“Deep Search wants to look at the social and political dimensions of how we navigate the deep seas of knowledge. We want to examine the pursuit of categorizing that data and what it means to relate to the world through digital search technologies. Futuristic applications and computational complexity aside, cognitive technologies deliberately designed to yield results in a limited frame of reference, imbed political philosophy in seemingly neutral code. In the daily reality of information overflow it is crucial to acknowledge both arbitrariness and willful designation, and that hierarchies are not miraculously produced by nature itself. Innocent utilities that blend into the routine of everyday work and leisure subtly bend our perception, and weave threads into the fabric of cognitive reality.” (World-Information Institute)

“Search engine researchers typically depict search as the solitary activity of an individual searcher. They hardly ever talk about the social interactions that occurs around search. I think this is just plain wrong.” (Augmented Social Cognition)

“The ASIS&T 2008 IA Summit, Experiencing Information, emphasized users who want to know, do or share something. A user experiences information by creating, organizing, browsing and searching for information. These actions contribute to the notion of exploratory search that can be described as an information process in which the importance of a search system’s query-document matching power is diminished in favor of the user assuming a more assertive role in making decisions about the search results and the next steps toward fulfilling their information needs. A straightforward and common way to distinguish an exploratory search system is to examine the presentation of search results. Typically some browsing facilities to supplement or replace the popular list-based result pages are introduced and they feature grouping as a primary mechanism for search result display.” (ASIS&T Bulletin 34.6)

“(…) with respect to guided navigation, we should distinguish between clarify and refine. First, we must clarify the meaning or context. Are we in the right ballpark regarding the searcher’s intent? Clarify is all about disambiguation. Then, we’re ready to refine or narrow. Exactly what type of widget do you want? Refine is about increasing specificity.” (Peter Morville – Findability)

“Exploratory search research opens new opportunities for information architects to grow the profession. Research discoveries are unleashing profound enhancements in search engine technology. To increase the value of the findings of the research on exploratory search, information architects need to explore new methods and approaches to designing information displays for expert systems. As professionals, we need to exert more influence over the devices, appliances and software that govern the production of content. Enhancements to the production of content will cyclically increase our understanding of designing information solutions for experts, adding additional value to the user interfaces designed for less expert solutions.” (Mark Nolan – ASIS&T Bulletin April/May 2008)

Louis Rosenfeld’s workshop slides on site search analytics – “During the workshop, I’ll also be demoing and leading three hands-on exercises. So I hope you UXers out there will take me at my word; there’s something to site search analytics.” (Louis Rosenfeld – Bloug)

“Although Findability had a closely knit family, he felt like an orphan, because his siblings always seemed to get the lion’s share of time and attention from the folks in the web design agency.” (Aarron Walter – A List Apart)

“Web search engines have emerged as ubiquitous and vital tools for the successful navigation of the growing online informational sphere. As Google puts it, the goal is to “organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful” and to create the “perfect search engine” that provides only intuitive, personalized, and relevant results. Meanwhile, the so–called Web 2.0 phenomenon has blossomed based, largely, on the faith in the power of the networked masses to capture, process, and mashup one’s personal information flows in order to make them more useful, social, and meaningful. The (inevitable) combining of Google’s suite of information–seeking products with Web 2.0 infrastructures – what I call Search 2.0 – intends to capture the best of both technical systems for the touted benefit of users. By capturing the information flowing across Web 2.0, search engines can better predict users’ needs and wants, and deliver more relevant and meaningful results. While intended to enhance mobility in the online sphere, this paper argues that the drive for Search 2.0 necessarily requires the widespread monitoring and aggregation of a users’ online personal and intellectual activities, bringing with it particular externalities, such as threats to informational privacy while online.” (Michael Zimmer – First Monday 13.3) – courtesy of petermorville

“A sandbox for collecting search examples, patterns, and anti-patterns. Please add tags, notes, and comments, and suggest new examples. Over time, I hope to add patterns that illustrate user behavior and the information architecture of search.” (Peter Morville – Findability)

“Where as the previous generative qualities reside within creative digital works, findability is an asset that occurs at a higher level in the aggregate of many works. A zero price does not help direct attention to a work, and in fact may sometimes hinder it. But no matter what its price, a work has no value unless it is seen; unfound masterpieces are worthless. When there are millions of books, millions of songs, millions of films, millions of applications, millions of everything requesting our attention — and most of it free — being found is valuable.” (Kevin Kelly – The Technicum)

“Search behavior is the result of interplay among several independent factors the user brings to the search operation, six of which are described (…). Designers have no more control over these than they have over the color of the user’s hair.” (John Ferrara – Boxes and Arrows)

“Advanced search is the ugly child of interface design -always included, but never loved. Websites have come to depend on their search engines as the volume of content has increased. Yet advanced search functionality has not significantly developed in years. Poor matches and overwhelming search results remain a problem for users. Perhaps the standard search pattern deserves a new look. A progressive disclosure approach can enable users to use precision advanced search techniques to refine their searches and pinpoint the desired results.” (Stephen Turbek – Boxes and Arrows)

“The highlight of the Searchnomics 2007 conference was a keynote, at the very end, by Marissa Mayer, Vice President, Search Products & User Experience at Google. She covered eight areas Google is focusing on now and in the near future.” (Nitin Karandikar – Read/WriteWeb)

“Ask anyone which search engine they use to find information on the Internet and they will almost certainly reply: “Google.” Look a little further, and market research shows that people actually use four main search engines for 99.99% of their searches: Google, Yahoo!, MSN, and Ask.com (in that order). But in my travels as a Search Engine Optimizer (SEO), I have discovered that in that .01% lies a vast multitude of the most innovative and creative search engines you have never seen. So many, in fact, that I have had to limit my list of the very best ones to a mere 100.” (Charles S. Knight – Read/Write Web)

“Ergonosearch is a vertical search engine about accessibility and usability, indexing only selected quality resources: articles and expert blogs, research papers, specialized lists and forums, official specifications and guidelines.” (Sébastien Billard)

“Search is a subject that I’ve always been interested in. Especially internal or enterprise search, within a site. Not web search like Google or Yahoo!. Sure there’s lots of search engine optimization (SEO) or marketing (SEM) tricks you can do to improve your ranking in the web search engines. But that’s never really held any fascination for me.” (Chiara Fox – Adaptive Path)

“Familiar words spring to mind when users create their search queries. If your writing favors made-up terms over legacy words, users won’t find your site.” (Jakob Nielsen – Alertbox)

“For a while I have been thinking of different ways of supporting finding information with tags that go beyond tag-clouds. There are three trends that are worth pointing out. The first is faceted browse interfaces, the second is algorithm driven approaches like clustering and recommendations (often driven by collaborative filtering), and the third possibility is one that is native to tag based systems – and can be termed ‘pivot browsing’.” (Rashmi Sinha)

“Activity theory is not a predictive theory but a conceptual framework within which different theoretical perspectives may be employed. Typically, it is suggested that several methods of data collection should be employed and that the time frame for investigation should be long enough for the full range of contextual issues to emerge. Activity theory offers not only a useful conceptual framework, but also a coherent terminology to be shared by researchers, and a rapidly developing body of literature in associated disciplines.” (T.D. Wilson – Information Research 11.4)

Search is a conversation, a marketplace, mostly friction, and not discrete. – “A ‘video’ by John S. Rhodes revealing the future of search, why failure drives success for Google and Yahoo, and how search ultimately molds the way we act, feel and think. You can download Part I of Found and Lost, 15 minutes long, absolutely free.” (John Rhodes – UX Reports)