<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" 
      xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">
  <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/chacha_beats_google_and_yahoo_in_mobile_search_tests.php" />
  <link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/atom.xml" />
  <id>tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2011:/1/tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2009://1.16048-</id>
  <updated>2011-08-16T16:49:30Z</updated>
  <title>Comments for ChaCha Beats Google and Yahoo in Mobile Voice Search Tests</title>
  
  <generator uri="http://www.sixapart.com/movabletype/">Movable Type 4.35-en</generator>
  <entry>
    <id>tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2009://1.16048</id>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/chacha_beats_google_and_yahoo_in_mobile_search_tests.php" />
    <link rel="service.edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-atom.cgi/weblog/blog_id=1/entry_id=16048" title="ChaCha Beats Google and Yahoo in Mobile Voice Search Tests" />
    <published>2009-08-13T13:09:23Z</published>
    <updated>2009-08-13T20:10:10Z</updated>
    <title>ChaCha Beats Google and Yahoo in Mobile Voice Search Tests</title>
    <summary>But was this a fair fight? Mobile analyst firm MSearchGroove has just published the results of a series of tests which show that the mobile search service ChaCha beat out two other voice-enabled search applications on the iPhone when it comes to search query accuracy. [Update, Ed: a commenter points out that the report was...</summary>
    <author>
      <name>Sarah Perez</name>
      
    </author>
    
    <category term="Google" />
    
    <category term="Mobile" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.readwriteweb.com/">
      <![CDATA[<em><strong><p>But was this a fair fight?</p>
</strong></em>
<p><img src="http://www.readwriteweb.com/images/chacha_logo.gif">Mobile analyst firm <a href="http://www.msearchgroove.com/">MSearchGroove</a> has just published the results of a series of tests which show that the mobile search service <a href="http://www.chacha.com">ChaCha</a> beat out two other voice-enabled search applications on the iPhone when it comes to search query accuracy. <i>[<b>Update, Ed:</b> a commenter points out that the report was actually sponsored by ChaCha]</i> To test this, the researchers used <a href="http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewSoftware?id=284815942&amp;mt=8">Google's own mobile application</a> and <a href="http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewSoftware?id=297214191&amp;mt=8">Vlingo for iPhone</a>, an app that lets you search both Google or Yahoo. Oddly, they ignored <a href="http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewSoftware?id=304158842&amp;mt=8">Yahoo's mobile app</a>, which also has voice search built in. </p>

<p>The results of their study aren't entirely shocking: if you want to be understood, ask a human, not a computer.</p>]]>
      <![CDATA[

<h2>The Mobile Search Tests</h2>

<p><a href="http://www.chacha.com/">ChaCha's mobile search service</a> can be accessed both by SMS and by calling a toll-free 1-800 number. Since these tests focused on voice search, the phone-in method was used. When using ChaCha, the service identified the queries accurately in 94.4% of the cases and delivered accurate search results 88.9% of the time. Vlingo, which the researchers used to test Yahoo search, only interpreted queries correctly in 72.2% of the cases and delivered accurate results 27.8% of the time. Google, surprisingly, fared worst of all. Their mobile application only understood spoken queries in 16.7% of tests and delivered accurate results 22.2% of the time. </p>

<p>To test the applications, the researchers conducted two rounds of tests using both keyword search and natural language queries where they asked questions using sentences. The queries represented a cross-section of typical mobile searches in categories like navigation, directions, local search, general information, social search, and long-tail search.</p>

<p>It's not all that surprising to find that <a href="http://www.chacha.com/">ChaCha</a> outperformed the other voice-enabled applications - after all, they have real, live humans on the other end of the line to interpret the spoken questions. What is surprising, though, is how wide the gap is in between the human-powered search and the speech recognition apps, <em>especially </em>when contrasting ChaCha with Google.</p>

<h2>Did Google Just Get Beaten at Search?</h2>

<p><img src="http://www.readwriteweb.com/images/vlingo_iphone.jpg" align="right">When you think of search, you tend to think "Google." When you use Google, there's a certain expectation that your queries will be interpreted accurately and your results will be relevant. What these tests show, however, is that when it comes to the mobile platform, all bets are off. Not only was Google outperformed by a mobile application whose name few mainstream users have probably heard of (Vlingo), they were also outperformed by a crowdsourced workforce who answer ChaCha queries in their spare time. Could this mean that mobile search is an area - perhaps the only area - where a competitor could actually get a foothold and steal away a bit of Google's market share? </p>

<p>Well, not so fast. Google could still dominate on mobile thanks to brand recognition alone. Mainstream users aren't going to seek out new alternatives to search, even if they're better. That's precisely why companies like Microsoft have to spend millions of dollars on advertising campaigns <a href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/bing_off_to_a_good_start_takes_2_spot_ahead_of_yahoo.php">just to gain a percentage point</a> or two of search market share. </p>

<p>Then there's the fact that tests which compare human-interpreted queries to machine-interpreted ones seem a little unfair. We all know that people can still understand each other much better than computers can. (Well, for now at least). ChaCha wins this round, but only because this was never a fair fight to begin with. Speech recognition and natural language processing are technologies still in their infancy. But if we know Google, they're coding away right now to improve them as we speak.</p>]]>
    </content>
  </entry>

  <entry>
    <id>tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2009://1.16048-comment:193902</id>
    <thr:in-reply-to ref="tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2009://1.16048" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/chacha_beats_google_and_yahoo_in_mobile_search_tests.php"/>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/chacha_beats_google_and_yahoo_in_mobile_search_tests.php#c193902" />
    <title>Comment from Gravity Inversion Table on 2010-03-02</title>
    <author>
        <name>Gravity Inversion Table</name>
        <uri>http://gravityinversiontable.org</uri>
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://gravityinversiontable.org">
        <![CDATA[<p>Thanks Peggy... I'm going to give ChaCha a try.</p>

<p>Regards,  John</p>]]>
    </content>
    <published>2010-03-02T18:12:27Z</published>
  </entry>

  <entry>
    <id>tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2009://1.16048-comment:153836</id>
    <thr:in-reply-to ref="tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2009://1.16048" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/chacha_beats_google_and_yahoo_in_mobile_search_tests.php"/>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/chacha_beats_google_and_yahoo_in_mobile_search_tests.php#c153836" />
    <title>Comment from John R on 2009-08-23</title>
    <author>
        <name>John R</name>
        <uri></uri>
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="">
        <![CDATA[<p>ChaCha has cut pay to its guide force 4 times in the last year or so.  When their concept of "human powered search" first started, it had many competent guides answering questions.  Now with compensation at about $3 or less an hour, many good guides have left.  </p>

<p>ChaCha is using the guides to compile a database of questions and answers they can draw from to automate the service.  More and more answers are automated and not from a real person.</p>

<p>ChaCha has yet to generate any profit and is sustained by venture capital.</p>

<p>As far as the cited research, I wouldn't trust that site.  Check out the ABOUT US section of MSearchGroove.  It's a marvel of double-speak and subterfuge.  It's very obvious they don't want to give any real information about their purpose.  They are paid by ChaCha to manipulate data. MsearchGroove's reason for being is to help companies that "sponsor the research" get the results they paid for.  They are consultants that would say anything for a dollar -bought and paid for like a waiters smirk! </p>]]>
    </content>
    <published>2009-08-23T17:23:56Z</published>
  </entry>

  <entry>
    <id>tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2009://1.16048-comment:152777</id>
    <thr:in-reply-to ref="tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2009://1.16048" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/chacha_beats_google_and_yahoo_in_mobile_search_tests.php"/>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/chacha_beats_google_and_yahoo_in_mobile_search_tests.php#c152777" />
    <title>Comment from Peggy Anne Salz on 2009-08-18</title>
    <author>
        <name>Peggy Anne Salz</name>
        <uri>http://www.msearchgroove.com</uri>
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.msearchgroove.com">
        <![CDATA[<p>Hi -<br />
It's great to see interest in our report – and I would like to take this opportunity to clarify some important points. </p>

<p>MSearchGroove has a policy of open disclosure and the report clearly states: "This white paper…contains the findings of independent research and analysis carried out by Peggy Albright, Albright Communications, and Peggy Anne Salz, MSearchGroove in January 2009. The research methodology was developed by Peggy Albright. The research was sponsored by ChaCha. The opinions expressed in this white paper are those of Peggy Albright and Peggy Anne Salz, and do not reflect the opinions of the organizations referenced in this paper." </p>

<p>I have a long track record of writing reports and, as a matter of principle, disclose the sponsor or sponsors. We did not put a ChaCha logo on the cover because we did not deem it appropriate. However, my series of mobile advertising how-to white papers, sponsored by Bango, state this clearly on the cover as part of the design element. </p>

<p>At this juncture allow me add that I have also made it clear that ChaCha is the report sponsor in all posts at my site, all press releases I have issued, and all guest columns I have written for other blogs/destinations. <br />
As to the methodology, we did not evaluate human vs. automated voice recognition technologies. Our focus was the overall performance of the search services. </p>

<p>To this end, we asked a series of 18 queries representative of six typical mobile search categories (Navigational, Directions, Information Local, Information General, Social, and Long-Tail). For each query we evaluated nine performance characteristics including response time, results accuracy, number of results received, keytaps required, relevancy of the result, location awareness, use of advertising, and presence of other value-added features. Thus, voice recognition accuracy was just one of a group of characteristics – and by no means a deciding factor in our decisions. </p>

<p>Because Google and Yahoo have their heritage in keyword search we also conducted another round of tests where we reduced our natural language queries (a strength of ChaCha) to a few specific terms (a strength of Google, Yahoo and all keyword search engines).  Here again - ChaCha outperformed both Google and Vlingo with Yahoo! in its ability to deliver accurate results.</p>

<p>As I have also written on my site, the mobile search space is wide open and universal search is not a shoe-in. Brand, as you point out, is important. But it is our requirement for more contextually relevant search results (perhaps even reflecting the opinions/input of peers or people like us) that may tip the scales in favor of a number of newcomer mobile search providers. </p>

<p>Specifically, social search -- delivered by companies including ChaCha, Taptu (socially-assisted search), Hiogi and Heystaks, to name a few – is high on my radar. Why? Because – unlike universal search offered by Google & Co -  the personal touch these providers give to search results represents a perfect fit with the mobile phone, which we’ve already established is an intensely personal device. What's more, social search benefits from the rise of mobile social networks, mobile-only communities that pave the way for us all to have more input into our search results. </p>

<p>I invite you to read my site (dedicated to mobile search), where I also outline my research (in preparation for Mobile Search Future Prospects, a recent workshop organized by JRC IPTS -Institute for Prospective Technological Studies of the European Commission. In it I identify 80+ search engine companies and providers across 10+ categories of mobile search. The race in mobile hasn't been run yet!<br />
</p>]]>
    </content>
    <published>2009-08-18T18:07:28Z</published>
  </entry>

  <entry>
    <id>tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2009://1.16048-comment:152321</id>
    <thr:in-reply-to ref="tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2009://1.16048" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/chacha_beats_google_and_yahoo_in_mobile_search_tests.php"/>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/chacha_beats_google_and_yahoo_in_mobile_search_tests.php#c152321" />
    <title>Comment from Sponsored by on 2009-08-14</title>
    <author>
        <name>Sponsored by</name>
        <uri>http://www.marketingperformance.net</uri>
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.marketingperformance.net">
        <![CDATA[<p>Sponsored by ChaCha....Hmmm, that would make for a bit of a bias I think. </p>]]>
    </content>
    <published>2009-08-14T16:03:34Z</published>
  </entry>

  <entry>
    <id>tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2009://1.16048-comment:152294</id>
    <thr:in-reply-to ref="tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2009://1.16048" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/chacha_beats_google_and_yahoo_in_mobile_search_tests.php"/>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/chacha_beats_google_and_yahoo_in_mobile_search_tests.php#c152294" />
    <title>Comment from Lisa H on 2009-08-14</title>
    <author>
        <name>Lisa H</name>
        <uri>http://inversearch.com</uri>
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://inversearch.com">
        <![CDATA[<p>None of this is necessary with inverse search. <a href="http://inversearch.blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">http://inversearch.blogspot.com</a></p>]]>
    </content>
    <published>2009-08-14T13:47:12Z</published>
  </entry>

  <entry>
    <id>tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2009://1.16048-comment:152147</id>
    <thr:in-reply-to ref="tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2009://1.16048" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/chacha_beats_google_and_yahoo_in_mobile_search_tests.php"/>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/chacha_beats_google_and_yahoo_in_mobile_search_tests.php#c152147" />
    <title>Comment from Sarah Perez on 2009-08-13</title>
    <author>
        <name>Sarah Perez</name>
        <uri></uri>
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="">
        <![CDATA[<p>@Anonymouse: Ah, but of course!</p>]]>
    </content>
    <published>2009-08-13T15:08:54Z</published>
  </entry>

  <entry>
    <id>tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2009://1.16048-comment:152145</id>
    <thr:in-reply-to ref="tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2009://1.16048" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/chacha_beats_google_and_yahoo_in_mobile_search_tests.php"/>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/chacha_beats_google_and_yahoo_in_mobile_search_tests.php#c152145" />
    <title>Comment from Anonymouse on 2009-08-13</title>
    <author>
        <name>Anonymouse</name>
        <uri></uri>
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="">
        <![CDATA[<p>I don't know if anyone else noticed it, but at the bottom of the report in the "Publisher's Statement" is some interesting text:</p>

<p>"The research was sponsored by ChaCha"<br />
</p>]]>
    </content>
    <published>2009-08-13T14:55:58Z</published>
  </entry>

  <entry>
    <id>tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2009://1.16048-comment:152144</id>
    <thr:in-reply-to ref="tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2009://1.16048" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/chacha_beats_google_and_yahoo_in_mobile_search_tests.php"/>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/chacha_beats_google_and_yahoo_in_mobile_search_tests.php#c152144" />
    <title>Comment from Neal on 2009-08-13</title>
    <author>
        <name>Neal</name>
        <uri></uri>
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="">
        <![CDATA[<p>I am going to download CHACHA right now!</p>

<p>Neal Saferstein<br />
<a href="http://nealsaferstein.com" rel="nofollow">http://nealsaferstein.com</a></p>]]>
    </content>
    <published>2009-08-13T14:53:12Z</published>
  </entry>

  <entry>
    <id>tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2009://1.16048-comment:152137</id>
    <thr:in-reply-to ref="tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2009://1.16048" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/chacha_beats_google_and_yahoo_in_mobile_search_tests.php"/>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/chacha_beats_google_and_yahoo_in_mobile_search_tests.php#c152137" />
    <title>Comment from ITrush on 2009-08-13</title>
    <author>
        <name>ITrush</name>
        <uri>http://www.itrush.com/</uri>
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.itrush.com/">
        <![CDATA[<p>Interesting.. lets see how this thing goes on.</p>]]>
    </content>
    <published>2009-08-13T13:59:04Z</published>
  </entry>

</feed>
