I made this sound like way too much of a blanket statement. I agree with
you. Allow me to refine what im saying a little later...
On Thursday, September 20, 2012, Ross Singer wrote:
> On Thursday, September 20, 2012 at 4:13 PM, Nate Hill wrote:
> > I keep on thinking about how infrequently I use search to surface the
> > that I want.
> If this includes Google, I would say you are in the solid minority with
> this approach to discovery.
> > I mean, if I was doing serious research yeah I'd search and drill way
> > 2.5 pages of results, I'd look at facets, I'd go bananas getting to the
> > stuff I need to get to.
> I guess I'm skeptical about this pages and pages of results for stuff that
> people are "researching". Going back to Google (where searches frequently
> result in thousands of pages of results), I'm really only overwhelmed with
> the signal to noise ratio when I'm trying to search for a very specific
> problem that has very common terms. Like "Airplay icon not appearing".
> > But increasingly I deal with interfaces that treat search as a secondary
> > feature, with predictive or popular results being visually pushed to the
> > 'home page'.
> > Think about your Apple TV, for example.
> This is actually a feature I never use on my Apple TV. Analogous would be
> Amazon's homepage (I can't say I've ever serendipitously bought something
> 'recommended' for me on the homepage, although I have bought recommended
> things after search) or Netflix. I do sometimes use Netflix's suggestions
> to help jog my memory of stuff to search for, however.
> I think, at the end of the day, discovery is hard and is VERY specific to
> the task, collection and individual (all three of which are variables) and
> shouldn't be limited to a particular approach.
[log in to unmask]