Google's CEO, Eric Shmidt has often revealed his vision for where Google search is going in the next ten years.  The jist of his answer is always that he envisions Google being able to give the user one exact right answer to the user's search query.  Here is a recent quote from Shmidt on the future of Google:

"So I don’t know how to characterize the next 10 years except to say that we’ll get to the point – the long-term goal is to be able to give you one answer, which is exactly the right answer over time. Okay, you know, the question I’ll ask today, how many Americans have – what percentage of Americans have passports?…The Google’s answer was a site, which was somebody who had attempted to answer that question and had multiple answers. It’s quite interesting actually to read…So you go to a very good definitive site. And what I’d like to do is to get to the point where we could read his site and then summarize what it says, and answer the question…Along with the citation and so forth and so on." - Eric Schmidt

Wow!  On the surface, Eric's vision of Google seems really cool and completely beneficial.  It would be great to have artificial intelligence tell us the answer to EVERYTHING... or would it?? Let's disect this quote and take a look at the implications of such a smart search engine.

"The long-term goal is to be able to give you one answer, which is exactly the right answer over time."
Awesome.  Wouldn't it be great to be able to ask a question to a device (computer, phone, tv, etc.) that is Googlefied (a term I just created) and get the correct answer everytime?  It seems great for users, but for Google, having such a smart search engine will negatively affect their search revenues.  Google depends on users clicking ads... that is how they make their piles of money.  When Google is able to give you the right answer to your question, what reason will you have to click on an ad?  Currently, inefficient searches have to be a benefit to Google-- the more time we spend looking for the answers to our queries, the higher the probability that we will click an ad that generates revenue for Google.  As Google gets smarter and smarter and able to give us our answers much faster, the less time we will spend on the site and thus, the lower the probability that we will click ads.  There obviously is a positive correlation between the time we spend on Google and the amount of money they make.  More time = higher probability of ad clicks; Less time = lower probability of ad clicks.

"And what I’d like to do is to get to the point where we could read his site and then summarize what it says, and answer the question…"
This is very revealing.  Google wants to get to the point where people do not even have to click on search results to receive the answer to their query.  In essence, people no longer even have to leave Google... they do not even need to visit the site that contains their answer because Google will give it to them.  Consider this: the way that search currently works is: you visit a search engine, you type a query, you receive results of websites that may contain the answer or information about your search query, you click a link you believe contains the information that you are seeking (at that point you have left the search engine). 

When you arrive at a website that contains the information that you are seeking, you likely spend some time there browsing the information (as do others) and likely click an ad that provides the website owner revenue.  The longer the time one spends on a website, the greater the chance that the visitor will complete an action that is valuable to the website publisher such as click an ad, purchase a product, opt-in to a newsletter, etc.. This is the reason that website owners are motivated to create fresh, new content in the first place... it is the reason for even owning a website.  In fact, I would argue that the Internet continues to grow exponentially because of the revenues that healthy website traffic creates for web publishers.

So, if Google is able to "read his site and then summarize what it says, and answer the question..." then the website owner will not receive the traffic that he depends on.  What happens to the thousands (probably millions) of web publishers that rely on search engine traffic (organic traffic) for revenue when Google is able to summarize a website?  Since traffic is the lifeblood of any Internet business, what motivation will web publishers have to create new websites and fresh content when they are no longer receiving the traffic that they deserve??  Furthermore, what happenes to the Google Adsense program if no one is visiting sites and clicking on ads (Google Adsense allows website owners to generate revenue from clicks of "Ads by Google")?  Is Google shooting themselves in the foot?
As Google attempts to answer all users' queries within the Google interface (keeping the traffic themselves), they will kill organic traffic and therefore kill a website owners most valuable source of traffic (traffic from search engines) and sole motivation to create content. This will kill the growth of the Internet... and at the same time it will Kill Google's traditional revenue model.  As the speed and accuracy of answering a user's query increases, the percentage chance that he/she will click an ad will decrease... thus killing Google's search revenue.  On top of that, as websites stop receiving search engine traffic, the Adsense program will die because no one will be clicking on ads... thus killing Google's content network revenue. 

Google is obviously a very smart and innovative company, but I really think they need to take a timeout and ask themselves, "How smart do we really want our search engine to be?"

---

Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites