The Next Battle: Enabling Information To Find You -- Or Why Yahoo/Microsoft Is A Distraction

from the helping-information-find-you dept

I have to admit, I wasn't going to write anything at all about the Yahoo/Microsoft search deal. It honestly seemed pretty pointless -- much bluster about nothing at all of importance. After talking it over with an editor at Forbes, however, I agreed to write up an op-ed for them about why the deal is misguided, and I wanted to expand on one part of that here. I just don't think there's very much interesting in fighting the last battle over "search" rather than looking at where things are headed. And, on that front, I noted:

People are discovering that information finds them, rather than them going in search of information. Search already works. The next interesting challenge is in improving the way information finds you, rather than the way you find information.

That is the key point that innovators in the internet space are starting to figure out. Information is much more powerful when it finds you (for example, when it's passed along by someone you trust). But that information doesn't just find you by itself. The internet helps, in making it easy to pass along a link or some text -- or to share/embed/etc. some content. But the tools for sharing information need to improve drastically, and that's where the next excitement will come from. It's in enabling relevant information to find you rather than the other way around. And, Yahoo/Microsoft has nothing to do with that at all.

Separately, this is also why I think sites that are trying to lock up content behind paywalls or limited access are making things worse. They're doing the opposite of where the internet is moving. They're making it harder for their information to find you, and they'll discover that this will lock them out of much of the opportunity.

Filed Under: information, journalism, relevance, search
Companies: microsoft, yahoo

Isn't There Something Ironic In An Anonymous Exec Demanding Transparency From Google?

from the entitlement-culture dept

It really is amazing sometimes to see how many people think that Google "owes" them something. For example, we've had a few different stories about companies suing Google because they don't like how Google ranks them. That makes little sense. Google doesn't owe anyone a spot in its index. It determines its index by figuring out what it thinks people will like best, and it's always tweaking it. If it fails to figure that out properly and someone else (like Microsoft) does figure it out, then Google will lose business. So, it seems a bit odd that some anonymous "well known exec at one of the largest sites on the Internet" is suddenly demanding transparency into how Google ranks content, suggesting that it's somehow unfair and arbitrary in its rankings -- and only by opening up the details of its algorithm will "fairness" be restored.

Ryan, who alerted us to this story, has written up a biting, but reasonable, response, where he notes that being ranked highly in Google is no one's right. And demanding that Google be transparent about its algorithm is meaningless (while being especially ironic, given that this "well-known exec" is demanding transparency while wanting to remain anonymous himself). The key point Ryan makes:

You want an algorithm, here it is:
1.) Sites that are useful to visitors will rank high.
2.) Popular sites that are useful to visitors will rank higher.
3.) Sites that don't offer any value to the web or are irrelevant to the query won't rank well.
4.) Sites that are harmful or spammy won't be included in the index.

Seriously, that's Google’s algorithm in plain English. There's your disclosure. The weighting factors and code behind it don't matter -- these principles are all you really need to know.

Indeed. Create useful sites with useful content that people use, and don't be spammy, and you'll most likely rank well in Google. You don't need to force Google to reveal the nuts and bolts of its algorithm. That doesn't change anything. If you're trying to craft your websites to the specifics of the algorithm, you're already lost. If you're creating websites that match the "plain English" code above, you're going to be just fine.

Filed Under: algorithms, entitlement, search, search engines, sem, seo, transparency
Companies: google

Amazon: A Search Engine With A Warehouse

from the rethinking-commerce dept

Clay Shirky made an offhand comment on Twitter recently that's way too good to leave to just the Twitterverse and not expand upon (hopefully Shirky himself will expand upon it -- but in the meantime, you're stuck with me). In commenting on a chart showing how Amazon seems to be growing while the rest of retail is shrinking, Shirky notes "AMZN's growth happens because its not a retailer with a web presence, its a search engine with a warehouse."

This needs to be unpacked in a few ways, but it's such a unique insight that it deserves lots of attention. Many people look at Amazon and think that it's just an "online store," but the reason that Amazon works is not because it took the concept of a store and put it online, but because it has always done things that only the internet allows it to do. That is, from its very early days, Amazon was never just about about being a store in a web browser, but in using the web to do interesting and unique things built on top of a commerce core. Things like online user reviews and recommendations may now seem commonplace, but Amazon revolutionized them. And it added so much convenience that many people now use Amazon product pages as default info pages on a product -- I know I do. To me, Amazon isn't just a store, but it's a database of products and reviews -- and that's what Shirky's getting at in saying it's a "search engine with a warehouse." Of course, the cool thing is that when you start thinking about Amazon in those terms is you realize how much more it can do. Those who think they're retailers are going to keep missing where Amazon is heading unless they start thinking the same way.

Filed Under: clay shirky, online retail, retail, search

That's One Way To Grab Search Traffic

from the we've-got-porn! dept

When Microsoft launched its new Bing search engine recently, we didn't really know what to say about it. Some of us felt like Microsoft was trying to win the last battle against Google, rather than looking ahead to the next one; others pointed to pieces saying that Bing seemed more about knocking off Yahoo than Google, which it looks to have already done; others still pointed to all the next great search engines that have emerged over the years, and failed to unseat Google (remember Cuil?). But none of us mentioned Microsoft's apparent efforts to grab lots of search traffic by making Bing better at delivering porn results. There's been a minor flap over the way Bing displays videos in search results: users can access videos directly from the Bing site, and play a thumbnail version of them by putting their mouse over a preview image. This means that companies, schools or anybody else who wants to block the porn with web filters would have to block Bing completely (Microsoft has given a workaround, but it's pretty cumbersome). The uproar comes despite the fact that it's not all that different to the results delivered by other engines when searching for porn, although Bing seems to be a bit more, uh, comprehensive. While this sounds like a juicy mistake, the more cynical out there might see it as an intentional effort by Microsoft to grab search-engine market share by making Bing great for porn surfers. After all, it only delivers the videos -- and other sexual content -- to users from certain countries, so it seemingly is possible for Microsoft to keep at least some of it out. But with all the attention Bing's grabbed because of the uproar, and not to mention the traffic from porn surfers, it's hard to imagine they're too bothered.

Filed Under: bing, porn, search
Companies: microsoft

Could Your Website Be Liable For The Way Google's Algorithm Summarizes It?

from the that-doesn't-seem-right dept

Ruby writes in to let us know that a Dutch website, Miljoenhuizen.nl, has been found liable for the way that Google summarized the content on the website. Google, of course, has algorithms that try to summarize the contents of a page in a snippet so that you know what's behind the link, and how it relates to the search that you do. As a part of that, it often will show parts of sentences connected by ellipses, and that's what happened here. The snippet on Google read:

Complete name: Zwartepoorte Specialiteit: BMW...This company has been declared bankrupt, it has been acquired by the motordealer I have worked for Boat Rialto...

This upset Zwartepoorte, an auto dealer, who felt that this summary falsely stated that it had gone bankrupt... so it sued the underlying site. It's quite surprising (on a number of different levels) that it didn't sue Google as well (or instead). However, the court actually agreed that this was the fault of the original website owner, and told Miljoenhuizen.nl to fix the website so that Google wouldn't summarize the site that way. It's hard to fathom how this could possibly be Miljoenhuizen.nl's fault, though apparently someone from Miljoenhuizen.nl suggested that it could control that in the courtroom -- which likely resulted in the judge's ruling.

Filed Under: liability, search, snippets, summaries
Companies: google

Theater Ordered To Pay $10,000 For Searching Customers

from the privacy-matters dept

We've seen so many stories about movie theaters that have no problem treating customers like criminals that it's surprising to see one finally get in trouble for it. JJ sent over a story about a movie theater in Quebec that has been fined $10,000 for an unnecessary search of customers. Not surprisingly, the search was to try to catch people bringing video equipment into the theater (wait, I thought the movie industry said Canadian theaters were soft on people videotaping movies?!?), but the court ruled that the search violated one family's privacy when it also turned up a daughter's birth control pills (which her mother wasn't too pleased to discover) along with some snacks they were bringing into the theater. The theater owner acknowledges that they can still search bags, but have to do so with much stricter rules. Or, you know, they could treat paying attendees like they're customers rather than criminals, and perhaps people would feel a lot better about going out to the movies.

Filed Under: movie, piracy, privacy, search

Record Labels Continue Their Attack On Spanish File Sharing Programmers

from the just-can't-stop dept

We've seen a series of efforts by the big four major record labels to shut down file search engines and software in Spain, despite the fact that such systems have been ruled legal in the country in the past. In one case, they were able to get one guy to cop a guilty plea and get jail time, because he couldn't afford to fight the charges. The latest such story is actually getting covered by the Associated Press, as the big four record labels are going after yet another programmer who created some file sharing apps, trying to charge him with "unfair competition" and demanding $17.5 million. Part of his defense is that Spain has a music levy on blank media, and thus it should be legal for anyone to download (other cases in Spain have ruled that personal downloading isn't a violation) -- and, thus, not a violation to create tools for such downloads. It'll come as not much of a surprise, that the record labels disagree. They'd prefer to get their piracy tax and shut down any attempts to share music at the same time.

Filed Under: bittorrent, file sharing, injunctions, search, spain

Recording Industry Tries To Shut Down Search Engine In Spain Without Allowing It To Defend Itself

from the fairness-not-needed dept

Last month, we wrote about how the recording industry was able to pressure the operator of a BitTorrent search engine into pleading guilty despite not actually having broken the law. The site in question didn't host any infringing files, but merely linked to a variety of files. Previous lawsuits had shown that, in Spain, merely linking is not infringement. But with the cost of a huge court case, the operator found it cheaper to just settle. Emboldened by this, it appears the industry is going after other sites as well, despite the earlier court rulings finding such sites legal. TorrentFreak notes that in one case, against the search engine Agujero.com, the local recording industry reps demanded an immediate injunction against the site, without even allowing the site's operators to give its side. Luckily, the judge did not fall for this, and after a hearing in which both sides presented their position, is allowing the site to continue operating while the trial continues, noting that shutting down the site: "might cause irreparable prejudice to the defendant." It's good to see another reasonable ruling, though troubling that the recording industry tried to push for an immediate injunction.

Filed Under: bittorrent, file sharing, injunctions, search, spain
Companies: agujero.com

Once Again: Making Search Results Better Isn't An Antitrust Violation

from the at-least-it-better-not-be dept

And, here we go with more ridiculous antitrust lawsuits -- this time against Google. You may recall last fall, the NY Times ran a silly article focusing on one small company supposedly as evidence of Google's monopoly power. But that was hard to support when you looked at the details. Basically, this company was a pure search arbitrage player. It was buying ads on Google, sending people to a page full of links... and a bunch of Google ads. These pages are often considered spam by users for good reason: they don't provide value. They're a pass-through on the way to where you actually want to go. Because of that, people began to indicate to Google that such links were poor uses of their time, and Google's algorithm properly corrected for that, lowering the prominence of those ads. That's all about making the product better for end users.

However, the company in that NY Times profile, TradeComet, still isn't satisfied, and has now sued Google for antitrust violations claiming that it purposely tried to destroy its SourceTool site (and, of course, it should come as no surprise that there's a Microsoft connection for all you conspiracy buffs). There are numerous problems with this argument. First, it was TradeComet that made the decision to rely almost entirely on Google to send it traffic. That was a strategic decision (and a bad one). Second, Google has every right to make its search results better, and getting spam-like pages out of sight is one clear way to do so. Third, it's almost laughable that Google would "target" SourceTool as a site to be "harmed." It's not like SourceTool was a threat to Google in any way. Fourth, even more ridiculous: since this was a search arbitrage play using Google's ads on the results page as well, Google was making money from sending traffic to SourceTool. All in all, it seems unlikely that TradeComet will get anywhere with this, other than making people think that it picked a really bad business model, almost entirely reliant on one channel partner, and then performed poorly for that channel partner. So Google isn't violating antitrust laws -- it's just doing business.

Filed Under: advertising, antitrust, monopolies, search
Companies: google, tradecomet

Dear Microsoft: Bribing Users Faster Still Probably Won't Help Much

from the nice-try,-though dept

We noted last month that Microsoft was stepping up its program to bribe users to use its search engine, and that process continues with the announcement that Microsoft is adjusting the program to provide the cashback award immediately, rather than making users wait for it. Yet, as PC World notes, this whole effort to bribe users has done nothing to improve Microsoft's marketshare in search. In fact, its marketshare has decreased, as both Yahoo's and Google's marketshare has increased. Perhaps it's time to try a different strategy.

Filed Under: bribes, search
Companies: microsoft