• http://www.seomoz.org/blog/the-search-engine-thats-already-better-than-google

Rand Fishkin of SEOmoz.org has provocatively suggested that del.icio.us, the social bookmarking service, makes a better search tool than Google. He runs a couple comparison searches to demonstrate his point, and he garners widespread agreement in the comments on his blog. Even some who do not concede that del.icio.us is actually better than Google (see Josh Catone at Read/WriteWeb, for example) are ready to allow that data from social bookmarking and ranking sites could usefully add "social relevance" to the apersonal algorithms of a search engine like Google's. Search results from del.icio.us are the fruit of massively parallel human evaluations, but the beauty of del.icio.us and other tools of its ilk is that their usefulness for searching is largely a by-product of self-serving individual efforts. I use del.icio.us primarily because I find it convenient and efficient; the fact that my bookmarking activity contributes to the collective project of indexing the web is just icing.

Scholars are already acquainted with the trade-offs between comprehensive versus vetted references. One might even say that published lists of references have constituted a form of 'social bookmarking' all along. And searchable citation indexes (such as, for example, the Social Sciences Citation Index) have been aggregating social citation trends since well before del.icio.us ever came onto the scene.

All the same, it is intriguing to ponder how a "2.0" or "3.0" spin on academic citation management might one day outstrip the established frameworks for creating intellectual community. Some of the pieces are already in place. A little tool at Find my CiteULike neighbors, for example, lets you figure out who shares a lot of references with you so that you can see what others have found that you have missed. And then, of course, you can subscribe through RSS to be alerted of any kindred spirit's future citations.

As a search engine, CiteULike is still a long way from making the professional indexes and databases obsolete. As more scholars use it, CiteULike will only get better. For the moment, though, a more realistic but still very exciting alternative might be something along the lines of Catone's notion of adding social relevance: What if PsychINFO or the MLA Bibliography linked to reviews, popularity, and rankings as tracked by CiteULike (or Connotea)—perhaps along the lines of what LibraryThing is already doing for the public library in Danbury, CT? Even simple links to add or find articles in CiteULike or Connotea would be welcome enhancements.