Maybe Google is just better at stuff.
Maybe the question is not what will out-Google Google but will under-Google it.

Alyssa says Google is adept at expansion:

McLuhan talks about the immediacy of the telegraph and it was perceived by
literary sophisticates as distasteful. It reminded me a lot of Murdoch's
attitude toward aggregators. It is the attitude of those who feel left behind by
a medium they don't understand and would rather not try to understand. The
difference between the effect of the Internet and the telegraph, I think, is
that the telegraph was a compressional force. It forced different mediums to
come together (i.e. The Associated Press example). The Internet, I think, is
expansional. It forces companies like Google to expand beyond its original
intention, beyond its original specialization. And the nature of the Internet
itself (inter connecting networks world-wide) makes it the perfect medium for
organizations to stretch beyond itself and link multiple outlets together, which
creates sites like Facebook, Twitter, etc and aggregators like CT Report.

But are we headed for contraction now?

Tina says we need the help of "credibe people."


Kevin asks what omces after Google. Shelia asks is the future a future of links?
Alyssa says aggregators are good grabbers but lousy sorters. There has to be more than just links.


Kevin (and somebody else, but I forget who), made me think about the splintering of self and presence on the 'net. I'm Tweeting. But that's not that same as, you know, me, writing a review.