Review by Anonymous

1) Is the subject matter relevant?

The subject matter is relevant to the issue’s CfP. Given that a) the case study is a free software, peer-to-peer search engine b) some of the argument made in the paper have to do with the peer-to-peer features of the engine, not with its being free software and c) the issue is about free software, I would encourage the author to make it more explicit, at some point of the article (even if briefly), that peer-to-peer and free software, even if they frequently overlap or coincide (as it is the case here) are not necessarily the same. Faroo (another P2P search engine mentioned in the article, that I have studied in depth) is proprietary software.

2) Is the treatment of the subject matter intellectually interesting? Are there citations of bodies of literature you think are essential to which the author has not referred?

The treatment of the subject matter is interesting and, indeed, addresses the crucial questions of P2P search (e.g., the centrality of users’ active contributions and of their making-available infrastructure resources, the tension between personalization and privacy, the ‘experimentation’ stage of most P2P alternatives to search…). Given the author’s perspective on alternatives, I would be tempted to suggest the inclusion of a discussion on some literature about search as a “natural monopoly” and its consequences for the enrolment and the interessement of users in alternatives. See e.g. Pollock, R. (2009) Is Google the Next Microsoft? Competition, Welfare and Regulation in Internet Search, working paper available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1265521.

3) Are there any noticeable problems with the author’s mean of validating assumptions or making judgements?

One can frequently find in the article claims that could greatly benefit, in my opinion, from a more careful and literature- or evidence-supported formulation. I discuss a few of them below. In general, I would encourage the author to consider the fact that Google is an ad-based, for-profit company as a starting point for his reflections, rather than a conclusion or an explanation for most of what is going on in the world of search.

Something that really needs to be addressed is methodology. So far, it is only briefly mentioned on page 12, “I will then use the P2P search engine YaCy as a case study to test my claims.” This suggests a qualitative approach, but more details about how the case study has been conducted are needed. (documentary evidence? YaCy documents and/or external ones? Interviews with developers? Author’s own experience with the software?)

Abstract: “ contradiction between Google’s desire to “database the world’s knowledge” and the many ways in which Google’s approach affects both the nature of the information users find and how they find it”… I don’t think this should be defined as a contradiction. Google is indeed very comprehensive about the “world’s knowledge,” which it arranges and presents according to specific hierarchies and prioritizations. And this adds to the importance of exploring and analysing the shaping of the “database”, and the algorithms subtending it, in terms of people’s approach to information and its use. It adds, in turn, to the importance of exploring alternatives, such as P2P, that may propose different hierarchies, prioritizations, and values for this information.

Page 4: “Distributed sharing was the catalyst of the internet/WWW and, as I will argue later, a search site can work much better if it takes a more direct and social approach to defining what content on the WWW users would like to see. Instead, they pushed human edited content and search results that were tied to commercial interests.” I am sympathetic to this claim, but it is a controversial one that seems to be taken almost for granted here. At least a couple of references would help framing it. Same goes for “The democratic underpinnings of PageRank are unquestionable.” Nuancing/framing the claim a bit (especially considering that Google has introduced a number of variations to PageRank during its history, having affected this “democratic quality”) could be useful.

Page 6: “It’s evident that Google search is no longer so much about giving the world access to any knowledge at the click of a button, but rather about how they can continue to maximize profits by building ever more extensive logs about individual users.” Once again, I do have issues with claims of this kind, and even more so while I am sympathetic to them. In my opinion, it’s not evident at all that Google used to be white and now it is black, especially considering that most of the changes to its algorithm (mentioned above) are industrial secrets. At best, this claim may be framed as something that X, Y and Z authors have argued elsewhere, and to which this article will contribute further evidence.

4) Is the article well written?

The language of the article is at times, I think, a little too colloquial for an academic article (use of contracted forms “doesn’t”, etc., or wordings such as “corporate interests – particularly of the traditional Mass Media sort – can have plenty of power over information”). But generally, and apart from the problematic ways in which it validates claims, its form and structure are good.< I would probably rephrase the subtitle, so that it is not in the form of a question, and a little shorter (e.g. “Recapturing network value through decentralized search”). 5) Are there portions of the article that you recommend to be shortened, excised or expanded?

Given my suggestions about further motivating or validating some claims, I would suggest that the article be expanded, but it is almost 10,000 words in length already, which may prove too much for a final version. I don’t see any detail in this regard in the CfP, though, and the article wishes to cover (rightly so) a lot of ground.

Review by Vincenzo D’Andrea, University of Trento

1)Is the subject matter relevant?

Yes

2) Is the treatment of the subject matter intellectually interesting? Are there citations of bodies of literature you think are essential to which the author has not referred?

Yes, the subject is quite interesting and the literature review is satisfying. As a matter of face, there are several references that are not used in the text and should be removed. They are about half of the references, too many to list them. Only in the first page: Abadi, Articles …, Ball, Bamman, BBC.
A small problem with the references is the typo with one author name (Feuze vs Feuz). In general, all citations in the text should be carefully checked by the author.

3) Are there any noticeable problems with the author’s mean of validating assumptions or making judgements?

In Section 1.1, the author refers to Yahoo as operating in the “pre-WWW” era. Of course Yahoo has been created in the web era, although the line of reasoning does apply well to the beginning of the web.
In the same Section, I suggest to take into account not only the “usage side” when discussing the difference between Altavista and Yahoo but also how the index was built.
In Section 1.4, I would like to see more support (or give account of some debate) for the author’s statement “Google doesn’t provide any of its own wealth”. Google produces the connections: the counter argument is that without the search engine, the connections would not be there.
In the same Section, at the end, the author mentions “behavioural advertising” – this term should be defined.
In Section 3.0, the list at the end, item 1, seems to question the PageRank algorithm rather than its secrecy (which I understand being its main issue). The reason for this should be explained.< The “deep web” issue mentioned in Section 3.1 should be explained. In Section 3.1, the author seems to present the use of advertising as an issue but I'm not convinced this is a problem if it doesn't interfere with users' privacy or activities. Or maybe there could be a different way to ensure sustainability of a search engine? 4) Is the article well written?

Yes. A little typo (I believe) of the word “satisficing”.

5) Are there portions of the article that you recommend to be shortened, excised or expanded?

Section 2.1.3 touches a very interesting point (the extent to which corporate code is “law”) and deserves more space.
Yacy is reputed to be prone to misuse of users trying to abuse it, for instance changing the search results for commercial reasons. The author could add this aspect when discussing this search engine.