recently celebrated its third birthday. There were some old friends who showed up at the party (the older brother Google
arrived a bit late though) -- but overall, it was a fairly quiet evening atop of Mountain View
. So where are we now with Google Scholar
? Has the tool lived up to its early hype? What improvements have been made to Scholar in the past year? In a series of fascinating postings
, my colleague, The Google Scholar
, made some insightful comments, particularly when he argues:
What Google scholar has done is bring scholars and academics onto the web for their work in a way that Google alone did not. This has led to a greater use of social software and the rise of Web 2.0. For all its benefits, Web 2.0 has given us extreme info-glut which, in turn, will make Web 3.0 (and the semantic web) necessary.
I agree. Google Scholar (and Google) are very much Web 2.0 products
. As I had elaborated in my previous entry
, AJAX (which is Web 2.0-based
), produced many remarkable programs
such as Gmail
and Google Earth
Was this destiny? Not really. As Yihong Ding
proposes, Web 2.0 did not choose
Google; rather, it was Google that had decided to follow Web 2.0
. If Yahoo had only known about the politics of the Web a little earlier, it might have precluded Google. (But that's for historians to analyze). Yahoo!
realized the potential of Web 2.0
too late; it purchased Flickr
without really understanding how to fit it into Yahoo!'s Web 1.0 universe.
Back to Dean's point
. Google's strength might ultimately lead to its own demise. The PageRank
algorithm might have a drawback similar to Yahoo!'s once dominant directory
. Just as Yahoo!
failed to catch up with the explosion of the Web, Google's PageRank
will slowly lose its dominance due to the explosion caused by Web 2.0
. With richer semantics
, Google might not be willing to drastically alter its algorithm since it is Google's bread-and-butter. So that is why Google and Web 2.0 might be feeling the weight of the future fall too heavily on their shoulders.