Their strategies vary, but the basic premise is the same: The search technology that has made Google so successful fails to access untold quantities of unpublished information typically residing in people’s heads — information that could be used for selling advertising or even sold for a fee.
The article then goes on to name the start-ups, the usual Silicon-valley based suspects, with Quora apparently having a valuation of $85-90 million even before launching.
Perhaps what’s most interesting is that (a) social search, (b) dependable information and (c) ‘answers to complicated questions quickly’ are all mentioned in the same breath; the assumption being that if you have a dense social graph, you can get any information as soon as you need it simply because your network will have individuals with the required expertise; and that these people will be happy to respond to your query.
There is also the assumption that, as a way to generate revenue, a layer of advertising can be wrapped over the exchange of information amongst social peers.
Over the last several years, we've worked hard to dissect and test such assumptions. Our findings indicate that the availability of experts does not necessarily mean the availability of their expertise for your needs. Every piece of expertise is valuable and needs to be valued.
Also, advertising is not the only revenue model, or even the most inevitable revenue model in such "brainpower" systems. Knowledge itself is valuable, which is why we've focused on methods to evaluate the knowledge in a fair, consistent manner and develop a revenue model out of the speed and degree to which the knowledge solves a problem or answers a question.
