Kumo: Already a step behind Google, Yahoo?
Once again, Microsoft is finding itself beaten to the punch in the search game.
While it has been readying Kumo for its first public airing--probably at next week's D: All Things Digital event--Yahoo and Google have already shown off their latest search enhancements. Worse still, their demos show that Redmond's rivals are heading in some of the same directions as Microsoft itself.
According to screenshots that leaked out in March, Kumo's look focuses on a new left-hand navigation menu that breaks searches down into a number of related queries. The results themselves also feature information organized into categories. For example, a search on "Audi" breaks things down into an initial result with facts such as price and fuel economy pulled out in bold, followed by general Web results, then results by category, such as Audi parts, used Audis, and Audi accessories.
But in the time since those screenshots leaked and Microsoft began internal testing of Kumo, Yahoo and Google have also continued to advance their efforts. Last week, Google showed off new ways of filtering results at its Searchology event.
Click here to see a larger version of the Kumo screenshot. Once you're there, click on the magnifying lens icon to boost the image size.
(Credit: Microsoft)On Tuesday, Yahoo talked about trying to return more instant results, as opposed to just linking to sites that might have what a user is looking for. Yahoo even used Microsoft's favorite catch phrase.
"It's time to kill the 10 blue links," said Prabhakar Raghavan, head of Yahoo's search strategy, referring to the top 10 search results listed when you enter most queries into a search engine. "We want to move away from document retrieval as center of search to divining the user's intent."
The Kumo revamp includes more than just a new user interface and is also expected to include enhancements in video and image search as well as technology from Powerset, a natural-language search company Microsoft bought last year.
The need for Microsoft to make headway is critical. After four years in the business, Microsoft continues to tread water as a distant third in the search market. Even within its own walls it hasn't been able to command a majority of searches.
In the broader market, the company has struggled to achieve a double-digit market share. In April, the company had 9.9 percent of the U.S. search market, according to Nielsen Online. That compares to 16.3 percent for Yahoo and 64 percent for Google.
The effort has also been a drag on the company's overall earnings as it has continued to pour billions of dollars in profits from its Windows and Office businesses into the money-losing online push. Last quarter alone, Microsoft's online services business had a $575 million operating loss on revenue of $721 million.
Search is key for Microsoft--and everyone else in the business--because it is where much of the online money is made today, as opposed to services such as e-mail or instant messaging, which generate relatively paltry amounts of revenue.
Microsoft is counting on Kumo to help the company improve its fortunes and prove that the years-long investment in search will finally bear fruit. However, some are less than optimistic that Microsoft can make headway.
"The battle for general Web search is all but over--or at least the formation of the landscape for that," said Ned May, the lead analyst for Outsell, an analysis firm that focuses on the information and publishing industries. "It's Google, Yahoo, Microsoft--in that order."
The launch of Wolfram Alpha shows that the public is still hungry for additional alternatives, May said, but added that at this point new advances are quickly copied, limiting broad-scale changes in the market.
May noted that Microsoft is rumored to be planning a $100 million ad campaign to promote its search improvements.
"That speaks to what it's about today," May said. "They need to spend $100 million to move the needle in their direction. That speaks volumes."
Microsoft won't say when Kumo will be available publicly, or in fact whether it will keep the Kumo name or go with one of the reported alternatives, such as Bing.
Although Microsoft may well show Kumo at D, the public launch is still a bit further off. A clock at Microsoft, said to be counting down the days until Kumo's launch, won't be done ticking in time for the News Corp.-owned conference.
By my rough calculations, that should have the clock standing at somewhere around a dozen days from today. As others have also noted, that coincides with June 3, the start of SMX Advanced, where Microsoft's Qi Lu is speaking.
Meanwhile, Microsoft has been testing some Kumo-like navigation features in recent days.
May said that the changes being talked about make sense, but may not be enough to help Microsoft stand out.
"That's good stuff," he said, but added that Yahoo already does a good job of things like suggesting additional searches. "It's already being done pretty well by the others."
During her years at CNET News, Ina Fried has changed beats several times, changed genders once, and covered both of the Pirates of Silicon Valley. These days, most of her attention is focused on Microsoft. E-mail Ina. 



Wolphram Alpha shows lots of promise because they are heading in the right direction. The same one I have been advocating for many a post here on news.com. Provide the answer, not a link to a page the "might" get you the answer. This is where all search engines must go if they expect to have any viewers in the years to come.
People will also need to quite entering keywords hoping for a link that will get them a page that has the answer to the questions their asking and begin expecting to get the answer up front..
WHO IS THE GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA?
HOW OLD IS BILL MURRAY?
WHAT IS THE POPULATION OF NEBRASKA?
WHAT IS THE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE OF ARIZONA?
WHAT IS THE ANSWER TO LIFE, THE UNIVERSE, AND EVERYTHING TIMES PI?
The problem isn't the fact that search engines such as Google are incapable of directly answering specific questions. The reality is that many people who search the web are not looking for a direct answer, but are looking for articles and discussions which elaborate deeply on a subject. For instance, let's say my hearing is suddenly decreased in one ear following a cold and I do not know what this means. There isn't one simple question I could ask, and there isn't one simple answer that can be given. Instead, various keyword searches (the symptoms I experience) would be entered into a search engine and the vast amount of information found on the web would lead me to Eustachian Tube Dysfunction.
I may also get an error message in a Windows application and want to know what the error message means, what causes it, and how to resolve it. Searches lead me to online forums where other people talk about their same problems with the application and eventually I find someone who has solved their own problem and have posted the solution for all to benefit from. This isn't a simple question/answer scenario. And, yet, this is the typical reason one would visit a search engine.
In cases where all I want to know is:
HOW TALL IS THE EMPIRE STATE BUILDING?
We don't need advancements with Yahoo... we don't need Kumo... and we don't need Wolfram|Alpha. Google has already had the ability to answer this question directly above their organic search results for quite a while already:
Height: 381 Meters / 1,250 Feet
If search engines try crawling all over each other to ONLY answer DIRECT questions... and we lose the "ten blue links"... then we will lose search engines as we know it. This means there will be millions or billions of web pages full of information that nobody will ever find. People forget that the primary purpose of a search engine is not to answer a question, but to help us navigate through the complex web of information found on the Internet. To dismiss the Internet as "unimportant" and suggest that search engines should just learn to answer questions directly and only give a passing credit to where the information was scraped from, you will quickly discover that websites would eventually want to BLOCK such crawlers from stealing their content. Websites exist so that people will find them. If search engines merely steal the data and present this data directly to users, nobody will need to visit the original websites. As a result, there will be little incentive for these original websites to exist in the first place, and they will vanish. When they vanish, these "answer engines" will grow dumb over time.
Those "ten blue links" are going to be around for as long as the Internet exists. Get used to it. In the meantime, enjoy also having direct answers to questions like:
WHAT IS THE CURRENT TIME IN NEW YORK?
(All questions in bold in this comment are directly answered by Google OUTSIDE of the ten blue links. The answers appear at the top of the result page in plain text from Google's algorithms.)
I think you're exactly right, and you just said exactly what I was thinking.
I'll take it two logical steps further:
a) The first search engine that de-emphasizes document results in favor of factual results is going to find its market share eroding. Eventually, they'll figure out that this is not what people want. Wolfram Alpha has a lot of buzz right now but I am skeptical of its usefulness - neither I nor anyone else I know that has tried it has been very impressed. And it's not just that it doesn't work that well, it's more that the concept itself is flawed. The concept of trying to turn the vague searches most of us do on Google or Yahoo into some short factual result is even more misguided.
b) Content creators should be up in arms about the search engines' stance on where search is headed. Many businesses count on search as their lifeblood - hell, Wikipedia probably would not exist without being the #1 result in so many fact-based queries. What the search engines are proposing is attempting to cut out content found elsewhere in favor of content on their own site - content that they themselves are probably getting directly from the sites they're cutting out of their search results! (Or at least pushing way down the list.)
This is going to eventually go down as one of those ridiculous failed ideas of the internet... like the "portal" concept or pop-up ads or frames or a host of other poorly-considered experiments. Unfortunately, it seems like all of the search engines are going to need to learn this the hard way.
Your thinking that one question will provide the solution your looking for in all cases when that is seldom the true in life. In fact in many cases especially medicine, there is almost always more than one variable to consider. The question you propose can be asked: "Provide causes of sudden hearing loss from a cold". This answer might tell you about inner ear infections which begin to match with your symptoms, prompting a second question or even a third. You have quickly narrowed the possibilities and can now have an informed discussion with your doctor.
If the first question was still off base you can then begin a more thorough research process from the additional sources provided.
And only a few months ago MS said they were laying off 5,000 people "to reduce costs and increase efficiencies".
I see a way the could have done this without making anyone unemployed, just slash the advertising budget of the loss making service in half and keep the staff.
Advertising is not an area where you can cut costs if you are trying to *promote* a new service.
Besides, 5,000 is a very small number for Microsoft... and they're still hiring in quite a few other areas.
Imagine if Microsoft stops all Ads and let Apple capture the airwaves for an extended period of time... If you lose business, you lose more people.
You're basing your entire article on leaked screens, without testing the service. I think that it is unfair to judge Kumo without actually using it.
As for Kumo's future, MS will need to work extremely hard to make people leave Google or Yahoo. The users are used to these search sites, and these sites work perfectly for most people. MS will have to be very innovative with Kumo.
This is why, in my opinion, that Google's simple text interface worked so well. Then they started to improve it, help with relevance, filters, etc. I don't want all of that- and in fact if these search engines give the option to turn off all their special features, I would gladly do so.
When I search for a term, just give me the results. Don't screw with the results to tailor them to how you think I want them to be. Simple raw results by relevance of keyword.
KISS is a principle that is being forgotten.
So the only choice (if your are to remain in the market) is to do something different. Sometimes its works...we'll have to wait and see.
PS. Just remember how popular AltaVista was once (if you're that old) ;-)
Kind of the same way the Japanese can Chinese did it years ago. Many of their companies were diversified into many types of manufacturing. They would take profits from the product that was doing good and give it to their products that needed help.
The problem for Microsoft is that they are trying to dethrone Google and they do have alot of backing and money. They face the same uphill battle in search, just like Apple and Linux for that matter have in the desktop operating system arena.
"We want to move away from document retrieval as center of search to divining the user's intent."
User's intent? I don't know how accurately Microsoft can divine my intent. I already have enough problems with Office thinking it knows what I want.
- by t8 May 21, 2009 5:58 PM PDT
- I really hope Microsoft do not succeed.
- Reply to this comment
-
-
- by a85 May 28, 2009 8:46 AM PDT
- Maybe you could get a copy of MS word to spell check your posts before submitting them. Idiot.
-
-
(20 Comments)After watching them anialate nearly all competition from their own platform (Windows), the last thing we need is this sort of abuse on the Web.
The Web is the best platform out there because it is owned by no one and everyone has a chance to say something and sell their services and wares.
So that is the best reason why Microsoft shouldn't have any power on the Web.
I trust Google to be the top player because they are not biased with their search engine.
Microsoft is way too biased and not Web centric enough anyway.
All they do is make everything come back to Windows.
That is their only goal.
Try searching for the term "most evil company" on live.com and Microsoft doesn't appear.
So they have obviously used bias to tweak the results.
Try any other search engine and Microsoft naturally appears.
I will never use Microsoft on the Web. No thanks.
And no cash back is going to make me either.
I am not that desperate.