And as this semester of Digital Campaigns comes to a close, I thought this article is a perfect adieu. A start-up from former Google engineers is gunning for Google’s search dominance.

Cuil Inc (pronounced “cool”) is offering a new search service at http://www.cuil.com that the company claims can index, faster and more cheaply, a far larger portion of the Web than Google, which boasts the largest online index. Cuil has indexed a whopping 120 billion Web pages, three times more than what they say Google now indexes, Patterson said, adding the company has spent just $5 million.

So what does this all mean? Well, for starters, anyone who is gunning for Google has to have brass balls. They are massive (Google, not the balls, which would also have to be massive). They are a Website that became a verb for Christsake! As I wrote about previously, they have the Googlebot! They are so huge that I will not link to their Webpage because if you don’t know what Google is, just give me a call and I’ll come over and hit in the head with a hammer cuz you’re stupid! It just seems to me that going after Google would be a daunting task. OK, so Cuil was created by former Google engineers, which presupposes that they know how Google works. And they’ve already indexed 120 billion Web pages. That’s a few more than I read this week for my final project.

But seriously, in my mind it’s not important that somebody is trying to fight Google. What is important is the relevance of search and how it relates to digital campaign strategy and online business in general. Search can make or break a company, a candidate, an entity, whatever. It’s about your brand. If people can’t find your brand, or the first hit they get is negative, you’ve lost. As practitioners of new media, it is our responsibility to help improve search and maintain a strong online brand reputation. The Internet has gone miles to give voters an impression of their candidates, and what the voters can find is often kept in perpetuity. It is hard to hide from what was posted years ago. Somebody will always find it. Search will always be important, but more important will be what is kept out of search. Ahhhh, think about it.

And to end, here’s the final song quote of the semester that fits today’s mood.

“Oh your collegiate grief has left you dowdy in sweatshirts/absolute horror!”

Vampire Weekend “One (Blake’s Got a New Face)”

Granted I don’t have a sweatshirt on because it’s been in the 90s. But I do have the same t-shirt I’ve worn for the past 2 days. And I could really use a shower. And a detox from caffeine. And some sleep. Collegiate grief indeed.

The countdown? Two more classes, one project done to be handed in tonight, one more huge paper due Wednesday at 7:40 pm. Completion thus far? Ummmm, do ideas count as part of completion?

And here’s your pop culture reference to the blog post title

Unfortunately, I can’t embed the video because it’s been removed from YouTube, but here’s a link anyway.

www.funnyhub.com/videos/pages/snl-more-cowbell.html

So, The Search touched on censorship issues between Google and China (albeit outdated now) and the problems with China’s oppressive censorship laws. That section discussed the probability that Google bowed to Chinese pressure so as not to miss out on a massive advertising opportunity. At issue more than what Google does or does not do is the Communist regime of China and their strict censorship. To dictate what appears on your Internet search engine is unconscionable, but that’s what the Chinese deal with daily. And the effort has been amped up in recent months. In the fall of 2007, there were numerous articles about the new Internet police officers being implemented by the government. These animated graphics provide a constant reminder to the citizens that they arebeing watched and that they should stay away from “illegal” content. The animation is in addition to the thousands of actual Internet police employed by China. Below are a couple of examples of the Internet police that one would encounter on their computer if they accessed a site on China’s no-no list.  Also, here’s an article from 2007 where Brin and Page from Google admitted that their censorship of the Chinese Google was bad for the company. 

Should I fear Google? I hate being noncommital on answering such a question, but I truly think the answer is yes and no. John Battelle, in The Search, tells us that the “Database of Intentions” is, in simple terms, an “aggregate of. . . searches [that is] knowable.” What this means is that search is a history of us and of other users. History itself is searchable–or put another way, it is retreivable. Hence, a history of users can be retrieved and used to market items and/or find out a person’s habits, and quite possibly every other facet of that persons online (and real-life) behavior. This capability is good and bad. Marketers of products can target their items to us based on what we view. Additionally (and it’s something Battelle didn’t mention), your IP address can pinpoint a general geography (usually within a couple miles radius of your city) that can further help that marketer direct something at you. Do I want to be bombarded with a “come on” about every product I’m interested in being directed to me while I search? Probably not. The ability of technology to know what I like isn’t one of my favorite aspects.

Let’s take that to a further level. The copyright of The Search is 2005 and we are now in 2008. Battelle gave a few examples of the possible use of DVR to target an item to a TV viewer. TiVo currently does that! TiVo knows what I might like to watch based on what I do watch and records the shows it thinks I should see (well, actually it doesn’t because I disabled that feature right away). But TiVo does now have ads that are viewable in my program guide. When I originally had TiVo 5 or 6 years ago, these functions didn’t exist. That is why I bring up the copyright year. When reading all of our assigned books, I have kept a close eye on the copyright, because the first thing that strikes me is how outdated a book from 2006 really is already (but that’ll be for another discussion). Anyway, just as Google can direct advertising at you, so can DVRs. Great for them to make money, great for a big company to make money, but bad for the little guys who don’t have the resources to keep up with AdWords.

Onto the notion of search (and specifically Google), should we be afraid? I think a little yes. The reason is simple. People don’t often think about their actions and thanks to the wonders of Web 2.0, we now have more ways to share our actions. Look at a simple Facebook or MySpace entry. If you’re a member of one of those sites, you can post a story about your weekend bender in lucid detail, complete with photos. You then share your post with your friends. Now consider that everything you post to one of those sites, or every letter to the editor your write, or anyplace else your name shows up, is leaving a trail of virtual breadcrumbs. These breadcrumbs become part of your Database of Intention. They are part of your virtual history and anyone with Google can do a search for you and find out everything about you. Is it Big Brotheresque? Maybe a little. And for most people, no huge harm will occur from having your Database available for display. But for some people, it can cause great harm. Think about a person undergoing an investigation for a job or security clearance. HR does a search and sees your whacky photos from Spring Break in Panama City. All of a sudden they’re having second thoughts about hiring you. Or consider the scenario of somebody using search to find out your personal information and perpetrating identity theft.  It happens. There are a lot of breadcrumbs out there.

My answer to whether we should truly fear Google remains a definitive, “I don’t know.” On first blush I’d say no, Google is a helpful tool that allows me to find information quickly. But, if you keep up with the power of Google and what it is creating, maybe we should be a little afraid. Remember, the Googlebot is out there.