GigaOM is running an interesting piece on the differences between Google’s search through the annals of the internet in comparison with real-time search through mediums such as Twitter. The quite apt metaphor is that Google is like the college library, whereas Twitter and Facebook are more like the campus coffee shops. This is such a good way to think about the situation that we should examine it a little more closely and delve into the value that each sort of search type has.
The value of the library is as a great source for information which has been vetted as correct or in some way meaningful. Google employs its PageRank algorithm to determine which results to return. For example, the more other websites link to the New York Times, the more its PageRank increases, and the more likely Google becomes to return New York Times stories when users make relevant queries. This makes a whole lot of sense. Presumably websites that link to the New York Times do so because their information is correct and meaningful.
Of course, it takes time for information to get vetted, so most everything will appear in the coffee shop of real-time search before it makes it to the campus library. New internet developments, especially ones that are a bit slower to pick up momentum, are going to be far more accessible through searching Twitter than through Google. That information, as it is the new stuff, is not necessarily going to be correct; if a bunch of people spam Twitter with complete malarkey, you could well end up seeing nothing of value via the search for a while (see the xkcd comic on swine flu).
So real-time search and Google search do not necessarily have much of anything to do with each other. As the internet’s advertising juggernaut, Google probably would want to implement a form of real-time search in order to monetize the users who search things like Twitter, but not doing will not be Google’s downfall.
