Thanks for linking to my post on the issues Twitter has in delivering relevant results. It was interesting to go back and read something I'd written so long ago.

While my opinions often evolve, this time they haven't. Twitter might get better at being a content discovery service by pushing Tweets that people I follow are Tweeting (aka Summify) but it still doesn't have real search ambitions. It's just ... awful for searching.

Breaking news is certainly a strength for Twitter but that only comprises a very small sliver of query intent. It's the crawl at the bottom of CNN, not enough to make Google nervous, particularly since they can easily leverage Google+ and provide a decent 'live' experience.

Right now Twitter is evolving and, in my view, will wind up looking a lot more like Tumblr. By making Twitter more visual and locking out third-party copies (watch out Hootsuite) Twitter becomes a destination site which commands attention - the perfect opportunity for advertising.

I really like the direction of this post. The idea is not that using personal signals is bad, but that we're unaware of when those personal signals are being used and are often helpless in engaging with those signals.

This goes to the fundamental way in which we interact with search engines and their results. Right now there's precious little interaction outside of the search box. I'd like to see a more engaging human computer interface for search that allowed the type of transparency and control mentioned in this post but retained the ease of use.

Yes, that's no small task.

Not only that but the 1.3 Million potential customers would mean that of all the 10,000 people who liked that page would have to have a mutually exclusive friend network.

Coupled with your astute observation about EdgeRank and the impact of geolocation and this number is a very dangerous piece of hyperbole.

I can't say I agree with your perception of quality for these search results. Most at the top are review aggregators that give you a mix of user and expert reviews, with a stress on the former. On most of these sites - with very little effort - you'd get a sense of what to look for and what models were rated best by actual buyers.

Consumer Reports is just one group conducting a test and it's often not up-to-date. So perhaps this is more to do with a general shift in how people are digesting reviews and ratings.

Instead of relying on the restaurant review in the newspaper people rely on Yelp. Similarly, many consumers now rely on the collective wisdom of buyers to help them purchase the right product. Not just one editor but hundreds of people weighing in on the value of a product.

It's not for everyone. Some still seek a single source of authority to guide them. However, I believe that what the search results reflect is the value that more and more people are putting on review aggregators.

So, in this case, I think you're ire at the search result is really misplaced and is instead about Web 2.0 reviews.

I completely agree and wrote as much on my own blog: http://www.blindfiveyearold.com/twitter-lists-are...

Instead of using lists to help users manage the stream of data, Twitter turned them into a competition.

Listed will be the new Followers and we'll have a brand new avenue of navel gazing and get Listed quick schemes.

I tend to agree with you Michelle. In the end isn't this about the very rudimentary tenants of marketing: find a need and fill it.

If there are no competitors then being exceptional might not be necessary. If you're entering a field with competitors the need you're filling is something the others aren't addressing.

That need could be quality, price, service or some other dimension of the product. One could argue that you're exceptional in this dimension but ... again, it seems like standard marketing.

But lets say the competing products are similar and inherent quality doesn't come into play. Then marketing becomes more important. Or does it?

I like the taste of Crystal Geyser water over Arrowhead. Now, one could say that the taste of the water is the Purple Cow, but ... is it really?