COMMENTARY--Like many people who use the Web as a research tool, I have grown particularly reliant on Google. If I am researching a company, product or issue, I typically first scan Google to see what rises to the top.
A recent search brought home to me just how much Google and other search tools have impacted my work style. Last week, I wanted to learn more about Darwin John, who was recently hired as the new CIO for the Federal Bureau of Investigation. So I "Googled" him.
I expected to find several pages of results based on a search for "Darwin John," but I found almost nothing. When I narrowed the search and included "CIO" as part of the query string, I received a mere seven results, and nothing much useful. I tried a variety of other search engines and came up with the same dearth of results.
This lack of a robust virtual dossier was perplexing in the context of the FBI's press release, which offered the expected ringing endorsement for John. In the release, Stephen Finnerty, CIO of Kraft Foods Inc. North America and president of the Society for Information Management, described John as "one of the most progressive leaders in the information systems industry"…who will make "valuable and outstanding contributions to the FBI, its mission, and the American people."
I wondered how John could earn such accolades and a job reporting directly to FBI Director Mueller without leaving lots of Web tracks. Put another way, if John is one of the most progressive leaders in IT, how come he is below the radar screen? Or is the job of FBI CIO so undesirable at this point that top talent is not attracted to the opportunity?
I assume that people in the top ranks of the tech world (which pioneered use of the Internet) show up search engines. Google provides an acceptable snapshot of a topic because it generates its results by sifting through vast amounts of data online and ranking Web pages based on their popularity. On the other hand, Google and other search engines cannot vouch for the veracity of results.
I subsequently conducted an extensive telephone interview with Darwin John and found that he was a member in good standing of the Society for Information Management and was recommended for the FBI job by the group's president, the aforementioned Stephen Finnerty. For the last 12 years, John was managing director of Information and Communications Systems for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in Salt Lake City. He spearheaded the development of the Family Search Internet Web site, a popular genealogy research tool that searches across 900 million names. And, he did IT management stints at Scott Paper and General Mills.
John's lack of a robust Web track has a simple and logical explanation. The Church and John are not into self-promotion, extensive IT industry participation, or gaming search engines. Thus, a low hit rate and skimpy virtual dossier.
In many ways, this is a cautionary tale. I could offer up the expression "you can't always judge a book by its cover," but other points about Web searching come to mind. First, at the time I did the query on Google and other search engines, not even the press release posted on the FBI site had surfaced. Freshness counts.
Secondly, the breadth of coverage by search engines has a huge impact on the result. While Google can search across more than 2 billion Web pages, it covers only a small fraction of the information available. If, for example, Darwin John wrote a number of papers on IT topics that are behind the Church's firewall, these would be inaccessible to my queries. The challenge is to determine what content should be accessible to the public and what needs to stay behind the firewall to best satisfy the needs of employees, customers, partners, investors and the press. And, finally, the trusty telephone is hard to beat when it comes to acquiring information.
Have you had a perplexing experience with a recent Web search? TalkBack below or e-mail me at dan.farber@cnet.com.
Daniel Farber is the Editor-in-Chief of ZDNet.
