Desktop search - whats the point?

[pdstein]

Maybe I'm just clueless, but what is all the hubub about desktop search? Sure it's useful, but why are SE companies climbing over each other to offer this ap? What's in it for them?

[Patrick Berry]

basically the idea is to enable tesktop search. Not just you emails and other files actually that reside in your pc, but also web search without going to the web site page to make the search.

this terns into another potential revenue maker. you search you local emails for bottle top openner ( since that is the subject of an email your are searching for) adn msn or google not only find you your email, but also offer relevant ad content.

[pdstein]

So there is advertising in the desktop search results.

[St0n3y]

desktop search has been a lifesaver for me. I'm testing MSN but I like Google's cache feature. this has, on multiple occassions, allowed me to pull documents I inadvertantly deleted. MSN doesn't seem to have this feature.

[Patrick Berry]

Hello pdstein,

I cannot confirm if desktop search comes with, the beta google does not, but I do believe that is were it is going.

[KeywordMonkey]

Why Desktop Serach?

Advertising alongside results (after Betas)
Marketshare - if I use MSN Toolbar for desktop serach, I'll probably use for Web, too. And maybe MSN Messenger, Hotmail, MSN blogs...
(Possibly) gathering search trend data and selling it on
(Possibly) selling add-ons to free dekstop search tools that connect them to enterprise search solutions
Personlisation and localisation of web search results via user profile in tool / related service profile (MSN Passport, Yahoo accounts)

[cryptblade]

I'm so glad someone raised this question. I dont' understand desktop search either.

I mean, really, where is the benefit for the user? I know I wouldnt want to use it in my office computer. I dont care for it on my home computer - and some files I want hidden from people. I dont even use the "recent documents" shortcut because I dont want certain documents accessible to stray users at home.

Desktop search is probably good for parents who want to monitor their children's activities online, including email. But beyond that - whole wants this feature? The webbrowser toolbars are an annoyance as is.

Most computer users I know are not savvy enough on their computers to really want to use this tool.

The main premise for this desktop search is that more targeted information or ads can be sent, within the context of the user's actual behavior - like how Amazon.com responds to your online shopping with suggestions for similar titles or products.

But that advertising premise is pretty faulty too. First off, users would need to download the tool and install it. So the market is not computer users, but computer users who download AND use the tool. That market drastically diminishes from say - Internet users.

Second, it's clear that when you use the desktop search to search for your files in the computer, you will have different files for different purposes. And clearly, you will not be receptive to ads for all of your files. What if you were doing a school report on pulmonary heart surgery? Does that mean you want ads for lowering colesterol to prevent heart attacks? Unlike Alexa's toolbar showing "related" links based on what you are looking at in your browser, you searching for your emails or files has nothing to do with being receptive to ads served up based on your desktop search. With desktop search, you are actually looking for specific information, maybe your list of IDs and passwords, old bank files, or whatever. The point is, when you look on your desktop, it's a lot more goal/task oriented. How often have you stopped to receive a marketing message when you have stuff to do? Do you like it when you are busy and a telemarketer calls - it's even worse when you try to be nice to them and tell them you have to go but they try to keep you talking.

With desktop search, you dont have any of that liberty - if the SEs use them to serve ads. You become at their mercy. Of course, they could put the ads casually on the side and gently out of the way, easy enough for you to ignore. But it would still be there!

So then it comes down to - how useful is this tool for advertising? I dont see how this is any good, because there are too many hurdles before you can even get a user to click on an ad. The user needs to download the tool, install the tool, and then pay attention to the ads in the tool.

Only Microsoft stands to win in this because they can at least package this tool with their software or future versions of Windows. MS can incorporate desktop search as part of the usability of Windows.

But what I do see in the news may be more of what is to come. Google's academic search and other more specialized search coming out may be more indicative of the real future. For instance, the more specialized search portals - actively marketed on Google and actively giving searchers the option for general search or specialized search -> leading to academic or not, I think, gives searchers the illusion of more control. It also gives searchers a no-brain way of searching for what they want. Most users do not use much of the commands like allintitle or what not. So I think reducing the thinking or strategizing in search for the user is the ultimate gem for SEs. The more "intuitive" and user-friendly it is, along with excellent quality search results, the more the users will like the SE brand. This is what I think.

[rcjordan]

>I mean, really, where is the benefit for the user? I know I wouldnt want to use it in my office computer. I dont care for it on my home computer - and some files I want hidden from people. I dont even use the "recent documents" shortcut because I dont want certain documents accessible to stray users at home.

This is what I'm seeing out in the real world as well. This is a hot topic for the search-informed crowd but JohnQ isn't fired up about it (most I've asked reply "windows does that already, it's on there somewhere but I've never used it much).

[St0n3y]

I was VERY hesitant about downloading Google Desktop. Since I have though I LOVE it. I don't use it much but when I do its a life saver. The best thing about it, which I believe MSN desktop does not do, is provide multiple caches of an item. Many times I've deleted something completely, but found a cache via Google desktop.

[Jeffle]

I thought DTS was just another fancy name for the sluggish finding of files I'd seen via microsoft's built-in Find.

No! Since acquiring, first Google, and now msft DTS (I am still evaluating), I find that I hardly ever actually "look" for anything anymore.

This is particularly interesting (hey, to me, at least! :) ) as I find that I don't even "look" for stuff when I know where it is. I search, and it just pops up, generally quite a lot faster than if I were trolling through my directory hierarchy.

Fast, easy - I found things I didn't even remember hiding, and would have loved to have found ages ago!

Now, as to whether microsoft DST trumps Google, (or any of the upcoming), well my own jury is out. I hear what people are saying about the cache, but I really like being able to search such a wide variety of file types, too.

-Jeff
"two is not greater than three, even for extremely large values of two"

[shewhoguards]

Caches? I'm not sure I like the sound of that. Isn't there a risk of it backing up viruses without you realising? Sometimes you really do WANT stuff deleting.

[St0n3y]

I agree, sometimes you do want something deleted. The drawback of cache, but it has its benefits to.

I did a search for an old image file today, I happened to file name but didn't even know if it was still on my computer. I searched using both MS and Google desktop. Google came back with the .gif image, while MS cambe back with the .gif and photoshop files. The photoshop was the version I needed.

[The Broker]

How many times can you index everything on your desktop? Its worse than instant messengers, at least there is a good reason to have all the IM icons in your taskbar, I can't see having multiple indexes of the same content on my desktop.

So what it comes down to is: There can be only one.

Windows already has search built into it, its in the task bar. Whats it gonna take for MS to include their search bar in the next windows update?

[St0n3y]

How many peole have more than one toolbar installed? quite a few. I don't like toolbars but I do rely on Google for some of the info they provide. I don't use others, but many do for the various features each offers.

Same goes for desktop search. I like some features on Google and some on MSN. Until either one has all the features I like I'll be happy with two small desktop search icons in my taskbar.

[pdstein]

How many times can you index everything on your desktop? Its worse than instant messengers, at least there is a good reason to have all the IM icons in your taskbar, I can't see having multiple indexes of the same content on my desktop.

I wonder if each DTS indexes the other DTS's indexes. :D

Whats it gonna take for MS to include their search bar in the next windows update?

I'd be shocked if it wasn't included soon.

[KeywordMonkey]

It won't be in Windows Update until it's out of beta - they've made too many bad releases with flaws in the past. Bad PR.

I suspect they will push it via Office Update too as it is very good for Outlook emails - I use LookOut now and see it as a vital part of Outlook (MS bought LookOut in the summer, it's the basis for the search tool I believe).

[The Broker]

Ill be using whichever one supports firefox and thunderbird.

[St0n3y]

MSN does not appear to provide a web history, or if it does, not for browsing done through FireFox. Google will give me a web history.

Both scan email messages for Outlook. Don't know about Thunderbird.

[robwatts]

I used the G dtop app for around a day..then had an attack of the heebeegeebee's and uninstalled it.

As for all the other new Desktop introductions, I haven't even had a sniff at them, and am unlikely to either.

A web browser does it for me, and the existing windoze search thing does what I need it to. Still, all that said, I was impressed with the app whilst installed, purely from a 'ooh how clever those guys' perspective, but then I got all cynical and paranoid of course..

The commercial imperatives are of course monumental ( to the SE's ) , the view is that if your pc has their desktop app installed and that then becomes your defacto search method, then in theory they have the potential to gain greater market share through limiting the likelihood of you going to another search property via a web browser, the convenience factor will kick in, and as a result their advertisng revenues will rise. The thing is, its not really my battle or concern, Ill just watch the battle unfold and see who wins.

Can't help but feel that m$ will kick bottom soon, what defence against a ubiquitous OS that is almost certain to include the same - think longhorn.

oh well!

[Webvisitor]

Ill be using whichever one supports firefox and thunderbird.

That would be Copernic. I believe I just read that they updated to this capability.

[cryptblade]

I really do not see the value of DTS - I can't believe desktop search is already being abbreviated as "DTS"!

I've tried them, Copernic. They are nice to use and can be easy. But they are not useful in active use. When I need my files, I dont use DTS to get it. I have my files set up by project folders and all things related to the project I put in that one folder. So DTS is nice to use but I dont think they deserve as much attention as we are giving them.

And I think we have noticed DTS because of all the search engines offering them. But I suspect that DTS was conceived at a time when they tried to pioneer something "new" in search - the search industry sniffed it, and with Google saying they were doing it, the other SEs said they would do it too - just to compete with King Google.

By having tried DTS it doesnt really do anything for me. I dont consider myself an early-adopter, so I'm much more consistent with the "mass" market. If I dont see the value or usefulness, I think most other computer users wont either.

I mean, really, think about it - how does DTS benefit any user or the company? First, the user needs to download the application THEN install it. That means the user needs either fast connection or patience and really wants it. The user also needs a computer with enough power and HD space to sustain the application - not all users have computers that capable, and in fact some users only use computers at work, not at home. So there is a HUGE hurdle right there.

Second, the SEs need the user to have no fears about privacy issues. I remember a few months back when AP or Reuters ran a story about how Google indexes credit card numbers. I think that is pretty difficult when the public is concerned with privacy and security. Even though people have now adopted the internet and ecommerce, it doesnt mean they want DTS and all of their files indexed.

The bottom line is that DTS, for the search engines, seems to be a way to get more personalized information from the user. Presumably so that they can present better contextual advertising based on your desktop search. Perhaps they are trying to get more information for each user and want to gather information based on computer usage, computer files, emails, and internet searches - all to present, again, targeted advertising. If that is the case, I think they are going about it completely wrong. I think Google would have done better by incorporating Gmail into a Google user account like Amazon - since presumably DTS is similar to Amazon.com. That way, Google and other SEs dont have 3 hurdles before getting to users - 1)downloading 2)installing 3)usage.

While I think its good to pioneer this technology and see where it goes, I think other SEs are jumping on the bandwagon. And what I fear is a lot of SEs trying to shove this down people's throats. I mean, look at the proliferation of toolbars. There are so many sites out there with downloadable toolbars - but how many of them are actually used? I personally HATE Yahoo's toolbar that requires me to sign-in in order to customize the toolbar :mad: - ha, bye-bye Yahoo!

I personally think a better tool would be for Google to integrate Gmail into a Google user acct and have a sign-in at the start of Google homepage. Maybe the email can be customized to display on the side bar of the browser or search is set right by the email. That way, within the context of the email or whatever is being searched, similar sites can be listed as well as advertising - making it similar to the Alexa toolbar, but with advertising in mind.

This would also make it far more mobile - so that users only need internet connection and can log-in nearly anywhere - and be of commercial value to Google and other SEs.

I hope, for the SEs, that this is the ultimate plan and that DTS is only a precursor to rolling out that kind of integrated service.

[AndyBeal]

What I find interesting is that some of the search engines aren't quite sure why they are launching DTS either.

I spoke to Jim Lanzone at Ask, and he tells me they simply look at DTS as just another "feature" for their users and not a monetized product in any way.

[Kermit]

I have three points I will try to make here:

It's all about the sticky:
I think only one of you actually caught on to what I think DTS is all about (from the SE perspective). It's all about sticky. If you use Yahoo for searching your desktop, instant messaging your friends, and storing your pictures, then you are more likely to use the products that generate revenue. I seriously doubt that the SEs intend to put adds up as you search your personal computer for a spreadsheet. The privacy issues are too freaky to consider. (and to the guy who doesn't want his family easily finding files on his computer through DTS, consider this... your kids are home more than you, they have tons of time to kill. dude - they found those files months ago and have already shown them to their friends. Might I interest you in basic computer security classes that would allow you to enhance your ability to find your files AND prevent others from doing so?)

Feature war & Microsoft doesn't just "kill" anything anymore:
SEs have to offer DTS because the DTS industry is picking up. Like IM it's a lost leader. It's just another feature. Google just released a toolbar that has DTS and autofill. MSN just released a toolbar that has DTS & autofill. Yahoo will have to answer with DTS and autofill. DTS is a native extension of web search and all the SEs want you to go to one company for the whole search world. But now that we're in a feature war, it's time to recognize that the days of M$ marketing an app and killing the existing marketplace is no longer sane. M$ has hotmail (crud), M$ has search (crud), M$ has MSN (crud). M$ bought lookout (their start into DTS) (crud). M$'s presence does not guarantee we will buy or use their products any longer.

Why use DTS & X1
So, I've taken the time to read all the posts about DTS and heard crypt's complaints about how it won't succeed, so now I will tell you how I use DTS.

I use a product called X1 www.x1.com which is being licensed and distributed free in January by Yahoo). As a DTS product, this thing is king. It does two things the other guys haven't come close to:
- It searches as you type. You are in the interface and you are typing and it immediately starts filtering out objects that don't meet your needs.
- It provides a preview pane. Left side is what the filter presents as searched items. Highlight one and the right side is a viewing pane. You don't have to launch the item to see if it is exactly what you want. THIS ROCKS.
- it also has a hundred other features but go there and see for yourself.

Here's how I used to find emails: sort by name, scan. Here's how it works now. type the senders name and something I think the message contains and BAM it's there. INSTANT GRATIFICATION.

It's a bit of a ramble, so please forgive me. DTS will hear those naysayers just like the Internet did ("what do I need on the internet? Compuserve provides me everything I could use with a simple dial-up accout") - you kids can replace "compuserve" with "aol" and get the joke.

-Kermit

[cryptblade]

It's all about the sticky:
...If you use Yahoo for searching your desktop, instant messaging your friends, and storing your pictures, then you are more likely to use the products that generate revenue. I seriously doubt that the SEs intend to put adds(sic) up as you search your personal computer for a spreadsheet. The privacy issues are too freaky to consider.


I like your point Kerm - but it still stands that a user needs to DOWNLOAD the app. While "web-savvy" folks like us would be willing to spend the time and do this, what about the majority of web-users?


Feature war & Microsoft doesn't just "kill" anything anymore:
SEs have to offer DTS because the DTS industry is picking up. Like IM it's a lost leader. It's just another feature. Google just released a toolbar that has DTS and autofill. MSN just released a toolbar that has DTS & autofill. Yahoo will have to answer with DTS and autofill. DTS is a native extension of web search and all the SEs want you to go to one company for the whole search world.


This is also hedging that each one of these search engines have enough branding to leverage this strategy. Do they really? That also said, if SEs have enough branding in the minds of Internet users, are users interested enough that the branding can be leveraged? I mean, I use AOL IM mostly because most of my friends use it. I also use MSN Messenger, mostly at work. I think it's probably mostly used at work because you dont need to download an extra application. Which then makes MS in the best position to leverage the general use of DTS. But not everyone I know - in fact most friends I know - dont use these instant message things. People with Hotmail accounts - automatically able to use MS Messenger - dont use it! So it comes down to users actually using this DTS - which is the value.

You think that DTS is a native extension of search - I'm not convinced of that. Windows XP has a similar type of function, but I dont use it. I think people are used to the graphical interface of the desktop. So, if DTS extends more - to graphical displays and have other features to allow you to "save" your searches - stuff for quick-reference, etc, and it's integrated into the desktop use, then I think people will be far more interested in DTS. Beyond that, I think DTS is a nice curiosity - and as you mentioned about instant messengers, I think DTS is similar to that kind of application - oh, that's nice, but nothing to go ape over. And ultimately, why are SEs spending time developing this apps that really dont do much, instead of focusing on their search results? They are search engines after all - not a culture center.

Given the dynamics of search, SEs should always be looking to differentiate academic or pure research search vs. commercial search. I think a far better strategy is what Google has been doing (and other SEs are not and to much less fanfare) - separating certain searches. I think Google's academic search is the right track - and leveraging Google's branding is a good strategy. Google just needs to integrate it into their search homepage.


But now that we're in a feature war, it's time to recognize that the days of M$ marketing an app and killing the existing marketplace is no longer sane. M$ has hotmail (crud), M$ has search (crud), M$ has MSN (crud). M$ bought lookout (their start into DTS) (crud). M$'s presence does not guarantee we will buy or use their products any longer.


I can understand the feature war - and it's a good thing. And that's a good point - perhaps all this talk about DTS is missing the point that there is a war going on - a little like the cola wars and even though the top 3 seem to be Google, Yahoo, and MSN, there are other players who can make a good run. And given the dynamics of this industry, that run could be very very convincing. Perhaps the real news is how much this industry IS getting big and mainstream to the point that turf wars are being fought like this. I think that's a good thing. However, I would still argue that DTS does NOT warrant such fanfare.

As an aside - the rest of your comment is just you being an MS hater. That's just you drinking too much hatorade, get me?

[rcjordan]

>They don't know the point either

Right, other than they're in a feature war as mentioned upstream and need to generate press releases.

Personal sniff test:
I didn't buy Copernic nor download a freebie. Nor could I generate any interest in my offices in the bricks world. For those that know how I love to test, consume, and ~frequently~ reject apps (particularly productivity apps) this means that we're likely to be looking at something that's dead-in-the-water. I'm a sucker for this stuff, and they haven't interested me.

<added>
BTW, G has added a fake searchbox banner to push theirs. Bannerscum here know that's a pretty effective way of drawing the clicks http://www.google.com/images/desktop.gif

[KeywordMonkey]

One area I am seeing interest in DST is at a corporate client's site where they use (the horrible, feels-like-Windows 3.11 ) Lotus Notes for email.

Here they use Google DTS for searching Lotus notes (as the internal search function is, well, crap). To make Notes indexable, they have the Lotus-to-Outlook free plugin installed (for internal reasons they can't just use Outlook).

Users are finding things more quickly - so these apps can plug the gaps in the design of the apps themselves. That's a hint, IBM-Lotus.

[Jorge]

I read in the news today: "Google desktop search flawed: NYT
Report says Rice University scientists found security flaw in recently distributed tool."
http://money.cnn.com/2004/12/20/technology/google/?cnn=yes

So What about the possible flaw? What does this say about Google. Who would want to take any more risks by installing the toolbar

[KeywordMonkey]

I read in the news today: "Google desktop search flawed: NYT
Report says Rice University scientists found security flaw in recently distributed tool."
http://money.cnn.com/2004/12/20/technology/google/?cnn=yes

So What about the possible flaw? What does this say about Google. Who would want to take any more risks by installing the toolbar
The flaw is in the desktop search app, NOT the browser toolbar
It's been fixed accoridng to the blog (http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/041220-103347)
It's an early beta, problems were inevitable.

[littleman]

Just FYI...
In Linux there is a very handy utility called 'locate' it makes finding files a breeze and very fast. It works by creating a database of all the files on your system and grepping strings out of that. Usually the database updated via a cron job daily.

For the willing a Linux Desktop can make a very productive workstation.

[cryptblade]

Someone pointed out that they think/theorize that the point of this DTS tool/app is to build branding in the minds of users by offering free tools.

I would go further by saying that if this is indeed the strategy, it's not really branding, but reinforcing customer loyalty. For Googlephiles, when MSoft integrates desktop search into Windows, Google could lose a greater market share, particularly with web-neophytes. If Google's strategy is really to launch a whole continuous campaign of free apps to continue to reinforce Google's brand loyalty, it could indeed help to stem the tide of MS DTS in the future.

That being the case, then it appears most of us - myself included - are totally missing the point of DTS. And I would have to give Google's strategic planning folks a big PAT on the back. This is farsight on their part. Very, very good.

I had been previously troubled by 2 things about DTS - contexual ads and some people trying to evangelize that DTS is, somehow, the next logical "evolutional" step in search. In no way is it the next logical step. In fact it's against ALL logic to say that it's the next logical step. What does what I have on file relate to what I want to search online? If I have what I need, I have no need for it online. Case in point - if I'm using my desktop search to find one of my mp3 files, which i often dont rename when i download (yes I've ganked them online), and say i was looking for an old DMX song, it does not mean that I want to search anything about DMX, rap, gangst-rap, or the Ruff Ryders - I just want to hear the song and bark like a dog. SO! DTS is by no means the next logical step in search.

BUT - if my DTS experience was awesome, and I knew it came from Google or AskJeeves, then I would be much more inclined to stick to what I know... at least for a while. This strategy is good for Googl e - probably the only thing it has to fight off MS at least for a little while.

This is also good for Google because the earlier they can start on this, the longer they have to build better desktop apps and build long-term brand loyalty. Perhaps Google can end up building a highly integrated Google desktop search app and browser? Or maybe in the future - under works already? - Google will control Firefox and integrate it with their fully-ramped DTS.

I can see this to be a far better business strategy for Google than... just plain DTS. I dont know if others are really getting it or just copying Google to keep in close steps.

This is, of course, only an opinionated theory, but a lot more enticing to me than DTS and continuing to shove it down our throats with no real apparent relevance or importance in overall search experience.