Exaggerating The Mobile Threat To Google

from the sorry,-don't-see-it dept

There's a Business Week article making the rounds saying that it's not Microsoft or Yahoo that's a real threat to Google, but the rise of the mobile web, which will somehow shrink ad inventory and cause headaches for Google. It's a nice theory, but it's hard to square with reality. Increasing use of the mobile screen is hardly likely to decrease usage of a full computer screen. If anything, it will likely make desktop computing more useful in some cases. The article also makes a few other questionable statements. First, it points out that the mobile screen is smaller, so there's less ad inventory, and then it points out that the growing acceptance of the mobile web is due to the web browser on the iPhone. That sounds good, but the points contradict each other. The success of the iPhone's browser is due to the fact that it presents a full (not limited) web browsing experience -- so it doesn't really limit the inventory available to Google. Furthermore, even if the inventory was limited (which seems unlikely) that's not necessarily a bad thing for Google. Google's success has been based on making ads more relevant -- not just more available. This was what resulted in so much confusion during Google's recent earnings announcement. Google had made some changes to drive more relevant clickthroughs -- and while that may lower actual clickthroughs, it increases revenue. So, even if inventory is limited, if Google is still the best at making ads relevant, it will do just fine.

Filed Under: ads, mobile, real estate, search
Companies: apple, google

Sites Freak About A Feature Google Has Had For Years

from the deep-breath dept

Websites are wringing their hands about the fact that Google is adding a "search within a search" feature that makes it easier to use Google's search engine to search a particular website. So, for example, if you want to find something at the New York Times, you can search for "nytimes.com," and then Google will display a search box that will let you search for content on just the New York Times website. Apparently a lot of websites are up in arms because this will divert traffic away from their own search engines and give Google, rather than the target site, opportunities to serve up ads to those users. The question I was left with after reading the article is: am I the only one who's been doing this for years with Google's "site:" syntax? I assumed that anyone who uses Google on a regular basis already knew about this feature. If the ability to search within a particular site is problematic, these sites should have objected years ago, when Google added this functionality.

Anyway, there are two things to say about this. One is that sites should take this as a wake-up call to improve the search functionality on their own sites. For a company whose business is increasingly centered on the Internet, having a decent search engine should be a high priority. Furthermore, although few companies will be able to develop search algorithms as sophisticated as Google's, they have the big advantage that they've got access to a lot of metadata that Google doesn't. For example, news sites should be able to offer searches by date, author, category, and other criteria that Google might not be able to extract easily from a mere scrape of its pages. They might also be able to use information like the number of page views, the number of times a page has been emailed, etc to decide which pages to list first. With all that extra information, it shouldn't be that hard to develop (or license) a search engine that will give performance that's at least roughly comparable to Google for one's own site. Secondly, if you don't have a good search engine, isn't better to have Google helping users find the pages they want on your site than for those users not to find your content at all?

Filed Under: search, site search
Companies: google

EFF Asks For Details On Border Laptop & Mobile Phone Searches

from the guidelines-please? dept

Last month, we wrote about how more courts have been saying that customs agents could search the content of your laptop or mobile phone upon entering the country. For many, that's a pretty scary thought, considering the amount of personal or confidential information that people often have on their laptops and phones. It's even scarier when customs agents make a copy of that data, as it's not clear what they actually do with it or if they ever delete it. In response, the EFF, along with the Asian Law Caucus, are filing a lawsuit to force the government to give details and guidelines that explain its policies on these searches and what's actually done with the data. It seems like a totally reasonable question -- but given our government's belief in secrecy over all else, expect to find out that this cannot be revealed for "national security" purposes.

Filed Under: border, customers, eff, laptops, search
Companies: eff

Both Microsoft And Google Are Probably Best Off Shutting Up About Monopolies

from the seriously,-keep-quiet dept

We found it somewhat ridiculous when Microsoft tried to play the antitrust card in complaining about Google's attempt to buy Doubleclick last year. However, it's almost as ridiculous for Google to now be playing the antitrust card against Microsoft for its effort to buy Yahoo. True, Microsoft actually is a convicted antitrust violator, but Google has clearly been beating Microsoft hands down in the internet search/advertising/portal game. In both cases, it's fairly silly, as it's obvious that there's a fair bit of competition going on in the space (and Google's own rise demonstrates how it's still possible for new entrants to rise up). It's no surprise that Google would prefer Microsoft doesn't end up buying Yahoo (even if the resulting integration mess might give Google a chance to distance its lead online), but having either side pull out claims of antitrust violations pointed at the other just seems pointless. About the only thing it's likely to do is come back to haunt them down the road, the next time either one is investigated for any kind of antitrust violations.

Filed Under: antitrust, internet advertising, mergers, search
Companies: google, microsoft, yahoo

Do People Always Search To Be Sent To Another Site?

from the questions,-questions dept

Mashable points us to a study done by online research firm Compete about which search engines do better in "search fulfillment." That is, what percentage of search queries on a particular search engine lead to someone clicking through to a search result. Yahoo clearly beats out Google (who then beats Microsoft). The theory, then, is that Yahoo does a better job pointing people to what they want to know about, since more of the queries end up in clickthroughs -- and that may certainly be true. However, it's not the only explanation. John Battelle weighs in to suggest that Google users may simply refine their queries a few times before clicking through to the desired results. Another possibility is one that happens to me all the time: if I'm searching for information and not a website, I may not need to clickthrough at all. I can just see the information needed in the snipped found in the search. So you could read the study as saying that Microsoft and Google provide more relevant snippets than Yahoo. The truth is probably somewhere in between, so while this data is interesting, as an aggregate number, it probably doesn't tell us very much.

Filed Under: search, search engines, search fulfillment, search quality
Companies: google, yahoo

Accoona's IPO Postponed As Underwriter Drops Out

from the still-a-nobody dept

Earlier this month came the surprising news that little-known search engine Accoona had filed to do an IPO, hoping to emulate the public market success of Google. Of course Accoona is nothing like Google, as its search engine is not widely used, with most of the company's revenue coming from dodgy e-commerce sites that it has acquired. Well, it looks like the company may have to wait another day for its invitation to the dance, as the planned underwriter, Maxim Group, has pulled out of the deal. Considering the company's shaky financials as well as the checkered past of its founder (in the past he was a penny stock promoter), it seems highly unlikely that any reputable investment bank will get behind the deal. So unless Accoona actually starts drawing users to its search engine (highly unlikely), the company wouldn't appear to be going anywhere soon.

Filed Under: search
Companies: accoona

Why Store Info When You Can Just Search For It?

from the organization-is-overrated dept

With plenty of companies trying to jump into the search space and take away Google's lead with something "different," it's interesting to note that many people may not realize how people really use search engines. WebProNews is highlighting a new study suggesting that many people use search engines as an alternative to filing away info. That is, they repeat queries all the time, just to find info that they had found before. In fact, 40% of all search queries are repeats. That's probably a lot more than most people imagined -- and it suggests that people are looking at search engines even more as a "second brain" to store info, rather than just as a way to find new information. Why bookmark something when it's probably easier and faster for Google to just find it for you again? Of course, such activities can be dangerous if the search results change, potentially "erasing" the link to a bit of information someone wanted. That's why it's also interesting to note that Google, at least, is now experimenting with a feature to let you store specific links in your own personalized Google results, guaranteeing that they'll be there the next time you search.

Filed Under: search
Companies: google

Accoona Who? Search Firm Files To Go Public

from the searching-for-investors dept

Hoping to capitalize on investor love for Google, search engine Accoona recently filed with the SEC to go public. However, John Battelle did some digging through the company's S-1 filing and finds that this one looks pretty fishy. The company has gotten no traction in its core search business, so in order to goose revenues, the company has bought out a number of money-losing e-commerce firms that have nothing to do with its main business. Other red flags stick out as well, such as the company's assertion that it's got interesting things going on in China, an attempt to associate itself with another hot area. Finally, the company will go public through a Google-like Dutch auction, in a blatant move to build up more hype. Obviously, the IPO window has widened in the past year, as more tech companies have been able to go public. But investors seemed to have kept their wits about them, and it seems highly unlikely that an also-ran search firm that few people have ever heard of will capture the public's imagination.

Filed Under: search
Companies: accoona, google

Wikia's Search Strategy Heavy On Buzzwords And FUD

from the like-a-broken-record dept

Wikia, Jimmy Wales' for-profit venture, has been talking for awhile about taking on Google in the search space. The company believes it can do better by augmenting traditional algorithm-based search with wiki-like collaboration and human editors. So far, the company doesn't have anything to show for its efforts, but it recently announced the purchase of the open source web crawler Grub from LookSmart (remember them?). As part of the company's PR efforts, Wales has tried to make the case that existing search tools are "broken" and that another party needs to come along and fix it. This same line, that Google is broken for whatever reasons, gets repeated by every fledgling search startup out there. While Google has its share of problems (spam, etc.), it's unlikely that most users would see things as being so bad. In the end, neither FUD nor buzzwords, like "wiki", "open source" or "semantic web" will be enough to dethrone Google if the underlying product isn't clearly superior.

Filed Under: search, wales, wiki
Companies: google, wikia

Search Engines Compete On Accuracy, Privacy Policies

from the who-is-the-private-ist? dept

With Google taking some hits over its data retention practices, its competitors are hoping that they can use the privacy issue to their advantage. Microsoft, Yahoo and Ask have all updated or clarified their policies to give users more control over what data is kept and for how long. It's great to see that the search engines are responsive on this issue, but it's hard to imagine that these moves will have a big effect on the competitive landscape. Consumers express a preference for better privacy when asked about it in studies and surveys, but they often fail to put these preferences into practice when choosing products. Of course, even if users don't switch from one site to another, the net effect of this oneupmanship should result in better privacy, if these companies stick to their word.

Filed Under: privacy, search
Companies: ask, google, microsoft, yahoo