commit: fb200d8 - #595 (2014-04-14 00:44:57 -0400)
I wouldn't say that Pinterest is better, I think it depends on what you are looking for. *Side note:* This article was written by a woman, which is fine, but I think there is a slight bias there.
LOL, I'm going to add a note that says "This article was written by a man, which is fine, but I think there is a slight bias there" on 90% of the articles submitted to this site.... (Note: this comment was written by a woman)
If you are talking overall search than yes, Google dominates. However, when it comes to images this article makes a good case!
Maybe there's some nuance to Pinterest I don't get, but it seems she was comparing contextual searches on Pinterest with generic searches on Google Images. The two don't equate, so it's a biased test.
But that's me missing the point. Pinterest is very definitely a viable Google Image competitor. How can they really capture a larger share of image search traffic when it's most likely routed via Google or Bing image search anyways?
Perhaps there's some kind of data deal to be done here? I can't imagine Google standing still not making efforts to improve their search product.
I agree Ed. I'm sure she had to scratch a lot of search comparisons that just didn't work in order to make her case seem legit. I'll put it this way: When it comes to informational image searches, like finding a specific logo or event, Google wins hands down. Their database is massive. However, when you are looking for ideas, inspiration, or entertainment, Pinterest is far more accuate. If I type in delicious cake into Google, my results are crap, but in Pinterest I'm going to ACTUALLY see delicious cakes! Google is still stuck in the "informational" mindset where as Pinterest is very visual, which is generally what we want when we are looking at images.
...sort of implies Image Search might be something where social can have a really big impact.
I guess humans tagging images with 'delicious' and other human words, beats an algorithm trying to work out what a delicious cake is (just something with "delicious" in the alt tag or nearby?)
Agreed that the author overstates the case in the headline, but she has an interesting point nonetheless. Many times when people use an image search engine, they're looking for an interesting image to use on their blog or website, they're not just trying to see literal examples because they don't know what "blue" means or what a cake looks like. When that intent is there, Flickr or Pinterest might better serve the user's needs.
Interesting case for crowd-curation versus machine-curation. In truth, these searches were done over vastly different databases, and thus returned vastly different results. The Pinterest search iterated over a much smaller database that has been hand-curated by people, so the results are more intimate, varied and (in terms of each individual photograph - not the result set) of higher quality. Google's results are logical and literal because it returns what it has graded to best fit these vague terms.
Take 'cookies' for example. Google sent back what EVERYONE recognizes as cookies. Are they general and boring? Maybe. You asked for 'cookies'. Pinterest returned a hand curated selection of outstanding cookies. The type of things pinned on Pinterest are rarely the generic and general things that are most often associated with a term; Pinterest by it's very nature attracts the extraordinary and it's search returns that.
It would be interesting to see what Google would return from Pinterest's database and what Pinterest would return from Google's (huge collection of) databases.
What if I wanted to search for Ruffles (the yummy chips) on Pinterest? According to their search results, I'd have to go to Google to find what I was looking for. Whereas, when I make the same search in Google, I get pictures of the chips and the skirts/blouses/shoes/purses. How is that a good example of why Pinterest is a better search engine?
Like stated above, for informational searches like looking for a brand, Google is always going to be better. But when you search for items that are more for browsing, creativity, inspiration, Pinterest is out-performing Google.
What a joke of an article and I can't believe @brandon is actualy defending it lol. Some random commentator destroys her argument so I wont even bother http://www.buzzfeed.com/yappy00 ...
"tl;dr — You’re wrong. Back to “how to Google” school for you."
Where have I "defended" the article? Not once did I say the article was 100% correct. I simply said it made a good point and for certain types of searches, it is better (which that BuzzFeed comment also agrees with.) The title of the article was poorly written, but it had some good points.
Ed, can you design some sort of application that forces users to read previous comments before posting? My perception of the inbound.org intelligence level is slowly fading.
I read all your comments before writing. I am sorry if I took "when it comes to images this article makes a good case!" out of context. I still think the article is worthless. It is comparing one word searches like "BLUE" or "Angry" for crying out loud lol.