When I wrote When Better Isn't Good Enough, I had both features and design foremost in mind. I wasn't thinking as much about relevancy because I've seen enough data from blind comparisons to know that they're often too close to call. Tim and I talked a bit about relevancy in the comments and in a follow-up IM conversation.
About 65% of those tested said that Yahoo or MSN was the most relevant.
I won't go into the flaws with this method, since that's really not the point. He goes on to say:
Which reinforces my point that Google isn't "better" for most people if "better" means more relevant or deeper. Google is better because it feels better and quicker and leaner and easier to use. The story we tell ourselves about Google is very different, and we use it differently as a result. Think about that the next time you insist you need a "better" formula or a faster server or a stronger first baseman.
Music sounds better through an iPod because we think it does. Design matters. Stories matter most of all.
That's really what I had in mind in the "better isn't good enough" post. But Seth said it far better than I did.
Posted by jzawodn at November 25, 2005 07:15 PM