I'm starting to think so. Here's why:

1. The algorithm is, as always, exchanging old problems for new problems. This time, though, the problem is that the new problems are accidental; the publisher is intending to behave in way that Google deems acceptable, but Google's algorithm does not interpret it correctly, and so the result is growing confusion of what's Google algorithm does and doesn't do -- and, perhaps more importantly, what the algorithm may or may not do tomorrow (and so how future actions could affect future revenue streams).

2. This has a lot of real nasty implications for all of Google's stakeholders, as it implies the firm's enormous technology investments into its algorithm are being transformed from high return assets to potentially costly liabilities.

3. Regarding the economic impact on search costs, it suggests that as the network of information that is the world wide web grows, we simply don't have an organization on this planet that can minimize search costs in a primarily algorithmic manner.

This leads us to an inevitable conclusion: algorithmic search is losing value, and hence will lose the attention of its audience, and hence will lose its potential for profitability. Because of the current weaknesses in algorithmic search, the overall costs of using search are rising, and hence an opportunity emerges for firms that can reduce the costs of finding good information. Whoever is next in line to reduce search costs will need to have a more human way of doing things, as computer algorithms just aren't good enough -- (yet, of course).

Featured Reports

• Web 2.0 and the Assassination of John F. Kennedy [1]
• Culture 2.0 [4]
• SEO 2.0 [5]
• Publishing 2.0 [7]
• Real Heroes [1]
• The Mythology of Web 2.0 [4]
• Psychological Warfare [6]
• Superhero Marketing [5]
• Inverse Universe [6]
• Platform Strategies [6]
• Unclassifiable [6]
• Searchonomics [7]
• Open Source Strategies [12]
• Google [42]
• On Innovation [124]
• My Mistakes [9]

• Yo, Peep This: RSS Feed