Media Giants Asking Google To Weight Its Content Higher
from the if-their-content-were-more-valuable... dept
A bunch of folks have been sending in the story from Ad Age, where a bunch of media giants have apparently been demanding that Google change its weighting algorithm, because they're upset at how low they appear, compared to other sites, including blogs. This is pretty amusing for a variety of reasons. A big part of the reason those media sites appear so low in the Google rankings is their own damn fault. For years, they tried to lock up the content behind paywalls and registration walls, and made their sites as un-user-friendly as possible. Thus, no one linked to them, they weren't a part of the conversation, and Google treated them exactly as it should. It's only now that those publications have realized the importance of the web that they're demanding that Google change to work with them? It seems more reasonable to simply point these media giants to an explanation of how the algorithm works, and tell them to get back to work creating a site that is more user friendly, with great original content, such that more people link to it. And then they'll be fine. But, apparently, that's just too much work.Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: google rankings, media, news, page rank
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Fair! ;P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I particularly like the example the exec used in his skewering of the algorithm.
FTA- "He'd just run a search for Gaza, which had been at war with Israel since Dec. 27. Google returned links to outdated BBC stories, Wikipedia entries and even an anti-Semitic YouTube video well before coverage by the Times, which had an experienced reporter covering the war from inside Gaza itself."
Well of course you will get a mishmash of irrelevant crap if you use a one word search term that covers the broadest context. Durrrrrr.... even using the most basic google-fu, such as "gaza war" or 'gaza news" would return much better results. God forbid someone looking for up to the minute news would actually use the page update limiter option.
I am sick of everything being about the lowest common denominator. If you suck at SEO, your search results will suck. If you don't know how to use search tools, your search results will suck.
Learn more, 'tard less.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Easily Amused
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Self-inflicted damage is leverage?
So, they would plan to hurt Google by removing themselves even more from search results? How does that hurt Google, when Google clearly isn't dependent on the publishers as it is?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Irony
You mean like the RIAA and MPAA do off the artists who actually create the works?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Irony
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Irony
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
re: Confused
Apparently these record exec types live in quantum physics land where the videos and links are simultaneously both there and not there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I hear another Firefox add-on coming on
Now, it comes to mind to add features to that add-on where you subscribe to an internet hosted list (see the subscription methods in the AdBlock Plus Firefox add-on) where all the big media companies are excluded or re-ordered to the bottom of page 9 (on a page of 100 results (configurable in "Optimize Google")) in the returned Google search results. When the internet sustains damage, it responds by re-routing around that damage.
So, Google, go for it. Take their money and pressure. Secumbe to it. Whore yourself out to big media. Further devalue your brand. Compromise your credibility. ... And certainly, "Do No Evil".
JMHO.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
However, companies such as the times need to learn to compete with the rest of us.
What is really objectionable in the results is entering the name of the movie and half of the first page is torrent sites. That sort of makes you wonder.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What is really objectionable in the results is entering the name of the movie and half of the first page is torrent sites. That sort of makes you wonder.
What makes me wonder is how you can contradict yourself so thoroughly in two back to back sentences without noticing. Why do the "Times" have to learn to compete with the rest of us and not the "movie studios" or the "record labels". If you type in a movie name and the top results are torrent sites then that says to me that they're doing a much better job competing on the net than the sources of the product, whether it be a movie or music.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not quite right. It is more a matter of whoever gets the most *other* people shouting the loudest wins. Link backs count for most of your popularity and link backs from other people/sites with more link backs to themselves count even higher. It is a highly simplistic overview, but let's at least give something of a correct structure when using that explanation as an example.
And please give examples of your search terms exactly as you gave them to google so we can determine if your assessment of torrent site rankings is accurate. I can write searches that will forces those sites to the top of my results, but I doubt (based on my own experience) that they would occur there often on more simplistic searches.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Google's algorithms are based on patent 6285999, which takes a democratic view of the interwebs and assigns value based on organic number of links back to the originating point. If a media company can't get more people to link to the content, then it doesn't deserve an artificially high number. There are other search engines: live.com, yahoo.com, or excite.com. You can use them, I'll keep my google.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You really don't know when to stop making stupid claims, do you?
Anything to back this up, like maybe a screenshot of what you're finding when you search? Because what you just said has no bearing on reality from where I'm sitting.
Otherwise, this is just another stupid attack from WH on... well, I'm not sure who you're attacking this time. Google? Well, Google are popular for a reason, and you do have a choice as to who you use to search. If you find a competitor to Google to have more useful search results, why aren't you using them instead? If not, what's your problem?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
there wasn't a single torrent on any of the first pages
pages returned. I'm calling BS on this claim.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Interesting juxtaposition...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ridigulous
I have iGoogle and techdirt is one of the gadgets on it as are various news feeds. Don't really need to search for the news. Confused is right in his remark about the same people saying that Google was "stealing" news. A bunch of Idiots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Once again.....'Tard
Maybe thats because THATS WHAT PEOPLE WANT? If you continually DONT give the customer what they want, they will FIND SOMETHING ELSE. You cant litigate or make laws to FORCE people to buy your stuff. I know, I know, thats what you and your industry buddies WANT, but it doesnt work like that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What's there to wonder? Users have decided that those are the most relevant site. What are you implying? Conspiracy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let them spend their own Damn money!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What is true content?
So what is he saying, the only true content is content
requiring payment, or that any free content must be
stolen from the media "giants?" Both are false statments.
Sounds like something he heard playing Bioshock.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google vs. Google News
Filter out the wikipedia entries and bloggers and you get content from trusted news sources.
What more do they want?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's a free market
[ link to this | view in chronology ]