Predictive Search Enhancements: The Presumed Benefits
by David Loshin
Originally published January 29, 2014
Recently I've had some conversations about the way that search engine companies use predictive analytics to attempt to provide rapid feedback in suggesting full search phrases as you type. In what is being promoted as a feature with clear benefits to the user, companies like Google will enhance their search engines to suggest completions to frequently sought-after phrases to speed the search process.
Repeating the experiment with different starting words provides similar results – a variety of choices with some overlap, but different orders and on occasion, different phrases.
According to Google’s website describing its “Instant Search” features, the benefits of this predictive search enhancement include:
There are a few fundamental byproducts of this feature that may tarnish its presumed shine. The first is the presumption of consistent meaning that is masked by an algorithmic semantic organization that is purely based on frequency and the underlying predictive models. In other words, each letter you type corresponds to a hierarchy of high-frequency character strings pre-organized (presumably) based on frequency of search and augmented by some set demographic attributes associated with the individual presumed to be doing the searching, and has nothing to do with what you might be searching for. The meanings of those character strings are irrelevant to any specific intended search for content. For example, when I type the character “c” into the search field, the choices for “craigslist,” “cnn,” and “costco” all are suggested, even though I might have intended to look for “cooking classes.”
This leads to the second byproduct, which is what I might describe as a “cognitive jolt” that may derail the searcher’s train of thought as they are performing their search. To continue my example, while I was searching for “cooking classes,” after I typed the letter ‘c’ I was presented with the various high-frequency alternatives. All of a sudden I remember that I wanted to check out Costco’s website for an item I was looking to purchase. Or I decide to visit the CNN website to check out the current news. Or I decide to go to Craigslist to see if anyone is selling something I might be interested in buying. But what I didn't do is finish up the search that I originally intended to execute. Entertaining perhaps, but productive? Not really.
And once we have traversed the boundary between productive work and entertainment, you can ask a different question: if the actual algorithms employed are completely opaque, are we only presuming that the model is predictive and is based on frequency analysis? Or are there other factors that contribute to the determination of what phrases are presented to each user. For example, when I type the letter ‘b,’ I am presented with choices for “Bank of America” and “Best Buy.” Is there some underlying value exchange that positions these particular businesses as instant search results to subtly encourage more users to visit their websites? Try this experiment: type any letter of the alphabet into the Google search field and count how many retail businesses or product names are presented as the first or second choice, as opposed to more generic results such as location names, book titles, or celebrities.
As with many other benevolent time-saving “shortcuts” that are presented as providing benefits to the user, the user yields some degree of freedom when accepting the gift. It is valuable to maintain some awareness of what you really get when you cede control to opaque analytics.
Recent articles by David Loshin
Copyright 2004 — 2019. Powell Media, LLC. All rights reserved.
BeyeNETWORK™ is a trademark of Powell Media, LLC