The importance of SEARCH in using email

[ReuvenNY]

I the past several months we saw some heated discussions here about how much space and bandwidth should be offered by various email services. It started on April 1st, 2004, when Google announced the upcoming Gmail service. Since then all the major players as well as some “aspiring major� upped their storage to astronomical numbers - 100, 125, 250, 500, 1000 and even 2000 Mb. We were all focusing on storage and bandwidth.

I would like to bring up what is in my opinion the real important issue with all those huge accounts: - how good and how fast is the “search� in those services.
For most users, 100 Mb email storage is as good as unlimited. All those millions who lived happily with Hotmail’s 2 Mb and Yahoo’s 6 Mb would not know what to do with a Gig. Some others, referred here as “power� users, would probably store much more stuff on the servers. But comes a point when one has to ask himself/herself: what do I do with all the gazillions of email?

I am sure some will say use folders. Fine. In my Fastmail account as of today, I have 59 folders, down from 65 a while ago. If I don’t know where exactly I filed a message, it will take me anywhere from 5 minutes to “never� to find it. Since I started in April redirecting all my email from all accounts to Gmail, it takes me on average 2 seconds to find anything I need.

What in my opinion the contenders in the 1Gig email account world should focus on, is developing or adapting search technologies that will make their accounts usable. This, in the long run, will be the yardstick by which services are going to be measured with. “Usability�, facilitated by fast search, and NOT big account, high bandwidth and other legacy features.

So far, only Gmail is employing a fast search. Microsoft is working hard on it’s own search technology (http://search.msn.com), as does Yahoo. They all understand the importance of email service to their survival. That is how they acquire and keep customers. By purchasing Oddpost, Yahoo clearly manifested it’s commitment to improving email.

So now, that the storage contest if winding down, where 1000 Mb accounts (free or paid) are common, the next frontier is shaping up: search speed, usability and protection from spam and other intrusions.

[s a]

 
excellent point Reuven. I've had similar feelings - you cannot simply copy one aspect of Gmail and assume that you're as good.

It's the 1 GB archive + Search that's so effective (and useful). I recently asked Runbox to consider adding a search option at the very top to indicate its importance in this new context.

1 GB by itself is simply more space in which to lose your email.

[miley]

I'm addicted to Thunderbird/Mozilla's type down find -- start typing a sender's name, email address or part of a subject, and the emails that don't match magically disappear. Effectively, its instantaneous usable search.

[dantheman]

Originally posted by miley
I'm addicted to Thunderbird/Mozilla's type down find -- start typing a sender's name, email address or part of a subject, and the emails that don't match magically disappear. Effectively, its instantaneous usable search.

Good point miley!

Guess imap or pop aren't going away yet.
If Gmail plans on addind anykind of imap or pop service then maybe we'll see some more important changes elsewhere.

[IsaacH]

Aside from the speed, what makes Gmails search superior to any other email search I've used is that it provides context for the search term in each email via a snippet, just like with Google's other types of searches (web, groups, etc.). Very nice!

[Lariano]

I agree that mozilla thunderbird's typetofind is very useful.

[curious]

As nice as it is, Thunderbird's type-to-search is very limited. It searches only the open mailbox, not the whole account. It searches only the Subject or Sender headers, not message body. Google's search is much better IMO.

Excellent points, Reuven. Good topic for a thread, too.

[FMRocks]

Originally posted by curious
It searches only the Subject or Sender headers, not message body.

Not any more - in its furure versions. Thunderbird's recent nightlies give you options in that little search field as to whether you want to search the message body or some header (like sender, subject or "sender or subject"). Believe me, Mozilla gets it!

As for a global search, Thunderbird is perfectly capable of doing it via the full search screen. Instead of choosing a folder, you just choose the whole account and search.

[curious]

Originally posted by FMRocks
Believe me, Mozilla gets it!

Sounds really good. Glad to hear it! My longtime POP client (Pocomail) has had something similar for years. I'm familiar with guided quickbar searches, I've used them happily for a long time... and I still prefer GMail's search.

The quick access search bars in both Poco and Tb are defined searches. Both are designed to use specific parameters: they're limited to the open folder and they default to looking in a specific field (e.g., Subject or Sender). If the default settings aren't what I want, I have to do some tweaking. GMail's simpler: just type a search term and Google worries about the rest. Sure, sometimes I need to set parameters. But not every time.

As for a global search, Thunderbird is perfectly capable of doing it via the full search screen.

Yes, but that's an extra step and even though Tb is good, its full search isn't as fast as Google's.

I'm not trying to knock Tb. Not many clients have a quick search feature like Tb's. But Tb doesn't have the combination of simplicity and speed that are found in this new generation of search-based mail clients -- not just GMail but also Bloomba and Lookout for Outlook (recently purchased by Microsoft). These programs make searching easy and quick. In GMail, I run searches that would be too time-consuming to do in regular mail clients.

Lots of mail clients have global search. But none of the traditional clients makes it as natural as the new breed of search clients.

GMail's search isn't perfect. It really needs a few more definable parameters. But IME it works marvelously well, and I think it's going to become the new standard for searching mail, just as Google set the standard for searching the web.

[FMRocks]

^ Well my point wasn't to show that Tb was superior in searching than Gmail. It was merely that Tb has great search features (including the ability to define and/or criteria). I have no problem finding my mail with Tb, and I don't have any extra folders beyond what my email provider gives me by default (well, a junk folder - which is not really used, since I don't get spam in my FM account). Tb has certain capabilities Gmail does not in terms of finding messages. For example, the "recent mail", "last 5 days" and "had attachments" options from the drop down list. Using them alone is often enough to find a message, and if not, I use them and the search bar in concert to find messages pretty fast. I guess I find that defining (loose parameters) makes it easier for me. If I just type in a search item in Gmail, it might find 50 emails with that word in the body or header. Doesn't help me. With Tb, I can say, from the top search bar (no going to advanced search) "Find the message(s) received today with "someword or somephrase" in it." I can't do that in Google from the message display screen.

The other thing (featurewise) is that not having a simple one click "delete" function bugs the heck out of me on Gmail. And No "Empty" option on trash. I just can't stand that.

I don't think email is quite the same thing as the web. Personally, you have no idea how the billions of web sites all over the web is organized, if it is organized. You know exactly the state your email is in (you know if you file them or if they all lay in the Inbox). You know roughly how long ago you got an email, while you have no idea when the website you're looking for was created until you find it.

Google is of course undoubtedly the best search engine ever known to mankind, and they do use that effectively in Gmail. But just like email isn't just about space, it isn't just about search either.

[curious]

Originally posted by FMRocks
Tb has certain capabilities Gmail does not in terms of finding messages. For example, the "recent mail", "last 5 days" and "had attachments" options from the drop down list.

actually, you can do this in GMail without going to the advanced screen if you know how to set the criteria (e.g., "has:attachment" or "after:2004/07/15"). Sure, a dropdown menu's easier than typing, but it's possible.

With Tb, I can say, from the top search bar (no going to advanced search) "Find the message(s) received today with "someword or somephrase" in it." I can't do that in Google from the message display screen.

Actually, you can. "someword OR somephrase after:2004/07/20" will do it. Sure, contextual dating is easier, but it is possible to do it in GMail without going to the advanced screen.

In any case, I think we're talking at cross purposes. You're saying that you like being able to set parameters quickly. I'm saying I don't want to have to set parameters unless I need them. To each his own.

The other thing (featurewise) is that not having a simple one click "delete" function bugs the heck out of me on Gmail. And No "Empty" option on trash. I just can't stand that.

Let's not stray from the topic, OK? The question is: has GMail created a new standard for searching mail, similar to their creation of a new standard for storage? How does GMail's fast & simple search affect usability? Is it a feature that folks will expect when they look at a paid mail service? And to modify the question in view of the discussion of Tb: would a Tb-like quick search bar be reasonable competition for global searching Ã* la GMail ?

[room222]

when the first cars came off the assembly lines, people commandeering horse drawn carriages cried: what the heck do you need that monstrosity for! gmail is SO different from the old way of doing things that it actually brings out similar protestations from users of old school programs. I will go further. I think gmail is so good at what it does that it has effectively obsoleted the clunky folder paradigm...it just isn't evident to everybody yet. Yes people still commanded horse and buggies long after automobiles regularly zoomed around them on the left.

regards,

mike

[xmailer]

Actually, I think there are still some good arguments in favor of the horse and buggy over the automobile. But the car companies seem to have won that historical "battle", at least in part thanks to the large amount of capital they were able to bring to bear to "influence" things in their favor. But I suspect this borders on political discussion.

[ReuvenNY]

Originally posted by xmailer
Actually, I think there are still some good arguments in favor of the horse and buggy over the automobile. But the car companies seem to have won that historical "battle", at least in part thanks to the large amount of capital they were able to bring to bear to "influence" things in their favor. But I suspect this borders on political discussion.

It may or may not be political, but it's off topic for sure...
The point Mike makes (above) is exactly what I was trying to convey in my original posting.

[xmailer]

Originally posted by ReuvenNY
It may or may not be political, but it's off topic for sure...
The point Mike makes (above) is exactly what I was trying to convey in my original posting.

Exactly. It was an analogy. And my "counter-analogy" was intended to question how much of a parallel can reasonably be drawn between cars and email, and how much the history of the former can tell us specifically about the future of the latter. I suspect the answer is "very little."