3 ms·

>"Search is dead. The web doesn't need it and neither do we" Okay, but I'd love to know what the alternative is. I can't picture any more efficient method to

>"Search is dead. The web doesn't need it and neither do we" Okay, but I'd love to know what the alternative is. I can't picture any more efficient method to organize the web, not that that means it isn't out there. Search implies loss, as the author says. But it also implies that you can be anyone or anything and be found, in the vast swamp of the internet.

axefrog 15y ago
Agreed. I think the author is focussing too much on semantics as opposed to intent, which is to filter. His over-emphasis of the word "lost" misleads us into thinking that the fact that we're searching suggests that we lost something to begin with. Perhaps an alternate view is that we didn't lose anything, but we had too much to begin with. Eliminating noise is the real problem. Doing so exposes that which we wanted, which was in fact always in front of us to begin with.
wladimir 15y ago
I don't understand his jump from "search is unpleasant and implies loss" to "search is dead". Cleaning bathrooms is also unpleasant, but to say companies specializing in it are dead? I don't think we ever globally solved the lost car keys and lost pets issues, either. It's a fact of life. The world is a complex mess. Thinking you can "just organize it" is hopelessly idealistic. Edit: And he also implies that all searching is for things that we had in the first place. He completely forgets about searching for new information or things. Searching a library doesn't have to be unpleasant.
- jiggy2011 15y ago
  Yes, I only really "search" google etc when I am looking for new information (which is quite often). For frequently visited sites there are bookmarks etc. I guess there are people (sometimes me) who use google as their navigation bar, but in such a case they are not really using google as "search" anyway,
- Seth_Kriticos 15y ago
  Adding to that, "just organizing it" has one substantial problem: people generally disagree in how to organize the world and what they see as priorities (stuff they want to find), so any one way to do this would be the wrong one for the big majority.
username3 15y ago
The alternative is a directory organized and categorized better. You would then need search to find categories faster than clicking through each level. Google killed their directory. Google Directory is no longer available. We believe that Web Search is the fastest way to find the information you need on the web. If you prefer to browse a directory of the web, visit the Open Directory Project at dmoz.org

axefrog 15y ago

Agreed. I think the author is focussing too much on semantics as opposed to intent, which is to filter. His over-emphasis of the word "lost" misleads us into thinking that the fact that we're searching suggests that we lost something to begin with. Perhaps an alternate view is that we didn't lose anything, but we had too much to begin with. Eliminating noise is the real problem. Doing so exposes that which we wanted, which was in fact always in front of us to begin with.

wladimir 15y ago

I don't understand his jump from "search is unpleasant and implies loss" to "search is dead". Cleaning bathrooms is also unpleasant, but to say companies specializing in it are dead? I don't think we ever globally solved the lost car keys and lost pets issues, either. It's a fact of life. The world is a complex mess. Thinking you can "just organize it" is hopelessly idealistic. Edit: And he also implies that all searching is for things that we had in the first place. He completely forgets about searching for new information or things. Searching a library doesn't have to be unpleasant.

jiggy2011 15y ago
Yes, I only really "search" google etc when I am looking for new information (which is quite often). For frequently visited sites there are bookmarks etc. I guess there are people (sometimes me) who use google as their navigation bar, but in such a case they are not really using google as "search" anyway,
Seth_Kriticos 15y ago
Adding to that, "just organizing it" has one substantial problem: people generally disagree in how to organize the world and what they see as priorities (stuff they want to find), so any one way to do this would be the wrong one for the big majority.

username3 15y ago

The alternative is a directory organized and categorized better. You would then need search to find categories faster than clicking through each level. Google killed their directory. Google Directory is no longer available. We believe that Web Search is the fastest way to find the information you need on the web. If you prefer to browse a directory of the web, visit the Open Directory Project at dmoz.org