Perhaps that's because there's so little for programmers to go on in terms of consistency. How can you possibly get a good quantity of worthwhile results from a program that can be everything from your starting point to tracing your family tree, to finding an industrial product or service?

A quick, unofficial, non-scientific test — comparing Google to MSN Search — showed that Google does well (within .35 sec.) even with the latter. I entered "programmable control" as the search term. Google's results were pretty much dead-on if you're looking for PLCs, with Allen-Bradley, Omron and Siemens, for example, showing up in those first ten results. All of those ten were in some way valuable to someone looking for a programmable control, with 8 of the results being product- and training-related (including our own ThomasNet at #2) and two of them being general reference-related (Wikipedia, and a guide on EngineeringTalk).

MSN Search didn't fare so well. While some of the results were arguably valid (six relevant for products), training showed up only in a sponsored listing. Those big PLCs and firms and ThomasNet were nowhere to be found. (Maybe that's because MSN Search completed the task in only .25 sec.). Granted, this is a meaningless scientific test. It's one person searching for one thing. On the other hand, isn't that what search is all about: one person searching for one thing?

When asked if Google's success is based on good fortune or good technology, Batelle responded, "They were definitely the best at their jobs at the time. It's arguable whether they are now." So, what will make the next Google? Batelle says, "First, you have to create an innovation that makes people say, 'I've got to use this, this is better than that.' That is extremely hard. Search is one of the hardest computer science problems in the world, because basically we are trying to create artificial intelligence so that we can speak with our computer, they can understand us and deliver what we are looking for. That is equivalent to turning your computer into a very intelligent research librarian, which of course is the holy grail of computer science, to create artificial intelligence. So it's not easy, you know. And to make a leap beyond Google and create a better mousetrap requires computer science that hasn't been invented yet."

According to another worthwhile read at CBS News (Google Rules, But for How Long?), "But built into this dominance is a dilemma: Google's very success opens it up to new criticism. Google's growth prospects are vast, but in the ever-changing realm of high-tech, one lesson is that monopolistic power is rarely as real or permanent as it may seem."

"They themselves know that this is a rapidly changing landscape, and they have to keep innovating," says Paul Saffo, director of the Institute for the Future in Palo Alto, Calif. "It's a really interesting horse race...They are literally fleeing into the future.

"The latest laps in the race have been going Google's way. Earlier this week came the news of a major setback for Microsoft, which is trying to carve out a larger presence on the Internet."

The article continues that Google is taking a lot of smart, strategic risks (e.g, its deal to buy a $1B, 5-percent stake in AOL; grabbing ad revenue and investing in new services), but that position is inherently insecure because it's an Internet company. (The company is worth $127B but is so new that it's not listed on the S&P 500. How insecure can such a position be?)

Google has also made it onto a couple of Search Predictions articles, one from Philipp Lenssen at Google Blogoscoped (Google 2006). Of the highest probability on that list is #3: "Google will buy 2 more technology start-ups in 2006. They will also buy one older company and release the company’s flagship product for free, thereby getting rid of some of the competition in that area. Probability: 90%."

The other article is over on John Batelle's own Searchblog (Predictions 2006). Perhaps exhibiting a bit of Schadenfreude (You know that one: "the malicious satisfaction in the misfortunes of others." Many of us have been waiting for over a decade to experience that gleeful yet twisted giggle while watching Microsoft trip and fall.), Batelle's second prediction goes like this: "Google will stumble, some might say badly, but it will be significant. How? My money is on its second or third major deal -- something on the order of the recent AOL deal. It may well be a loss (perceived or otherwise) in the Google Book Search case. Or it might be the privacy issue. This is not to say the company is going to fail, or the stock, for that matter. Just that it will face a major test in 2006 that it won't pass with flying colors."

Also, it certainly ain't over with Microsoft, what with the AOL stake purchase topped off with CEO Steve Ballmer's quote that made it to Wired's 2005 Foot-in-Mouth Awards: "I'm going to f***ing bury that guy, I have done it before, and I will do it again. I'm going to f***ing kill Google."

'06 is definitely The Year to Stay Tuned.