4 ms·
People only stare at Google to find content that lives somewhere else. There is alot of value of linking users to content they are interested in.
by StephenCanis 11y ago
People only stare at Google to find content that lives somewhere else. There is alot of value of linking users to content they are interested in.
- ThomPete 11y agoThats not at all how Google works. Google works because it give you a selection of what you are looking for right now. It knows whats top of your mind and. Twitter gives you things other people are interested in or find interesting. They are in no way comparable. One is letting you find things you are looking for, the other is mostly showing things you don't care about sometimes things that are interesting to you.
- StephenCanis 11y agoI'm only pointing out that you don't need to host content to provide value.
- ThomPete 11y agoYeah but you are using the wrong example since twitter is not a search engine.
- StephenCanis 11y agoBoth Twitter and Google help you find information you're interested in. The internet is massive so sorting and serving useful content to a user is valuable. Google finds this information based on keywords. Twitter finds this information by looking at conversations and people you are interested in. Saying Google and Twitter are in no way comparable isn't helpful. They are comparable though certainly different! Google has better information on your preferences and exactly what you're interested in. That doesn't mean Twitter doesn't have good information. If you follow a ton of yoga instructors then Twitter can feature yoga ads in your feed. While not as targeted as Google ads they still provide value to the user and the advertiser. I don't want to get into an argument, just wanted to explain where I was coming from.
- ThomPete 11y agoNo Twitter lets you discover what happens in areas that you might be interested in if someone wrote about it. It's a newsfeed for that specific reason. It require a tweet to happen. Google allow you to find exactly what you are looking for whether someone tweeted it or not in all the content they can get a hold of including twitter. Your search term on twitter does not show you intent, search on google does. You are comparing two completely different things here. Furthermore EVERYONE who uses google search use it to find things they are looking for when they are most interested in it. Only some people use twitter search terms to figure out who on twitter has something to say, mostly about themselves. People don't use twitter as a search engine but as a discovery engine the difference is hugely different for so many reasons I am not sure why you keep insisting on them being the same.
- StephenCanis 11y agoI haven't insisted that they are the same! And I agree with your descriptions of both companies. I didn't mention twitter search, I was actually only thinking about the Twitter feed. All I'm saying is that at a high level both services let you find content you're interested in. That's it. It doesn't contrast with what you've said above. They do it in very different ways and for very different use cases.
- ThomPete 11y agoYou said and I quote: "People only stare at Google to find content that lives somewhere else." Thats not what people do. They search google and then stare as those results. Thats a completely different concept from staring at a twitter feed with random things. It's comparing apples and cars.
- StephenCanis 11y agoA twitter feed isn't random though. You choose who you follow on Twitter, if the links they provide are unhelpful you unfollow them. It is more random than Google but still tailored to your preferences. I think you're hung up on the "stare at" wording. I interpreted the words to mean "use" - hope that clarifies my point.