This post was mentioned on Twitter by CindyEbookers: Twitter Google Bing http://bit.ly/11s9mO…

http://bit.ly/3lglgD

While these results show you what Twitter integration can add, I am hopeful Bing’s Facebook integration will demonstrate the qualitative difference of Facebook relationships when applied to search.

There are two components of value when it comes to search. There is the corpus (the data sources that undergird the search) and there is the way that people use search, sometimes referred to as involvement.

First, the corpus. While the conventional wisdom today is that all data must be searchable in order to create value, if you look at search engines from an investment perspective, you discover something different. The profit drivers for search come from (1) having a proprietary corpus, (2) number of end-users that prefer/are exclusive users of the search, and (3) having some proprietary secret sauce that allows for even more value. Using Google as an example, Google is (1) using the guise of net neutrality to put its servers into ISPs in order to enlarge its corpus; (2) aggressively launching new end-points like Wave, Gmail, Chrome, etc.; and (3) building on AdSense by using its insights gleaned from (1) and (2) to enhance its capabilities in social search, as announced just this last week by Google VP Marissa Mayer. For more on this investment thesis, check out “The Economics of Information Vending” by Hambrecht and Quist analyst Joseph E. Laird.

Next, look at the way that people use Facebook. One of the interesting tightropes of social media is what makes something “cool” in one moment where it was “creepy” just six months prior. Whether you ascribe Facebook’s success to luck or planning, this insight is the reason that Facebook rules today and Friendster is an afterthought. I’d argue people on Facebook are more discerning about making suggestions simply because if the person has a bad experience as a result of that recommendation, it will come back to bite them in the butt. Twitter users, on the other hand, are more impulsive and less likely to screen their recommendations.

Or, to put it in a travel context: Facebook suggestions are like suggestions from a hotel concierge and Twitter suggestions are like reviews you read in a magazine. If the Wynn hotel concierge sends you to a place that is closed, the resort will compensate you to the tune of about US$50. You’re not going to get that response with a magazine — or with a Twittered comment. That is why Facebook status comments have greater utility than Twitter.

as I hinted at in the post, Twitter writing will become a new artform in itself, playing helpfully into the hands ofthe SEO experts.

Of course, some might say that the writing on Twitter is poor most of the time, so any improvement will be welcome.

Can you explain why you think Facebook status updates are more valuable?

This post was mentioned on Twitter by happydudecouk: RT @kevinlukemay: The search game-changer – Twitter, Google and Bing – The Perfect Storm of travel search | Tnooz http://bit.ly/3esP4a RT…

Mark’s comment about MSFT being able to filter users by authority is interesting but a little bit of a stretch. If you check out http://bing.com/twitter I’d expect the search results to be a little smarter. There is a value gap between the few Twitter users you can count on to provide useful stuff and the critical mass you need to provide useful results for 98% of searches (four sigma).

The interesting thing is that Facebook is making status messages searchable via MSFT, who owns a piece of Facebook. I don’t know if MSFT’s equity investment played a role in Facebook’s decision last year to stop making status messages accessible via RSS, but that unpopular decision actually makes Facebook’s information more valuable in this emerging war to provide real-time search.

I think Google and Bing may just have added significantly to the value of Twitter.