Information is power and currency. Unlocking this power is the key to a competitive advantage as those with access to and knowledge of it are empowered with the insight that others do not have. As such, more informed decisions can be made or risks taken, which in turn could translate into the creation of value. In thinking about the transformation the electronic evolution has brought about in enabling easy dissemination, storage, and retrieval of information, a thought came to mind that puts into question the current evolutionary path in location and presentation of relevant information. A case in point is the tremendous success Google has had in making information readily accessible. For a better insight into the business model and the unique approach in creating value in the inter-linking of domains of information and services, please refer to a previous post here. In parallel to the development of search technologies, recent advances in web based applications has made creation of content easier. With the advent of this development, the prevalence of what I call Null Information has also increased. Null Information is the kind that is of no determined value or relevance. For example, a Google search for “information” returns, as shown below, 3,040,000,000 results. Now, there used to be a time when this was considered to be an incredible feat. But, to the interested party who is looking for information on “information,” no pun intended, the fact that there are more than 3 billion results is completely irrelevant and uninteresting. This information is by itself useless for the most part.

A Google Search for "information" on 12/17/08

 A given individual is at most going to be able to check out information contained in the first few pages of this result. Let us assume that the Google search engine is an all-too-powerful one that scavenges all over the internet and returns all the relevant information for a given search inquiry. Let us also say that that one would have the patience to review and digest information from the first 1000 results, which would be 100 pages of search results. I understand that almost no one does this. But, for the sake of argument, let assume that it happens. If that is the case,  the 1000 search results would be less than 0.00004 % of the overall outcome. The remaining 99.99994% of the information returned is what I would consider to be Null Information. It is not that this astounding amount of content does not have any intrinsic value. It is just that it has not been properly tapped into or made relevant to what is currently being searched for. To put it in perspective, let us consider the population of the U.S. On 12/18/08 at 01:14 GMT the population of the U.S. is projected to be 305,904,346. The equivalent of the search result would be taking ~ 100 people to be representative of what the American people are like. The remaining  305,904,246 people are completely left out of this outcome. All the intricate and unique information about these people is not really accessed or accounted for. This body of knowledge is what is the Null Information. It can be argued that it is possible to come up with 100 Americans that are a good representative of the general population. However, we can agree that whoever decides who gets to be one of the hundred better be really good in order for the outcome to have the most consensus. There are a few ways to ensure that this selection process come as close to being good as possible. One is to go ahead and undertake a massive census of all the people of the country and find out about the characteristic traits of each and every American; if not all as, many as possible. Endowed with this knowledge one can synthesize the data to filter out the most common traits that are shared by the people and select the top 100 people having them. This requires that a centralized entity undertakes such an effort. This would be the equivalent to how search is evolving, where the likes of Google are amassing as much personalized information as possible so that they can customize the delivery of services to the interested party. The other option is to leave it up to the people of the U.S. to decide who get to be their representatives. This would be much like the elections, but with an important twist. The election is not to select a member of the House of Representatives or the Senate, but the equivalent of selecting 100 presidents with as close to a 100% participation rate in the election as possible. Already one can see how messy of a process this can be. If it can be pulled off, this would give a direct platform for the people to make their desires be known. It also provides a direct access to the collective individualized-wants-and-needs of the people, and would truly provide for as an accurate a representation as possible. There are information retrieval approaches developed around this concept. The advent of tagging of information and bookmarking are attempts in creating a platform for democratic expression of interests and desires. Using this gathering of information, entities can then provide services back to the participants that are directly applicable.

The decision as to which method is the most effect is a difficult one to make. On the one hand, the first approach puts all the power of decision making on one entity. Although such an entity can aspire to take into account the ways in which one piece of information is more relevant than the other (in the case of Google the taking in to account not only the content of pages, but also the degree of inter-linking between the other pages and the one in consideration), the final decision remains exclusively with that entity. Reliance on a method of deciphering relevance through a particular approach has its own pitfalls as it gives incentive for other parties to come up with a way to essentially game the system. A very good example of this could be the budding industry in “search engine optimization.” Incidentally, a search for “search engine optimization” by itself returns > 27 million results. On the other hand, the process of allowing participants to express their interest is an involved process that is prone to high level of inefficiency and difficulty in consensus building. If there is not a 100% buy in to the process of selection, then the same problem of few deciding what is best for all is encountered. In the long run, both approaches will likely continue to develop and find ways to stay useful for the masses. Either way, there remains a core problem in tapping into the Null Information. Whether it is for companies to acquire as much personalized data as possible so that when individual X makes an inquiry about Y, (s)he is not inundated with billions of irrelevant data wasting the resources required for storage, retrieval and review of data or the case of building a large-scale platform for as many people as possible to participate in a democratic process of self-expression, there is a lot to be done about the Null Information. There is an astounding need for not only search for information, but also sorting and customizing it. As search technologies become more powerful, this may be accomplished with ease granted that there is an existing data connecting individual with pieces of information. There is also a need for providing venues for expressions of one kind or another. With the rapid rise in content creation and dissemination, it is going to be a battle fought over a long period of time with the aforementioned entities playing catch up with the population at large. Now that is a battle for the ages!