6Sense developed out of a 2008 acquisition of search technology company Trovix.  According to a Monster press release, “6Sense patented semantic search technology utilizes intuitive, concept based searching, with a human-like understanding of the recruiting process and hiring needs.”^[1]

In case you’re not familiar, semantic search utilizes a concept called “disambiguation” to determine the probable meaning of sentences by building conceptual relationships between words, syllables, and related text.  However, the system cannot function in absence of what’s called the “conceptual basis” or primary logic required to begin building the conceptual relationships which govern the system.

But who or what determines the logic of the conceptual basis for a given semantic search system?

Intuitively, most people respond with an answer they find very simple, “The task at hand determines the logic of the conceptual basis”.  However, this simple and intuitive leap of the designer (the human mind) is an exceptionally difficult leap for the designed (computational system).

Unlike its designer, the semantic search system does not have the luxury of thinking outside of its own box.

Because the system relies on the wisdom of its designers to set the most appropriate logic, would it make sense to open up this process to a larger audience?

Given the presumably enormous amount of data and users, how many possible sub-contexts exist within the contextual premise of the initial system?  What is the probability that a conceptual basis created by a few experts will account for all of these possible combinations?  And most importantly, would differentiation at this level of granularity deliver measurable improvements to the user experience?

Well, I assume some level of diminishing marginal returns would arise; however, I’m confident this level of contextual granularity has probably not been reached in the case of 6Sense.

At the very least, I think this ad clearly communicates that successful companies are coming to realize the importance of their web channel, and therefore, the importance of relevant search and navigation.

And when it comes to relevance, we’re all beginning to realize that context is king.

I think Monster said it best. “The intelligence of the 6Sense technology contextually interprets the meaning behind words and concepts rather than relying on the narrow, literal meaning of keywords.”^[2]

I couldn’t agree more.

http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/home/permalink/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20100201006672&newsLang=en

Statistically, a very small percentage of any web community will take the time to leave explicit feedback for anything on a website. Most web visitors represent a “silent majority” who regularly engage with a website but do not necessarily feel passionate enough about a particular product to share their opinion with others. As a result, the power of communicating sentiment regarding products is left to the vocal minority of a web community that will take the time to actually leave ratings and reviews.

An alternative method for delivering a more “balanced” and “representative” form of personalization would be to utilize implicit heuristics which factor in 100% of a visitor’s browsing experience. Implicit systems do not require visitors to explicitly rate or review anything; instead, they deliver personalization by simply observing implicit usage heuristics such as behavioral patterns or interactions exhibited during a site experience which communicates genuine engagement and interaction with particular products.

The reality is that most products do not inspire legions of visitors to contribute ratings or reviews in the hopes of finding love, fortune, and glory. The reality is that if someone is selling toasters, appliances, and most other “everyday” products, a more comprehensive and useful approach to personalization may be involve letting actions speak louder than words.