Google vs. Yahoo: Geotagging

I've hardly made it a secrety that I love Google and everything they do.  But I also like to emphasize that I don't think everything they do is wonderful simply because I'm a fanboy.  Rather, I am a fanboy because everything they do is wonderful.  If the day comes where they start making terrible products, or someone else is making better, then I will switch allegiance.  Will that day come?  Probably; I used to say the same thing about Yahoo.

Today's contest: geotagging.  As you already know, both Google and Yahoo do far more than search the web.  They both host your photographs.  Yahoo bought a company called Flickr, which was doing cool stuff with social media long before Facebook.  More recently, Google bought Picasa.  Traditionally, I use neither; both are far too limited, even if you buy a premium account.  I like that you can share photos with friends, but Facebook does a perfectly good job of that too.  I also have my own gallery.  Both services have their pros and cons, but this isn't about that.  This is about geotagging.

What is geotagging?  Well, when you save a photograph on your computer, it saves additional information, like when the photo was taken, what kind of camera you used, even shutter speed and aperture.  It's the digital equivalent of writing a note on the back of your photograph, and professional photographers love it.  Geotagging is when you write down where the photo was taken.  There's been some noise lately about privacy issues with geotagging.  In particular, what if you take a photo with your camera phone and put it on Facebook?  What if your camera phone has GPS (and these days, who doesn't)?  What if someone is stalking you, and they download your photo, and read the geotag to find out where you live?  Of course, there are simple things you can do to prevent that, and this post isn't about that either.

This post is about the cool stuff you can do with geotagged photos, that doesn't involve getting stalked.  In particular, what happens when you upload a set of geotagged photos to Flickr and Picasa.  I recently went on a "bunker crawl" up and down the California coast with a friend of mine, and thought it would be cool to display those photos on a map.

Dance, Google and Yahoo!  Dance for my entertainment!

In the first ring: Flickr, brought to you by Yahoo.  I've had a Flickr account for many years and it's conveniently attached to my Yahoo account (which I never use any more because it got hacked and I had to change the password).  I geotagged all the images on my own computer, uploaded them, and . . . nothing.  Why not?

There's a help page that tells you all about geotagging on Flickr, and even how to upload photos you've geotagged yourself.  There's a page for that, but it doesn't work.  Turns out Flickr won't look at your geotags until you explicity tell it to, and even then it will only look at new photos, not ones you've already uploaded.

After re-uploading the same album for the second time, I was able to view all the photos in the Flickr map.  Since Flickr is now Yahoo's bitch, they have to use the clunky Yahoo Maps interface.  When was the last time you chose Yahoo Maps over Google Maps?  Exactly.  The most damning limitation is that you can only view 18 photos on the map at one time, and the photos show up as identical pink dots, not thumbnails.  I have an album of 52 photos, so this is not terribly exciting.

Now, how about Google?

First, I uploaded the geotagged photos to Picasa Web.  A little map immediately appeared next to my thumbnails, with little Google Map pins where the photos are.  There are two links: I can look at the photos in Google Maps or Google Earth.  Really?  Cool.  Let's look at the Google Map.

Voila: there are my photos, all of them, displayed as thumbnails directly on the map.  Not only is it easier, but it's also more powerful.  The holy grail of interface design.

The winner: Google kicks Yahoo's butt up and down the California coast.

Is there a lesson here?  Of course.  Yahoo wasn't just the first company to make web searching fun; they added on layer after layer of other cool services.  In 1999, Yahoo wasn't just a tool, it was a destination.  Email, calendar, address book, it could sync with your mobile device (if you had one), games, news, sports, and (later) photos.  And not just aggregated feeds like Google; Yahoo's content was (and still is) beautifully manicured to offer you useful information.  I still rely on Yahoo Sports to follow my favorite teams in the playoffs; Google has nothing to offer here (although they've tried).  They even had social networking before it was cool; I still use Yahoo Groups to keep in touch with friends and family.  I know Google has a groups offering too, but it still isn't as feature-rich as Yahoo's.

So what happened?  Yahoo lost their sense of direction.  This incredibly cool company simply did nothing with their incredibly cool products.  Yahoo Groups hasn't added a single new feature in ten years.  Flickr's interface is needlessly garbled.  Tellingly, you can now log into Flickr using your Facebook or Google account.  They know they've lost, and don't seem to be doing anything about it.

So, what's the takeaway?  Seems like I always come back to the same theme: Maintaining superiority is an endless quest for better.  Can you add a cooler feature?  Make something easier?  Does your interface look fresh or stale?  Clean or cluttered?  Are there new industry standards you should be meeting?  I don't mean trying to get bought by Microsoft (or not); I mean actually innovating on your product.  This isn't about being big or unweildy; Google surpassed Yahoo a long time ago, but Google products still have that lust for self-betterment.  Yahoo lost its spark a long time ago.

Does that mean Yahoo is doomed?  Is the game over?  Only if Yahoo thinks it is.

In the mean time, feel free to compare for yourself:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/7949652@N03/map/

https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/albumMap?uname=118342883557018194463&aid=5724336792689052641#map

(Aside: I don't actually use the Picasa app because it is also too limited; I use an excellent photo management program called Digikam which is much more powerful.  Bonus points: Digikam has a tool to upload my photos directly to Flickr and Picasa.  It also handles Facebook, and my own website.  Ridiculously easy, ridiculously cool.  But I digress.)