search properties and popular products including Gmail™, Google Calendar™, Google Docs & Spreadsheets™, and Picasa Web Albums™.

Experience the Experiments
Google also announced today a new experimental version of its popular search service called Google Experimental™, available on Google Labs™. This new test site provides users an opportunity to try out some of the latest search experiments and innovations and provide Google with feedback. One of the first experiments to be featured on the site enables users to view their search results on a map or timeline. For instance, when someone searches for “Albert Einstein” on Google Experimental, they can choose to view the search results on a map that shows locations mentioned within web pages about Albert Einstein or on a timeline that illustrates the history of Albert Einstein’s life. More information on Google Experimental search is available at Google Labs at http://labs.google.com.

About Google Inc.
Google’s innovative search technologies connect millions of people around the world with information every day. Founded in 1998 by Stanford Ph.D. students Larry Page and Sergey Brin, Google today is a top web property in all major global markets. Google’s targeted advertising program provides businesses of all sizes with measurable results, while enhancing the overall web experience for users. Google is headquartered in Silicon Valley with offices throughout the Americas, Europe and Asia. For more information, visit www.google.com.

From Official Google Press Center

From Official Google Blog

Back in 2001, Eric asked for a brainstorm of a few “splashy” ideas in search. A designer and product manager at the time, I made a few mockups — one of which was for ‘universal search.’ It was a sample search results page for Britney Spears that, in addition to web results, also had news, images, and groups results right on the same page. Even then, we could see that people could easily become overwhelmed with the number of different search tools available on Google — let alone those that would be created over the next few years. This proliferation of tools, while useful, has outgrown the old model of search. We want to help you find the very best answer, even if you don’t know where to look.

That mockup and early observations were the motivation behind the universal search effort we announced earlier today. And while that Britney Spears mockup was the start of Google’s universal search vision, it was instantly obvious that this would be one of the biggest architectural, ranking, and interface challenges we would face at Google. Over several years, with the help of more than 100 people, we’ve built the infrastructure, search algorithms, and presentation mechanisms to provide what we see as just the first step in the evolution toward universal search. Today, we’re making that first step available on google.com by launching the new architecture and using it to blend content from Images, Maps, Books, Video, and News into our web results.

With universal search, we’re attempting to break down the walls that traditionally separated our various search properties and integrate the vast amounts of information available into one simple set of search results.

Here are a few of my favorite searches that show off the power of universal search:

• steve jobs
• darth vader
• nosferatu

In addition, we’ve rolled out a few new navigation elements and experimental features to help our users better navigate our site and find the information they’re looking for. These include contextual navigation links above the search results that help users “drill down” to specific types of information. For instance, developers who search for [python] will see links for “web,” “blogs,” “books,” “groups,” and “code,” whereas [downtown los angeles] will show a different set of links. Also, in terms of integration and navigation, today we introduced a new universal navigation bar at the top of all Google web pages to provide easier navigation to your favorite Google products, such as Gmail.

While today’s releases are big steps in making the world’s information more easily accessible, these are just the beginning steps toward the universal search vision. Stay tuned!

“WIKISKY is a non-commercial project. The main purpose of WIKISKY is to consolidate astronomical, astrophysical and other information about different space objects and astrophysical facts.

We hope to achieve this purpose using the principle of visualization. When a person reads an article about a star, the star is only the abstraction for that reader. The person cannot emotionally feel the reality of the star without actually seeing it. We strive to create an extremely detailed sky map to help everybody to better understand the information gathering about any space object and various phenomena connected with those space objects.

There is the list of the functions that have already been implemented in our system:

• The system can display about 500 millions the space objects of the star sky.
• Information on every object maybe complemented and edited.
• There is an easy search of the objects in place.
• The users can upload the photographs of the districts of the star sky and integrate the objects on the map with the objects on the photographs.
• The first version of API is implemented.

In present moment we continue to work on the following elements of the system:

• The additional catalogues of the objects should be included in the system. The system will reflect galaxies, nebulas, and invisible in optical diapason objects.
• The objects will be integrated into the different groups.
• The priority system will be implemented. It will allow assignments of moderators. A moderator should be a specialist who can receive administrative access to the objects of his interest.
• The enhanced search will carry out the complex retrieval and look-up of the objects. The result of the search can be put on the map or retained locally as a text file.
• We would like to include more functions in our system. These functions should be useful for specialists. Some of the functions will carry out statistical or other analyses of samplings. Other functions might not be connected to the objects at all. We would require the assistance of specialists to accomplish our ambitious plans”.

More info on WIKISKY platform.

In May 2006, the University of Washington Libraries Digital Initiatives unit began a project to integrate the UW Libraries Digital Collections into the information workflow of our students by inserting links into the online encyclopedia Wikipedia. The idea for this project grew out of our reading of OCLC’s 2005 report Perceptions of Libraries and Information Resources [1] which states that only 2% of college and university students begin searching for information at a library web site. It is, therefore, incumbent upon Librarians to look for new ways to reach out to our users where they begin their information search.

The explosive growth of Wikipedia made it a prime candidate for our efforts at pushing information about the Libraries out to where users conduct their research. It should be noted here that our digital collections are already harvested and heavily used by people all over the world; in fact, Google and its affiliates are the top referrers of people to our collections. However, Wikipedia is fast becoming one of the top reference resources for many who are searching for information on a particular topic, and it is often one of the first references in a search results list. In fact, Wikipedia receives 54% of its traffic from Google [2]. Furthermore, referring to Wikipedia as “one of the poster children for Web 2.0″, the Pew Internet & American Life Project researchers have noted a sharp increase in the use of Wikipedia in contrast to the “sluggish growth” of Encarta [3].

Peter Morville, an information architecture and findability consultant, offers us a possible explanation for this phenomenon in a recent blog post in which he discusses how the perceived authority of Wikipedia is derived from its information architecture, visual design, governance, branding, “and from widespread faith in intellectual honesty and the power of collective intelligence” [4]. Morville argues that these structural and social aspects of Wikipedia make it more findable, and when combined with certain psychological aspects of decision making (anchoring bias and confirmation), boost Wikipedia’s perceived authority [5].

This article will describe the UW Libraries Digital Collections and the phenomenon known as Wikipedia. We will also describe the process of adding links to Wikipedia articles as well as the outcomes from the University of Washington Libraries project.

Before we move on, however, we wish to note that it is not our intention to endorse or evaluate the content of Wikipedia articles. Rather, we acknowledge the increasing prominence of this resource in our patrons’ workflows and wish to highlight our success with this project.

Full text by Ann M. Lally and Caroline E. Dunford in D-Lib Magazine May/June 2007

Personal Bibliography Management Software
Analysis and Comparison of Some Packages

In his last post on Burioni Forum, Francesco Dell’Orso analyzes problems and possibilities related to Citation Management platforms, looking for the best choice and underlining how user intentions and behaviours could be influenced by market trends.

Full text on http://www.burioni.it/forum/dellorso/bms/text/index.html

FaceTag is a working prototype of a semantic collaborative tagging tool conceived for bookmarking Information Architecture resources. It aims to show how the widespread homogeneous and flat keywords’ space created by users while tagging can be effectively mixed with a richer faceted classification scheme to improve the “information scent” and “berrypicking” capabilities of the system. The additional semantic structure is aggregated both implicitly observing user behaviour and explicitly introducing a compelling user experience that facilitates the end-user creation of relationships between tags.

Edited papers and event video upon FaceTag

To the librarians. So begins Everything is Miscellaneous, David Weinberger’s mesmerizing new book about organization, authority, and knowledge. I received my advance copy last week and read it in a single day. I found it interesting and inspiring, and I recommend it highly.

But, I don’t agree that everything is or will be or should be miscellaneous, and I don’t believe David is entirely fair to librarians, information architects, and other professional organizers.

The troubles begin with David’s taxonomy which divides the history of organization into a first, second, and third order of order. Implicit in this taxonomy lies the assertion of linear progress, a lossless swap of old for new, similar to the presumed step change into Web 2.0 that I challenged in Information Architecture 3.0.

In David’s book, the inevitability and desirability of this migration to miscellany is also made explicit:

When you go to a commercial Web site, the business owns and controls the information it wants to give you, the way you’ll navigate through that information, and the experience you’ll have while doing so…the miscellanizing of information, knowledge, and ideas rips these assets out of the hands of individual businesses…the most successful businesses will have to get over the second-order assumption that they own the customer’s experience. In a truly miscellaneous world, a successful business owns nothing but what it wants to sell us. The rest is ours.

It’s not that I disagree with David about the power and potential of user participation in the creation and organization of knowledge. But, I do believe that the old serves as foundation for and coexists with the new, or as I explained in Ambient Findability:

We don’t have to choose. Ontologies, taxonomies, and folksonomies are not mutually exclusive. In many contexts, such as corporate web sites, the formal structure of ontologies and taxonomies is worth the investment. In others, like the blogosphere, the casual serendipity of folksonomies is certainly better than nothing. And in some contexts, such as intranets and knowledge networks, a hybrid metadata ecology that combines elements of each may be ideal.

And, in fact, it’s the “third order” information-as-commodity companies like Amazon and eBay that have most aggressively and successfully integrated traditional and novel organization methods to create a positive (and profitable) customer experience.

Furthermore, while I agree with David that “second-order organization is often as much about authority as about making things easier to find” and that all taxonomies embed bias, the same can be said of search engines, books, blogs, Amazon, eBay, and the Wikipedia. This doesn’t negate the value and good intentions of librarians, information architects, authors, editors, designers, and users who labor to improve findability, accessibility, and understanding for all.

It simply suggests that we must all be more aware, as consumers and creators, of the incentives, biases, and weaknesses inherent in all sources and structures of authority and knowledge.

Despite, or perhaps because of, these points of contention, I really did find Everything is Miscellaneous to be an exhilarating read. David has done a masterful job of weaving the histories of library science and information architecture into a hot and sexy page-turner of a story.

Of course, I can’t help but wonder about the dedication.

1. To the librarians. Thanks for nothing?
2. To the librarians. Thanks for everything?
3. To the librarians. May they rest in peace?

After reading the book, I’m still not sure. What do you think?

By Peter Morville

(Thanks to Bonaria Biancu who originally posted it upon her great blog)

Since its launch in 1995, D-Lib Magazine has been freely available on the Internet, and the magazine’s expanding archive provides much of the core literature on digital libraries. The organization that publishes D-Lib, CNRI, hopes to continue to provide the magazine to readers, free of charge, but to do so we need financial and advisory support from the worldwide community that D-Lib serves. Initiated in February 2007, the D-Lib Alliance provides a venue for those organizations wishing to support the ongoing, open access publication of D-Lib Magazine.

We know from our own experience and from talking with others that the digital library community relies on D-Lib Magazine, and now the magazine relies on the digital library community for its continuing existence. Please join the D-Lib Alliance as a way to engage in this mutually beneficial relationship.

As participants in the D-Lib Alliance, institutional supporters will be prominently acknowledged in the magazine, and we are discussing other benefits for D-Lib Alliance participants as well.

More info on D-Lib Magazine 2007, 13, 3-4

Advantages and Pitfalls of Linking Transaction Log Analyses and Online Surveys

Almost every American research university and library has made significant investments in digitizing its intellectual and cultural resources and making them publicly available. There is, however, little empirical data about how these resources are actually used or who is using them (Harley, 2007). Those who fund and develop digital resources have identified the general lack of knowledge about the level and quality of their use in educational settings as pressing concerns. As part of a larger investigation into use and users of digital resources (Harley et al., 2006),¹ we conducted an experimental analysis of two commonly-used methods for exploring the use of university-based Web-based resources: transaction log analysis (TLA) and online site surveys. In this article, we first provide an overview of these two methods, including their key challenges and limitations. We then describe an implementation of TLA and online surveys in combination on two local sites and the results of that test, including an exploration of the surveys’ response rates and bias. From that test, we draw conclusions about the utility of these two methods and the particular analytic methods that may provide the most valuable and efficient results.

Full text on D-Lib Magazine 2007, 13, 3-4