Every minute of every day, the more than a half-billion members of Facebook collectively create almost 1 million photos, wall posts, status updates, and other bits of ephemera. The firehose at Twitter looks tame by comparison--the network sees more than 125,000 tweets a minute, only half of them about (or from) randy congressmen. Then there's YouTube, which recently announced that it receives more than 48 hours of video per minute. If you watched video every minute of your life, you'd get through 10 days' worth of YouTube uploads.
As impressive as these statistics obviously are, they're daunting, too, both for consumers and companies. Taming this torrent into something manageable and highly relevant is increasingly seen as the key for Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, and any other chaotic content network looking to realize monster revenue.
That explains why discovery is the word du jour in tech. It also explains why there's a flurry of activity to build a "discovery engine," the search engine's smart-ass cousin that tries to answer vague queries (like "funny video"--one of the top searches on YouTube). The video hub is constantly adjusting its home page in order to present ever more "relevant" links to its clip-addled hordes. Facebook's news-feed algorithm, EdgeRank, has been subtly shifting in an effort to display only the updates the site thinks you'd like to see. And a number of startups and big-media companies have also taken up this challenge. IPad apps such as Flipboard, Zite, and News.me (a New York Times Co. and Beta-works joint venture) create snappy personalized magazines sourced by content found across the Web.
Some of these efforts have seen slight success. Fans who use YouTube through its Leanback interface (designed for TVs and leveraging its what-to-watch-next algorithm) stick with the site for 30 minutes a day, compared with 15 minutes for the average viewer. Although that's encouraging, it pales when compared with YouTube's goal of several hours of daily viewing.
And that's why the discovery engine remains a mythical beast. Today's personalization tools are built on several faulty premises. There's still too much presuming that we want a steady diet of what we just consumed. Just because you clicked on one post of Sarah Palin reinterpreting history doesn't mean you want to hear all she has to say.
Another is that we're interested in everything that our friends are. (I like my friends despite their inexplicable devotion to Mad Men.) In addition, the more connected we are, the more likely that even the best discovery engines will get overwhelmed. As online content expands exponentially, the less likely it is that any one photo, video, news story, or status update will be to your liking. It also wouldn't hurt if these services could avoid overpromising their ability to tame your content feed.
Perhaps more bedeviling is getting past the assumption that we always want something "personalized." Last year, Flipboard acquired Ellerdale, a startup that specialized in "extracting relevancy" from social networks, in order to begin to predict what kinds of stories readers might want. But Arthur van Hoff, Ellerdale's cofounder and now Flipboard's chief technology officer, notes that the company is being very cautious about baking Ellerdale's prediction systems into Flipboard. At the moment, Flipboard presents stories mainly in response to a user's explicit desires (based on the feeds or topics you tell it you'd like to see). When predicting stories, the big worry, of course, is getting it wrong. "If Osama bin Laden dies and our personalization algorithm doesn't show you that news, it would be a bad experience," van Hoff says.
Don't expect the drive to personalize to go away, though. It seems built into the financial structure of the web, notes the Washington Post Co.'s chief digital officer Vijay Ravindran, who this spring launched a personalized news site called Trove. Better personalization means more clicks--and all the while, you're seeing more ads. "It's sort of like drilling for oil," he says. "The oil companies don't exactly know where it is, but they're always going to be drilling because the value of finding that oil is so high."