Smarter search

Searching the web means typing in words and expecting Google, Bing or Yahoo! to deliver the answer. It’s the way we’ve got used to working, but it’s not how real human beings sift information. We want to know what’s nearby, what our friends like. Improvements in local search, social search and visual search will do just that.

An Android-iPhone Shootout

Apple won’t have it all its own way this year. We’ll hear a lot more from Google’s Android mobile operating system, which is available free for phone hardware manufacturers to install. Several new handsets from Sony Ericsson, Motorola, HTC, Samsung and Google itself (the Nexus One) are Android-powered.

Read it all at Telegraph.co.uk


Then read my guide to the best iPhone and Android apps, eReaders, Augmented Reality, travel inspiration websites, and freebies for travellers (also at Telegraph.co.uk).

@hackneye (me): Being right more of the time is what guidebooks do better than the Web. It therefore makes me sad to see one with horrendous errors.
@EverywhereTrip (Gary): I’d disagree that they get things right more than the web. They are always 1-4 years out of date given the publication cycle.

@hackneye: Yes, they can be, and sometimes that’s important. But they also tend to be researched and fact-checked more carefully.
@EverywhereTrip: So long as the public can edit the info, errors can be corrected quickly online. 1,000′s of people checking instead of 1.

@hackneye: I agree. But the public don’t correct most of the travel content on the Web. Hence the variable quality.
@EverywhereTrip: What is an example of this? Most pages have comments, or at least a way to contact the owner.

@hackneye: An example of what? An uncorrected error on a travel site? Just Google your hometown and dig around.
@EverywhereTrip: That’s the thing. I don’t see much incorrect information. People always give theoretical examples, never concrete ones.

@hackneye: Chelsea’s football ground is the site of a battle that took place 200 miles away: http://bit.ly/agSoZN… Michelangelo’s David is in the Uffizi: http://bit.ly/aq8Vfn [it isn't]. 2 quick searches, 2 highly ranked sites.

@EverywhereTrip: So leave a comment correcting the information problem solved.
@hackneye: I admire your idealism. It’s a fine quality. But I suspect ‘correcting the Internet’ is too big a job.

@EverywhereTrip: The internet is a work in progress. If you see an error, correct it. Everyone does a little bit and it adds up…

And so it continued, with a 140-character limit becoming increasingly unsatisfactory for expressing quite complex ideas. It never really occurred to me that my opening gambit was controversial. I’ve worked with guidebooks for years, and have seen (and, yes, made) sloppy errors. Have any made it as far as print? Sure, a few. But I’m certain I’ve never seen the kind of howlers that I discovered with 2 cursory searches on Google. I’ve never seen a guidebook that claims David is in the Uffizi; almost anyone who’s even read about Florence knows that. Nobody needs a guidebook, of course, and Google (heck, even Yahoo!) easily beats one for up-to-date pricing information. But a well crafted guide (like a history book) can enrich a visit; to compare the Blue Guide to Tuscany, say, with a Google search is to commit an obvious category error.

Further, I can think of at least 6 reasons that we’ll never be able to rely on travel information pulled from a search:

1. The Internet’s strength is also its weakness from a travel information point of view. It’s unedited and (partly) democratic. Ten cheers for that. However, there is no democracy of facts, facts need checking, then double-checking… and fact-checking means editors.
2. The Web follows something like a geometric pattern of growth. The number of people willing to spend their time editing it, for free, is more likely to grow arithmetically. There’s an incompatibility there; we could play whack-a-mole with mistakes forever.
3. The kinds of financial returns available online aren’t conducive to thorough destination research, at the moment and for the most part anyway. Patrick Smith has documented the UK launch of Demand Media on his blog, and the pay for experts at leading travel portals isn’t significantly better. (Not because those running such sites are rapacious capitalists; far from it. They’re professional outfits that have done the maths and worked out what a page is worth in traffic and click-through revenue.)
4. Visitors to travel sites are seeking information, inspiration and enlightenment. They don’t know; that’s why they’re there. They aren’t equipped to spot errors (a classic adverse selection problem).
5. When it comes down to it, why should we spend time correcting the errors of content creators who can’t even be bothered to check Wikipedia? (Even to read the Battle of Stamford Bridge, paragraph one.) If it’s your job (or your hobby) to provide quality, well-sourced travel information, then do your job. Visitors to your site aren’t there to correct your errors, and readers are generally not likely to help people with such cavalier attitudes to quality.
6. There’s just far too much information out there, much of it contradictory, much of it abandoned by its creator, and most of it easy to find with the right search term. This is an inevitable consequence of the Web’s DNA.

It strikes me as a truism that the quality of Web information available for free (or nearly-free) will improve. Algorithms will get better, the semantic Web may help push us to better quality sites. And, as Gary points out, crowdsourcing does work. We can agree on that. Individual travel sites will improve (and there are already good ones) and challenge the established names. One way some disruptors are doing so is by becoming editorially more like the traditional players.

I make a significant slice of my income writing on, or about, the Web. I use it all day, every day, and have done for over a decade. To see it as a ‘work in progress’ is to fundamentally misunderstand its nature, in my opinion. (Incidentally, some Marxists and neoconservatives make exactly that mistake with ‘history’… but that’s another subject.) I’m certainly not fixated on the professionally-produced guide as book, app, or whatever. It’s the message that’s key, not the medium. And unless I’m very wrong, the message we receive from the Internet won’t ever be ‘corrected’.

This is only a first draft of my opinion. Please feel free to use the box below to correct me.

Wondering: in the medium term, which is worth more to a tourism business: 1. Nice mention in a guidebook. 2. Nice mention in a paper. Ideas? [@hackneye]

I  didn’t really have a motive for asking this, other than genuine, theoretical curiosity. It strikes me that many PR companies put a lot of effort into courting periodical, weekly and daily media, and a whole lot less time on guidebook writers. Maybe PRs know something that isn’t immediately apparent to me. I write this, partly, as an ill-informed outsider (though both a guidebook writer and journalist). For all kinds of reasons, I don’t take press trips, and only very rarely accept freebies of any kind. I find good PRs vital when I’m researching an article. But, on the whole, I’m more of a ‘pull’ user of PR than a ‘push’, and am certainly less knowledgeable about the PR business than most travel writers… and thus my general impression could be totally incorrect. I asked my question, in part, to alleviate this ignorance.

Alas, one of Twitter’s (also many) weaknesses is the transitory nature of the value it generates. Stuff just gets lost (though I use my tumblr to try and store mine, with mixed success). So, I collated some of the interesting answers I received below (some slightly edited for context). I’d suggest, as an aside, that the kind of people who take the time to answer questions like mine are the kind of people you should follow on Twitter. But that’s just my opinion, again.

Assuming equal reach, seems like the guidebook would have more shelf life, thus would more valuable – even in the medium term. @iKangaroo (also an excellent travel podcaster)

Depends on the quality of the guide or newspaper. Guides bring in more punters for longer. @MichelleChaplow

Depends on book / paper and business – different readerships. I would say, mid-range hotel or hostel = guidebook; 5 star = paper. Would also say resorts reliant on package tourism are better in a paper. Most attractions, tours, restaurants probably better in a guidebook. And another point (the one we don’t like to talk about): If it’s in the book, it’s far more likely to be picked up & used in a paper.  @mrdavidwhitley (also an excellent travel blogger)

This is a guess – guidebook. People keep it and use it again and again. Paper may cause a spike but it’ll pass. @lemondrizzle

Newspaper, assuming it also publishes online. Search engine possibilities plus (with most) higher potential readership. Paper with, say, 100k readers, c.3k likely to read travel review. Most guidebooks don’t sell that, and few are read cover to cover. @Nosemonkey (also an excellent EU politics blogger)

That would depend on the demographic of the paper and the circulation of the guidebook for starters… but the paper possibly attracts a new customer base. @lsdscuba

I would think papers make you more findable (online) during planning – but guidebooks make you more visible once there. @evaapp

I think one interesting aspect about a guidebook is that you probably have it to hand at precisely the moment when you’re booking. Or, better still, at the precise moment you’re hungry. (Eating is more spur-of-the moment than a hotel reservation, usually.) Of course, that doesn’t really work for ‘destination’ hotels and eateries. Luxury probably works better in the colour supplement of your weekend paper. Even if that paper is flying through the ether to your iPad.

If I get any more replies via Twitter, I’ll keep the post updated. Do feel free to add comments below.

Some more that came via Twitter:

Add that many newspaper journos doing round-up pieces source material from the guidebooks, and guides live on in libraries. @melissashales

Depends what type of tourism business you are I’d say: on location attraction = guidebook; flights/hotels = newspaper @keeling

New ways to save money with your phone appear almost weekly. If you’re not confident on the web, invest in a Multi IMSI travel SIM card. This new generation of SIM slots into any unlocked mobile and can come with two numbers (one UK, one US). Callers can dial either number to reach you, wherever you are in the world.

Read about Multi IMSI and VoIP technologies for your travels at Telegraph.co.uk

Do you want a 10 per cent discount on your next weekend away, no strings attached? With planning and basic web-savvy, that’s how much you could save if you currently buy your spending money in high street or airport bureaux de change. Even habitual credit and debit-card travellers could secure savings of about five per cent.

Read about prepaid currency cards and the best places to buy travel money online at Telegraph.co.uk

For travellers who are comfortable booking on the internet, cashback websites can unlock a new tier of savings. With very little effort, you could pocket six per cent off an Istanbul city tour with Isango!, or hundreds of other deals – on top of any discounts or offers available booking direct with these operators.

Read about cashback websites, and the savings you can bag booking travel with them, at Telegraph.co.uk

I love the fact that Google integration is just there. No syncing with the desktop, or plugging into the laptop. Everything is there: contacts, Gmail, calendar, the lot. Admittedly no one has yet rushed up to me and spluttered ‘OMFG is that a Nexus One?‘. But it still feels like they might, at any moment.

Anyway, this isn’t a Nexus One review (plenty elsewhere), but a selection of recommended apps from the Android Market for anyone new to the phone or operating system. Most I’ve enjoyed so far have been free, but for any you need to buy, Google Checkout is pretty painless.

Evernote; free

A (literal) no-brainer this one. Evernote’s memory enhancing power to store, sift and find, and then access anywhere, stuff I’d long forgotten is fully integrated into my work as a travel writer specializing in Italy. The app also lets me record audio notes from the phone mic right into my Evernote folders. Essential.

Spotify; free (with £10/month Spotify Premium subscription)

I liked the Symbian app on my Nokia N95 marginally better than the Touch app I use in the dock at home. The Android version is up there too. Note: if you’re on any kind of limited data package, even unlimited ‘fair use’, remember not to stream music over 3G: go into settings and check ‘Sync over Wi-Fi, and uncheck ‘Sync over 3G’. You can select playlists to store locally and access offline, iPod style.

Listen; free

One of the major criticisms of Android is that it doesn’t (yet) have an integrated media player like iTunes. As a Spotify subscriber, not accessing music that I ‘own’ is no big deal, but I do need access to my podcasts, and an easy way to subscribe. So far, I’m liking this.

Wikitude; free

The original augmented-reality-meets-Wikipedia Android app has just updated to version 4. The upgrade promises to supplement the Wikipedia information with ‘overlays’ from the likes of Google Local Search and YouTube.

Google Goggles; free

Image recognition with a straight link to Google search results for whatever you’re pointing the phone’s camera at. Works well with landmarks and logos; not so with more abstract typologies. Rumour is that face recognition is already possible, but they switched it off to allay privacy concerns. I haven’t tested in on anything more taxing than a barcode yet, but this has serious potential.

Feedr; $0.99

I’ve been really rotten at keeping track of my RSS feeds in the last year or so, so I’m hoping this (recommended on TWiG) will sort me out. Having a nice screen to read on is only going to help. If you already use Google Reader, this syncs without any mess.

Seesmic; free

This looks like the best Android Twitter app at the moment. I like the way I can drill down right through conversations—a function that works better here than the occasionally random results that Tweetdeck throws at my desktop.

Google Sky Map; free

I can always spot Orion at night, but that’s about it. No more, however: cunning use of GPS, the compass and a whole bunch of celestial maps means I just point the phone’s camera at the sky and up pop the names of the major stars, planets and constellations. Exactly the kind of totally pointless, but absolutely brilliant thing mobile apps were invented for.

I’m always on the lookout for new killer apps, so if you have any suggestions, do share them below.