The Google vs. Bing search wars continues to rage on, and there's no reason to
assume it will go away anytime soon. More and more takes on the subject are
coming out, and the storyline is getting more dramatic with each addition.
For example, Kara Swisher at AllThingsD thinks Google's position here stems from
co-founder Larry Page's migration to CEO (though not official until April).
"Reading the tough quotes and later blog post by Amit Singhal–quite possibly the
sweetest dude at Google–accusing Bing of cheating, it felt like he was
channeling Page’s very clear and nerdily indignant voice again," she
wrote. "In a nutshell: We have data to prove Microsoft's stealing.
Look at our detailed proof from our complex sting. We are outraged by this
violation of geek code. Don’t you lay people get it?!?"
"I would wager that we're about to see a lot more of this pugnacious,
in-your-face tone from Google under Page’s leadership, which could have
far-reaching implications for the company," she speculated.
Another angle to the story is that this has been Google's way of diverting
attention away from the flack its taken recently over the quality of its search
results.
"Both sides have strong views and believe they are right,"
writes Vivek Wadhwa, who moderated the panel where Matt Cutts and
Harry Shum argued about the situation (see video below). "In opening the
debate, I said that, as a professor, I can’t condone any kind of plagiarism or
cheating—and that is what Microsoft’s usage of Google data seems to amount to.
But in the tech world, such information exchange is the norm. Everyone cheats
and this may be a good thing for innovation. So there is no black and white
here. Both sides are right and they are wrong."
"The one thing that is clear is that Google pulled off a huge PR coup. It
changed the topic," adds Wadhwa. "Media coverage isn’t about spam and how
Google profits from this any more; we are debating how valuable Google’s search
results are."
I should point out that in our own coverage of the events, I noted that
Bing was engaging in the same lack of content farm policing as Google.
To me, it's not so much a matter of Google having the better results and Bing
piggybacking. The interesting thing to me is that Google's own search quality
has been questioned so much lately, and if Bing isn't doing any better, that's a
problem for search at large. The real winner in this search war could be Blekko,
who has
taken action on content farms. It's a pretty big stretch to say
Blekko is poised to garner a huge share of the search market here, but this
thing couldn't have hurt from a PR standpoint.
Matt Cutts has posted yet more words on the Google vs. Bing debate, reiterating
points he made in the video above, but in a more detailed way.
Read the post for all the specifics. He concludes with, "Since people
at Microsoft might not like this post, I want to reiterate that I know the
people (especially the engineers) at Bing work incredibly hard to compete with
Google, and I have huge respect for that. It's because of how hard those
engineers work that I think Microsoft should stop using clicks on Google in
Bing's rankings. If Bing does better on a search query than Google does, that's
fantastic. But an asterisk that says 'we don't know how much of this win came
from Google' does a disservice to everyone. I think Bing's engineers deserve to
know that when they beat Google on a query, it's due entirely to their hard
work. Unless Microsoft changes its practices, there will always be a question
mark."
If nothing else, the whole thing is going to make the search-related conferences
fun this year, as Google and Bing will no doubt continue to take jabs at each
other. While some have shrugged the debate off as childish, if it leads to the
two main search competitors trying to one-up each other in terms of search
quality, users should benefit either way. That is if they haven't all started
using Blekko.
Without a doubt, the biggest storyline in search this week has been Google
accusing Bing of cheating and stealing its results, Bing semi-denying this, and
the back and forth that's gone on between the two dominant search engines.
Who's right: Bing or Google?
Tell us what you think.
The whole thing came to light when Danny Sullivan
posted an article detailing Google's "sting operation," which Bing
would later call "spy novelesque" and even "click fraud". Essentially, Google
rigged up some forced search results to test Bing, and found that Bing was
indeed displaying the results in question.
Just hours after Sullivan's article came out, Google's Matt Cutts and Bing's
Harry Shum
took to the stage at the Farsight search event to publicly argue
about what Bing had done and the ethics of it. Bing also put up an
official blog post showcasing its position on the matter. "We use
over 1,000 different signals and features in our ranking algorithm. A small
piece of that is clickstream data we get from some of our customers, who opt-in
to sharing anonymous data as they navigate the web in order to help us improve
the experience for all users," wrote Shum. "To be clear, we learn from all of
our customers. What we saw in today's story was a spy-novelesque stunt to
generate extreme outliers in tail query ranking. It was a creative tactic by a
competitor, and we'll take it as a back-handed compliment. But it doesn't
accurately portray how we use opt-in customer data as one of many inputs to help
improve our user experience."
"The history of the web and the improvement of a broad array of consumer and
business experiences is actually the story of collective intelligence, from
sharing HTML documents to hypertext links to click data and beyond. Many
companies across the Internet use this collective intelligence to make their
products better every day," Shum continued. "We all learn from our collective
customers, and we all should...We never set out to build another version of an
existing search engine."
It didn't take long for Google to offer up
its own official blog post, rehashing the tactics described in
Sullivan's article, with added commentary from Google Fellow Amit Singhal, who
said, "As we see it, this experiment confirms our suspicion that Bing is using
some combination of: Internet Explorer 8, which can send data to Microsoft via
its Suggested Sites feature, the Bing Toolbar, which can send data via
Microsoft's Customer Experience Improvement Program, or possibly some other
means to send data to Bing on what people search for on Google and the Google
search results they click. Those results from Google are then more likely to
show up on Bing. Put another way, some Bing results increasingly look like an
incomplete, stale version of Google results—a cheap imitation."
"At Google we strongly believe in innovation and are proud of our search
quality," he added. "We've invested thousands of person-years into developing
our search algorithms because we want our users to get the right answer every
time they search, and that's not easy. We look forward to competing with
genuinely new search algorithms out there—algorithms built on core innovation,
and not on recycled search results from a competitor. So to all the users out
there looking for the most authentic, relevant search results, we encourage you
to come directly to Google. And to those who have asked what we want out of all
this, the answer is simple: we'd like for this practice to stop."
A bit of
irony regarding that part about innovations and algorithms was
revealed when Amazon recommendation engine creator
Greg Linden reported that Google had switched to a recycled version
of Amazon's algorithm for recommendations on YouTube. Granted, this is not
really the same thing as what Bing is doing, but it was an interestingly timed
report, given Singhal's words. Update:
Linden
says in the comments to this article that the timing was
coincidental.
Google did not get the last word in the war with Bing (at least not yet...I'm
sure we haven't seen the last word at this point).
Bing took to its blog again,
this time with some words from VP of the company's online services division,
Yusuf Mehdi. "We do not copy results from any of our competitors. Period. Full
stop. We have some of the best minds in the world at work on search quality and
relevance, and for a competitor to accuse any one of these people of such
activity is just insulting," he said. "We do look at anonymous click stream data
as one of more than a thousand inputs into our ranking algorithm. We learn from
our customers as they traverse the web, a common practice in helping to improve
a wide array of online services. We have been clear about this for a couple of
years (see Directions on Microsoft report, June 15, 2009)." No link is provided
unfortunately.
"Google engaged in a 'honeypot' attack to trick Bing," he added. "In
simple terms, Google's 'experiment' was rigged to manipulate Bing search results
through a type of attack also known as 'click fraud.' That's right, the same
type of attack employed by spammers on the web to trick consumers and produce
bogus search results. What does all this cloak and dagger click
fraud prove? Nothing anyone in the industry doesn't already know. As we have
said before and again in this post, we use click stream optionally provided by
consumers in an anonymous fashion as one of 1,000 signals to try and determine
whether a site might make sense to be in our index." (emphasis
added)
He also mentions some design elements Google has employed since Bing's launch
that are rather Bing-esque, which we've also pointed out in previous articles.
"At the same time, we have been making steady, quiet progress on core search
relevance," he said. "In October 2010 we released a series of big, noticeable
improvements to Bing’s relevance. So big and noticeable that we are told Google
took notice and began to worry. Then a short time later, here come the honeypot
attacks. Is the timing purely coincidence? Are industry discussions about search
quality to be ignored? Is this simply a response to the fact that some people in
the industry are beginning to ask whether Bing is as good or in some cases
better than Google on core web relevance?"
Search quality certainly has been in question lately, particularly with regards
to
content farms,
but Bing doesn't appear to be doing anything much differently in that regard so
far. Blekko is the only one that has really
clamped down
on those at this point, though Matt Cutts did finally acknowledge that the
recent Google algorithm change is
not the search engine's answer to content farms,
and that they still have some projects they are working on in that department.
He said they want to do it all algorithmically, as opposed to in a human-edited
fashion like Blekko. Meanwhile, it looks like we might have
a
whole new kind of content farm
emerging that doesn't even use humans to create the content.
Another side note in all of the Google/Bing drama is that Microsoft has now
released a Chrome extension for support for the H.264 video codec, which Google
recently announced would no longer be supported by Chrome. As WebProNews
mentioned in
a
previous article on the subject,
Microsoft has offered similar plug-ins for other browsers, so to say that this
is in any way related to the search dispute is a bit of a stretch, but the
timing is interesting.
While Bing and Google continue to duke it out, there is no clear winner in who
is right and who is wrong. User opinions are widely varied. Comedy Central's
Stephen Colbert had a pretty amusing take on the whole thing (hat
tip to Sullivan):
All joking aside, what do you think of the whole situation?
Has Bing done anything wrong in
its practices? Was Google wrong to set up its "sting operation"?
Share
your thoughts.
· Google Tallies 75,000 Job Applications In Single Week
Nine days ago, Google announced with some fanfare that it intended to hire at
least 6,000 new employees this year. Now, it turns out the response was
immediate and almost overwhelming, as a representative's said over 75,000 people
submitted applications last week.
Google of course has a lot of things working in its favor, from a market cap of
$195 billion to a reputation for being a great place to work. The combination
of high pay, dogs, and free food (among other things) should appeal to a wide
range of people.
No one seems to have seen this response coming, however.
Brian Womack
wrote this afternoon, "The flood of resumes topped a previous high set in May
2007 by 15 percent, said Aaron Zamost, a spokesman for the Mountain View,
California-based company."
And even if you figure that Google will hire exactly 6,000 people out of 75,000
(ignoring the fact that the company's sure to seek out some folks on its own and
conduct this process throughout the year), that would leave 92 percent of the
applicants out of luck.
On the bright side, at least everyone who knows an HR worker at Google stands a
chance of getting a muffin basket or three as thousands of applicants try to
make themselves stand out via yummy gifts.
Demand Media continues to capture a great deal of attention after launching an
IPO, and Google talking about algorithm changes. If you've been reading
WebProNews lately, we've discussed it quite a bit, and our readers have had
plenty to say as well.
You
can browse recent coverage (and comments) here.
The question still remains: will
Google continue to allow Demand Media content from sites like eHow to dominate
its search results? Keep in mind, Demand Media will continue to grow massively
and rapidly.
Should Demand Media content appear at the top of Google's search results as
often as it does?
Comment here.
According to
the company's pre-IPO SEC filing,
search, social media, mobile computing, and targeted monetization will continue
to be growth catalysts for Demand Media's business, and as of the end of
November, Demand's owned and operated sites comprised
the 17th largest web property in the U.S., attracting over 105
million unique visitors with over 679 million page views globally.
"Our wholly-owned content library, consisting of approximately
3 million articles and approximately 200,000 videos as of December 15, 2010,
forms the foundation of our growing and recurring revenue base," the document
says, citing comScore data.
"We intend to specifically target
high-value vertical market segments, expand partnerships with
brands and leading publishers and increase the scope of our relationships with
our current Registrar customers," it later says of the company's growth
strategy.
Also, "We believe our model is
scalable and readily transferrable to international markets. We
intend to capitalize on the growing breadth of skills of our freelance creator
community and the versatility of our long-lived content that can often transcend
geographies and cultures to target certain foreign, including non-English
speaking, countries."
All of this supports one fact, if nothing else - Demand Media is going to keep
cranking out an increasing amount of content.
An
IPO Roadshow document
from the company suggests that they
put out six or seven thousand articles a day (emphasis on
suggest, they don't give a concrete number). Let's say they put out 7,000
articles in a single day. Multiply that by 365 and you get
2,555,000 articles a year.
So Add that to the approximately 3 million existing articles, and that's
potentially 5,555,000
articles in Google's index by this time next year. In ten years, you're
looking at 28,550,000.
And that's if they don't grow, which is clearly the plan - to grow a lot.
Sidenote: "We're creating quality
content at scale,' CEO Richard Rosenblatt said in the document. "We don't,
today, do news." At SXSW last year, he said that what Demand does isn't
journalism, but from the sound of it, news isn't out of the question for the
future. That's interesting in itself.
So, what is the limit to the number of eHow articles Google will place among its
top search results? Many queries already return more than just one eHow article
(and that's just eHow. They have other sites.). ehow itself already has
countless articles on the same topics, covering just about every possible way to
phrase a query.
For example, if you search eHow for "how to fix car scratch" you will get pages
and pages of search results - only results from ehow.com. Now the search starts
returning other results after a while, and there are some legitimate variations
in the mix - specific things like "how to fix Car Scratches on a Black Grand Am
GT" or "How to Repair Interior Car Door Scratches". But there are many that are
not so different (granted some are videos):
"How to fix a scratch on a car"
"How to fix car scratches"
"How to repair car scratches"
"How to Repair Minor Car Scratches"
"How to fix a minor car scratch"
"How to fix a minor scratch on your car"
"How to repair car paint chips and scratches"
"How to fix a car scratch"
"How to Fix Car Scratches/chips"
"How to Safely Remove Fine Scratches from Your Car's Paint"
"How to Fix Scratches On Your Car"
"How to Fix Scratches on Your Car or Truck"
"DIY Car Scratch Repair"
"How to fix a car scratch with paint"
"How to repair a scratch on a car's bodywork"
"How to Fix a Minor Scratch on Your Car: Car Maintenance"
"How to Fix Car Scratches and Dents"
"How to Repair Scratches & Dents on a Car"
"How to fix Auto Paint Scratches"
"How to Remove Scratches on a Car"
"How to Repair Car Body Scratches"
"How to Fix a Scratch on Car Body: Auto Detailing"
"How to Repair Auto Paint Scratches"
"How to Fix Scratches on Car Paint"
That's a few examples from the first five (out of many) pages of results.
Optimization by saturation perhaps? While Demand uses algorithms to determine
what content to assign its writers, the message appears to be: if you can't
figure out the perfect key phrase to optimize for, keep cranking out articles
until you cover all of them.
CEO Richard Rosenblatt
recently told Peter Kafka at AllThingsD, "We help them [Google] fill
the gaps in their index, where they don't have quality content..." As I noted
before, it would appear that they're going a lot further than filling in the
gaps, but who can blame them? If it works, then why not?
It is up to Google, however, to determine what it thinks is quality content, and
Google's Matt Cutt says the webspam team is shifting to a focus on content
farms. What is still unclear is
whether or not Google considers huge AdSense partner Demand Media a content
farm (although a Google search for the phrase "content farm" would
appear to suggest that it does, based on the fact that nearly every result on
the first page talks about Demand Media).
Another thing for Google to consider is: at this rate of content creation, how
long before a site like eHow is simply a competitor to Google? If this content
is going to dominate the search results, why not just go to eHow instead of
Google, if these results truly are the best for the queries, as their rankings
would seem to indicate?
Granted, there are some word combinations you can use for fixing your car's
paint that won't return eHow results, so Demand has clearly not gotten the
better of Google on every query...yet. But there are plenty that do. Are all of
these articles written by the experts in the auto body repair field? What do you
think?
Demand Media is simply following a business model that's working. The ball is in
Google's court as far as how well they're going to let it continue to work.
Does Google want content from one company dominating so many of its search
results? New Google competitor Blekko doesn't. That's why it
banned eHow and other content farms.
Are you happy with the current
state of Google results?
Share your thoughts.
People who have put off giving Chrome a try now have several more reasons to set
aside their usual browser for at least an hour or two. Today, three significant
updates - Chrome Instant, the Chrome Web Store, and WebGL - all graduated from
the beta channel to the stable build.
Chrome Instant will be the most helpful feature for ordinary users. A post on
the
Google Chrome Blog explained, "With Chrome Instant ( la Google
Instant), web pages that you frequently visit will begin loading as soon as you
start typing the URL. ('Look, Mom - no enter key!'). If supported by your
default search engine, search results appear instantly as you type queries in
the omnibox."
Just enable Chrome Instant (in the "basic options" menu) if you want to try this
out.
Meanwhile, people who like to sort through lots of options in search of
something special may appreciate the
Chrome Web Store. The video below explains a little about it.
ally, WebGL more or less translates to "hardware-accelerated 3D graphics," and
if that piques your interest, a few demos are available
here.
The people behind Internet Explorer and Firefox might have to start watching
their backs more than ever due to these changes.
Using Google Latitude is and should be a personal thing – only to be used with
people you trust. I use Latitude with my friends and make sure to only confirm
close friends. However, recently I met a woman that works in marketing for a
health organization. She told me about how her company uses
Google Latitude for business tasks. In case you're not familiar,
Google Latitude shows your location to your selected contacts via your mobile
device's GPS.
In the marketing and sales field, this woman travels frequently and has a number of responsibilities she juggles. Using Latitude allows her boss to see her location and share tasks according to her location. Grouping errands is always a good thing, especially when it's a part of your job! Not only does this allow the business to cut costs of back-and-forth trips, but helps this marketing coordinator get her job done – faster.
For sales people and other employees on-the-go throughout the day, using Latitude allows management to delegate tasks, depending on location of their employees. Especially if multiple employees are on the road, tracking their location increases productivity and efficiency of the business. Although there are other applications and services that allow management to implement tracking of their employees – Google Latitude is a tool that's easy to use, and free.
What shocked me most was that a business owner saw the opportunity in a product – mostly used for personal friendships – and took it to new levels for the business. Not only is transparency a theme with social media jobs, but here, it gives employers a portal to see where their employees are at any time.
This whole concept reminds me of an app that will alert you when you're near one of your errands. Keep forgetting to run to the pharmacy? This app will alert you when you're near one. For android folks out there – ListPlus will do the job and for iPhone users there's Errand Alert.
Since there are applications that will let you know when you're near one of your errands, do companies really need to be asking employees to share their location 24/7? Of course there are tasks that arise in the middle of the day while employees are already out, so the errand alert type applications wouldn't do the trick. Using Google Latitude could add in the ability for those back at the office to survey which employee is closest to the desired location. Then the task could be assigned to that one person without sending a frenzied email – "Who is closest to _____ location?"
Will GPS enabled apps end up being another staple of all businesses – like email? Would you consider sharing your location with your boss or employees? If you already are Foursquare friends with your boss or employees you aren't really that far away. Let me know what you think.
Originally published at SearchMarketingSage
According to a TechCrunch story just published the war against content farms has reached Blekko. WebProNews is seeking to confirm the facts. To learn more about Blekko and its approach to fighting web spam watch the embedded video interview our WebProNews team conducted at Pubcon with Blekko founder Rich Skrenta below.
TechCrunch reports that Blekko is now (or about to) block the top 20 sites its users have marked as a source of web spam. The list includes prominent content producers eHow.com and answerbag.com.
ehow.com
experts-exchange.com
naymz.com
activehotels.com
robtex.com
encyclopedia.com
fixya.com
chacha.com
123people.com
download3k.com
petitionspot.com
thefreedictionary.com
networkedblogs.com
buzzillions.com
shopwiki.com
wowxos.com
answerbag.com
allexperts.com
freewebs.com
copygator.com
This can only put additional pressure on Google to focus on content farms and whether it wants to continue to rank their articles so highly. WebProNews has recently written a series of articles focusing on how eHow and other large article sites are dominating thousands of Google search results. According to Demand Media founder Richard Rosenblatt, Demand has already produced over 3 million articles that are now indexed in Google. They are producing 7,000 pieces of content per day and intend to increase this quantity. Rosenblatt also states that the quality of their content is extremely important and that they are always trying to improve it.
At this rate Demand could have over 15 million articles indexed in Google and other search engines within five years. If Google continues to rank them so highly it might be more efficient to simply do your searching at eHow itself!
Google blasted Bing in an official Google blog post for tapping into its search
results. We covered that
here.
In
that post, Google's Amit Singhal said, "At Google we strongly believe
in innovation and are proud of our search quality. We've invested thousands of
person-years into developing our search algorithms because we want our users to
get the right answer every time they search, and that's not easy. We look
forward to competing with genuinely new search algorithms out there—algorithms
built on core innovation, and not on recycled search results from a competitor."
Apparently recycling is ok when it comes to recommendations, however. An
interesting post from Amazon recommendation engine creator Greg Linden has come
out claiming that Google-owned YouTube is using an old Amazon recommendation
algorithm for video recommendation. Linden
reports:
In a paper at the recent RecSys 2010 conference, "The YouTube Video
Recommendation System" (ACM), eleven Googlers describe the system behind
YouTube's recommendations and personalization in detail.
The most interesting disclosure in the
paper is that YouTube has switched from their old recommendation algorithm based
on random walks to a new one based on item-to-item collaborative filtering.
Item-to-item collaborative filtering is the algorithm Amazon developed back in
1998. Over a decade later, it appears YouTube found a variation of Amazon's
algorithm to be the best for their video recommendations.
Google is toying around a lot with recommendations in its regular Google search
results. They just started incorporating
Hotpot results into the main search results. It's unclear, however,
just how many people are actually using Hotpot. As I referenced earlier,
Google also recently acquired fflick, which offers opinions from
users' Twitter friends on movies (and was reportedly set to expand to more
verticals). The fflick team went to YouTube, and according to
a recent report from Bloomberg Business week, the upcoming "Google+1"
social layer "is designed to cull data about relationships among users from
current services such as Gmail and YouTube."
"Google will then let users share material through those connections, while
using the information to make other products more social," the report said.
"Search results may be skewed toward pages that your friends found useful."
Whether or not the Amazon-style recommendations will enter Google's search
equation is a mystery, but we thought the timing of Linden's post was
interesting, considering Google's words about algorithmic innovation. To be
clear,
Linden tells WebProNews that the timing of the report was
coincidental.
Any hackers who think they know a thing or two about Chrome should strongly
consider booking a flight to Vancouver, British Columbia. At the Pwn2Own
competition in early March, the first person who can exploit the browser will
get $20,000 (and a Cr-48 notebook, if it matters) from Google itself.
Aaron Portnoy, Manager of the Security Research Team at TippingPoint
Technologies (which is behind the event), explained in an official
blog post, "[W]e've partnered with Google who has generously offered
up $20,000 to the researcher who can best their Chrome browser."
Then, in terms of Chrome-related specifics, Portnoy later continued, "[T]he
contest will be a two-part one. On day 1, Google will offer $20,000 USD and the
CR-48 if a contestant can pop the browser and escape the sandbox using
vulnerabilities purely present in Google-written code. If competitors are
unsuccessful, on day 2 and 3 the ZDI will offer $10,000 USD for a sandbox escape
in non-Google code and Google will offer $10,000 USD for the Chrome bug. Either
way, plugins other than the built-in PDF support are out of scope."
This development may not come as too much of a surprise; Google created a
vulnerability reward program quite some time ago, and has been known
to give out sums of up to $3,133.70.
Obviously, though, $20,000 is a lot more than that (about 6.38 times more, in
fact), and the publicity surrounding the competition could draw more hackers.
So it looks like Google's getting rather confident about Chrome's security.
Hackers shouldn't give up hope, though. Since Google's market cap is $194
billion, the search giant hasn't really made that huge a wager here.
We all know that Bing is now powering Yahoo's search results, but a very
interesting
finding from Danny Sullivan indicates that Google may be powering
Bing's search results, at least to some extent. No, this is not in any
partnership kind of way like Bing's relationship with Yahoo.
Google has apparently busted Bing copying their search results. Entirely? No,
but Google ran a "sting operation" as Sullivan calls it, that seems to show Bing
stealing at least top results from Google, by monitoring how Internet Explorer
and Bing toolbar users use Google.
Google created some test search results pages returning results for queries that
nobody would ever search for, and results that wouldn't make sense for such
queries. For example, a query for "hiybbprqag" would return a top result from
TeamOneTickets. A query for "mbzrxpgjys" would return RIM's homepage. A query
for " indoswiftjobinproduction" would return a result for Sandra Lee Recipes at
FoodNetwork.com.
"The only reason these pages appeared on Google was because Google forced them
to be there," explains Sullivan. "There was nothing that made them naturally
relevant for these searches. If they started to appear at Bing after Google,
that would mean that Bing took Google's bait and copied its results."
And that appears to be what happened, as Sullivan points to Bing's results
mirroring each of these examples. It's worth noting that Google found that only
a handful of the pages tested proved the point but the ones that did seem to
prove a pretty big one.
The whole thing is pretty interesting, considering the amount of criticism
Google's own search results have received in recent months - some regarding
content farms, and some not. Bing does still rank eHow as the top authority for
a "level 4 brain cancer" query (like
Google).
What's even more interesting, is that Bing hasn't come out and denied any of this, and depending on how you interpret their response, it could even be seen as a near confirmation. Here's what Bing Director Stefan Weitz told WebPronews (essentially the same thing he told Sullivan):
"We use multiple signals and approaches in ranking search results. The overarching goal is to do a better job determining the intent of the search so we can provide the most relevant answer to a given query. Opt-in programs like the toolbar help us with clickstream data, one of many input signals we and other search engines use to help rank sites."
So yeah, I guess what people are clicking on in Google results is a pretty good indication of how people interact with search, given that Google holds such a dominant share of the search market. However, as a competitor, this wouldn't seem to be the most helpful strategy for providing better results.
To be fair, we don't know all of Google's own ranking signals (because they
won't reveal them), so who's to say Google isn't looking at search activity in
Bing? Well, Google says they're not, flat out, if Google's word is good enough
for you.
Bing isn't copying Google's search results entirely...just the ones they think
users want the most for such queries, which is apparently the results Google is
providing. Sullivan offers a great deal more
analysis of the situation, and looks at more in depth into how Microsoft
may be obtaining the Google ranking signals.
Sidenote: Internet Explorer owns 56% of
the web browser market, according to a new report from Net Applications.
It was clear from the beginning of Bing's existence that it was a
direct competitor to Google, but as much of the conversation has turned to
Facebook and Apple has Google's arch rivals, Google has continued to maintain
that Bing is indeed its main competitor. Bing getting the Yahoo deal that was
almost Google's no doubt left a bitter taste in Google's mouth, and Bing
recently
joined the FairSearch coaltion to try and block the company's proposed
acquisition of ITA software.
At the time, Adam Kovacevich, Google Sr. Manager, Global Communications and
Public Affairs told WebProNews, "I'm not sure there are any surprises here.
Microsoft is our largest competitor and lobbies regulators against every
acquisition we make."
Bing may be copying Google search results, but Google has certainly done its
share of Bing copying (see design changes that have occurred since Bing's
launch, including the addition of the left panel, homepage photos, and image
search scrolling features).
Dear Google: First and foremost, my letter to you is not personal. I am a big fan of yours and always have been. You have the best search engine in the World, better than Bing. You have the best web email service. Your Google Docs product is amazing. Don't even get me started on Google Earth or Google Maps, just unbelievable products. Your analytics product is excellent. Everybody loves Android. All you do is create and create and still give it all away for free. Your Adwords business model is even shared with other businesses so they too can make lots of money.
Obviously, you are a great company and despite what some believe, you are not evil. You are great for America and an asset to the World, in my opinion.
However, when you stated the other day that you are taking steps to make sure web pages from content farms don't show up prominently in your search results it follows that you Google believe that content farmers and web spammers are bad for the Web, or at least your search engine. You said it was feedback from your users that convinced you to go after these bad content makers. So Google, if they are bad (evil?) or simply not good for the Internet then why Google are they still your partners?
It begs the question, if you are serious about making articles from content farms show up less in your top search results why don't you just do it already?
Here's what I suggest:
Step 1: Define what a content farm is. By the way, please also define what web spam is. I mean very specifically so that everyone knows what is and isn't web spam. I think I understand what you are referring to, but I am not sure. I guess examples of sites that fit the various definitions of content farms, web spam and 'mostly duplicate content' ... would be helpful. I would then suggest that you threaten them ... again. That way the bad guys who are scared of you might just leave our Internet for a different one. Or, maybe they will change their behavior and start creating content that is not so bad. Right.... (sarcastic tone intended).
But at least the sites on the edge of this behavior would know that they are OK by you and that they will continue to show up high in search results. There is nothing worse than not knowing if your business is about to implode.
Step 2: Identify publically who the content farms are. Who are the companies? What sites do those companies own? Well, one company should be rather easy for you to identify Google because it has been widely referred to as a 'content farm' in thousands of news articles and is is about to go public. That of course is Demand Media. As I understand it, this would be the first content farm to go public and if they qualify as a content farm in your book, why not tell them and their potential new investors. They even stated in their IPO related filings that one thing that could hurt their prospects in the future is if Google took steps that would hurt their business such as giving them less prominence in the search engine or removing them as an Adsense partner.
I am asking you Google for the sake of the potential shareholders of Demand Media to simply tell us if content from eHow and Demand's other sites is considered by you to be of "poor quality". After all, if Demand Media who has a staff of SEO experts and has scientific algorithms designed to create content that will rank high in search engines and who pays just a handful of dollars per article or video and who shows up in your results for medical results right next to the Mayo Clinic and WebMD ... is not considered a content farm, then who is?
I have to believe that you believe they are the poster child of content farms. Obviously Google, the writers who produce content for article factories such as Demand Media are not doctors and have no expert basis from which to write such articles. Also, I am sure everyone would agree that all content from content farms is not bad. I recently watched a great YouTube video of theirs on how to make a cocktail. I really enjoyed it and learned something too. I don't think that's web spam at all. So the real problem is subject area right? If eHow has an article on changing your tire that's probably OK, but if eHow has an article on brain surgery perhaps it shouldn't be linked to at the top of your results, right?
Step 3: Stop partnering with known companies who produce what you define as low quality content or web spam. I assume this would include Demand Media and all major content farms since the term "content farm" was a major part of Matt Cutts anti-spam blog post. Why Google do you allow sites with low quality content as defined by you to be included in your Adsense Partner Program? Or maybe you don't and I just don't realize it.
Again, all of Demand's content isn't bad. In fact, my opinion is that most of it is pretty good. The problem is that Demand (and many others) pushed the envelope too hard with accepting expert style articles written by non-experts on subjects that one would expect an expert to write. Demand also SEO's their articles so well that your Google search engine believes the articles are from experts. And because we users trust you Google we often assume that what we are clicking to from your top results is written by experts.
Matt Cutts also mentioned that Google was making a change to its algorithm, "..that primarily affects sites that copy others’ content and sites with low levels of original content". Does this include SeekingAlpha.com which derives revenue from Google Adsense and openly hosts duplicate content and appears high in Google search results? I read their stuff and I like it, but Techcrunch articles are on seekingalpha.com and so are lot's of other blogs. Are you against duplicate content or aren't you? I really want to know. I personally don't see the big deal, but it's only fair that if you Google are going to penalize sites that host duplicate content you should do it for all sites, not just the scrapers. Also, does this include article submission sites that often have copies of articles that appeared on the submitters blogs? Most of these article sites are your Google Adsense partners as well.
My opinion Google is for you to consider ending your Adsense relationship with all content producers who don't follow your search engine guidelines whether that means content farms, web spammers or sites that host "mostly duplicate content" even if they have a big web audience, look nice and professional and are a famous Internet brand.
Step 4: If all else fails I suggest Google that you give web spammers and content farmers a taste of the directory massacre technique you employed a couple of years ago. Remove from your index all links to content from sites you identify as produced by content farms, web spammers or are largely and predominently hosting copies of content from others. Yes, content farms in particular have some good content but possibly a little good content collateral damage is OK in order to get rid of all the bad stuff.
Removing all this bad content from your massive index Google will make the Internet a much better place for us all, won't it?
Last week, Google's Matt Cutts put up
a blog post talking about a shift in focus to content farms, which he
defines as "sites with shallow or low-quality content". Most people that read
this assumed he was talking about sites like some of those offered by Demand
Media (eHow.com, for example), which
launched an IPO this week valuing the company at $1.5 billion.
It's not that people thought Cutts was talking only about Demand Media, but most
of the time when an article is written about "content farms", Demand Media is
cited, as it has basically become the poster child for the phrase.
Cutts then
announced that Google has implemented an algorithm change, but things
are still rather murky with regards to whether or not this one embodies a change
geared at content farms and/or sites like those from Demand Media. Cutts refers
to "one thing" he mentioned in the original post that the new change is geared
towards, but does not mention content farms themselves.
More on this here.
Peter Kafka at AllThingsD had
a conversation with Demand Media CEO Richard Rosenblatt who maintains
that a. Demand Media is not a "content farm" and b. Matt Cutts was not talking
about Demand Media in the post.
Rosenblatt is quoted as saying, "It's not directed at us in any way," in
reference to Cutts' original comments, though he declined to comment on whether
or not he talked to Google about it.
He is also quoted as saying, "He's talking about duplicate, non-original
content. Every single piece of ours is original. Written by somebody. And I
understand how that could confuse some people, because of that stupid 'content
farm' label, which we got tagged with. I don't know who ever invented it, and
who tagged us with it, but that's not us...We keep getting tagged with 'content
farm'. It's just insulting to our writers. We don't want our writers to feel
like they're part of a 'content farm.'
That's fair. Nobody can blame Rosenblatt for not wanting the label, and the
company has indicated repeatedly that it has stepped up efforts to improve its
quality - though they clearly have a ways to go to reach a high level across the
board.
It's hard to believe, however, that Cutts meant for sites from Demand Media to
not be included under the "content farm" label. As Demand Media is generally the
first company that comes to mind or is mentioned anytime the word "content farm"
is mentioned around the web, why would Cutts use that phrase if Demand was not
included?
Cutts did say Google was evaulating a change that "primarily affects sites that
copy others’ content and sites with low levels of original content," but that
appears to be in reference to "pure webspam", as he says, quickly following
that with, "attention has shifted instead to 'content farms,' which are sites
with shallow or low-quality content."
Now, that's not to say that there aren't benefits to Google that come from
Demand Media. As Rosenblatt says in the interview, their partnership "makes
sense."
"We help them fill the gaps in their index, where they don't have quality
content...We're the largest supplier of all video to YouTube... we're a large
AdSense partner. So our relationship is synergistic, and it's a great
partnership," said Rosenblatt.
At PubCon in November,
Matt Cutts said there was a debate going on internally at Google over
whether they should consider content farms web spam, saying they were wrestling
about the topic. He said that users were pretty angry with content farms, adding
that there may be a time for web spam at Google to take action against them.
So it sounds like not everyone agreed on how to handle "content farms".
According to Rosenblatt, Demand's traffic only went up when Google implemented
changes last year like Mayday, Caffeine, and Google Instant, but it's hard to
see how Google's new approach will help it. Cutts said in his post, "We hear the
feedback from the web loud and clear: people are asking for even stronger action
on content farms and sites that consist primarily of spammy or low-quality
content."
If "people" are asking for stronger
action on "content farms", are these not the same people tagging Demand Media
with the label?
If Demand Media and other sites that are commonly labeled as content farms want
to continue to reap the Google rewards, they're going to have to keep up the
quality - that is if Google truly does take action like it has indicated, which
we've really yet to see so far.
You can still search for "level 4 brain cancer" on Google and the top 2 results
are from eHow. The top one comes from
a freelance writer with a background in marriage psychology and
family therapy, whose other featured articles on the site include titles like
"Kohler Toilet Won't Flush Completely", "Roper Dryer Won't Start", and "My
Toilet Water Smells".
Again, nothing against the author or even the article, but is it really the
first thing that Google should be showing to someone searching for a term like
"level 4 brain cancer". Wouldn't a more medical-related site make more sense -
even the local results that Google is pushing so often lately for maybe? How
about the National Brain Tumor Society at braintumor.org,
which is displayed in the paid results on
the right-hand side of the page?
The second result is also from eHow, and THEN a guide from the MGH Brain Tumor
Center. Also included in the top ten - results from Associated Content and Yahoo
Answers. Some content from the A.P. John Institute for Cancer Research is the
last result on the page. You get the idea.
Is this not the kind of thing Cutts was talking about when using the phrase
"content farm"?
The top article does not even have any links in it referencing expert
information (though it does have ad links) - no way to know if the source is
trustworthy or if the information is accurate - nothing to back anything up
(though Rosenblatt has claimed in the past that medical articles are
fact-checked with doctors). That's not to say it's not an accurate article, but
how is the reader supposed to know? How is someone with brain cancer searching
for information on the subject supposed to gain anything helpful from this
without questioning it? This is just an example, and it's not that the article
shouldn't have been written, but should it be the most prominent piece of
information related to this query? There is no information on the page
indicating that the writer is in any way an expert on the subject of brain
cancer. He's simply an "eHow contributor".
As far as Demand "filling in the gaps" for Google's search results, it may have
accomplished that, and moved much further into saturating the areas were there
are no gaps.
Therein lies the problem. This is why people are "calling for action" on content
farms, as Cutts says. Most critics will even acknowledge that there is plenty of
high quality content coming out of Demand Media, Associated Content and others,
but all too often it isn't the highest quality choice of content for the queries
for which it is being presented as such.
Google will not come out and say whether or not it considers Demand Media a
content farm. Even Bloomberg BusinessWeek
reports they've been ignoring the question from them. That
publication calls Demand a content mill, after interviewing its chief innovation
officer.
Is content from so-called "content farms" hurting people? Probably not. I like
to think
people can figure out on their own what content to trust, based on
the information and credentials required, and that more content also means more
options to help you make more informed decisions, but that doesn't mean the good
content is always easy to find under Google's current system. Sometimes the more
relevant content is buried, and the user has to work harder to reach that goal
of the informed decision.
·
New Android Logo Gets Internet Buzzing
What’s that buzzing you’re hearing? Are you surrounded by wasps? If not, it could be people reacting to Google’s newest logo; this time, for their Android 3.0 update, named “Honeycomb.”
Keeping with the look and feel of the original Android logo, while incorporating a theme that matches the Honeycomb name, the new logo is a mix between the current green guy and a blue-and-black bee, giving us this:
As you can see, the results are pretty impressive, provided going wild for new logos and graphics is important to you. Over at the Android Developers page, they have some details about the newest update, including some information about being the first Android OS to be developed with tablet PCs in mind.
Starting with Android 3.0, developers can break the Activities of their applications into subcomponents called Fragments, then combine them in a variety of ways to create a richer, more interactive experience. For example, an application can use a set of Fragments to create a true multipane UI, with the user being able to interact with each pane independently. Fragments can be added, removed, replaced, and animated inside an Activity dynamically, and they are modular and reusable across multiple Activities. Because they are modular, Fragments also offer an efficient way for developers to write applications that can run properly on both larger screen as well as smaller screen devices.
While the new logo is a neat combination, and considering it was developed for the Honeycomb update, what happens if the update is a failure? Wouldn’t Google have to consider changing the name from “Honeycomb” to “Beeswax?”
That way, they can keep using the new logo even if the updated OS doesn’t impress Android users. However, considering the open source nature of Android, users can just fool around with the source code until they’re satisfied with what they have.
Google has launched a change in its algorithm, following
a post a week ago from Matt Cutts talking about the search engine's
approach to spam and content farms. However, it is still unclear whether this
new update is the related to the "content farm" side of things.
Matt Cutts
wrote a post on his personal blog about the update, which he says
pertains to "one thing"
he mentioned in the original post. Cutts writes:
My post mentioned that "we're
evaluating multiple changes that should help drive spam levels even lower,
including one change that primarily affects sites that copy others' content and
sites with low levels of original content." That change was approved at our
weekly quality launch meeting last Thursday and launched earlier this week.
This was a pretty targeted launch:
slightly over 2% of queries change in some way, but
less than half a percent of search results
change enough that someone might really notice.
The net effect is that searchers are more
likely to see the sites that wrote the original content rather than a site that
scraped or copied the original site’s content. (emphasis added)
As far as I can tell, it would appear that the "one thing" Cutts is referring to
with this new update, is when he said in the previous post, "We're evaluating
multiple changes that should help drive spam levels even lower,
including one change that primarily affects
sites that copy others’ content and sites with low levels of original content."
In that first post, Cutts acknowledged that "pure webspam" has decreased over
time, which to me sounds like a good reason that this new update would only
impact "slightly over 2%" of queries.
Though
comments from Demand Media CEO Richard Rosenblatt seem to lump
"content farms" into this area, the original post from Cutts appears to
reference content farms as a separate issue, and one which the company intends
to put more focus on. Content farms, as defined by Cutts, are "sites with
shallow or low-quality content." Read
more on this here, where I pointed out that everyone thinks of Demand
Media when they think of content farm, so it would make little sense to use this
terminology if it didn't include this kind of content - see below:
Cutts says that with the new update, "less
than half a percent of search results change enough that someone might really
notice." That doesn't sound like something that will affect the
content farms described in the original post, where he said, "We hear the
feedback from the web loud and clear: people are asking for even stronger action
on content farms and sites that consist primarily of spammy or low-quality
content."
Reports out there seem to be rolling this all into one thing, but that's not how
I'm reading it. As there seems to be confusion, as indicated by Rosenblatt's
comments, I've asked Cutts to clarify, and will update when he responds.
The words "content farm" do not
appear in the new post.
Google has stated many times that content should be written for the reader of the content and not to rank in search engines. I assume this would go for YouTube videos as well. It is an excellent approach for search engines to take in my opinion because theoretically if every content producer follows this standard, search results would be filled with high quality relevant links.
Unfortunately, every blogger or content publisher doesn't follow this 'write for the user' approach. Many spammy content mills working with black hat SEO companies have been creating this content for years. It often includes paid links to sites and is created to raise the search ranking of the SEO's customers site in Google and other search engines. Google is aware of this and has been rather effective in keeping these articles out of top search results.
However, Google's principal of rewarding publishers with top search results who create content for users rather than a high search result is now suspect. Google is clearly rewarding content that is produced by SEO'd content powerhouse Demand Media with top results in its search engine. They are major Adsense partners of Google as well which I delineated in my recent article, "Google: Are You Really Serious About Web Spam?".
Has Google's search result philosophy changed? Is Google now encouraging all of us content makers to write for search results rather than the reader? If so, has Google jumped the shark as the greatest search engine by not favoring the best content over SEO'd content?
Demand Media which just had a highly successful IPO valuing the company at over $1.5 billion is openly running an SEO'd content mill. They are producing content for the sole purpose of ranking for thousands of keywords in Google. They have article topic request for submitters that are based on titles that are designed specifically to rank for certain keywords in Google. They have search engine specialist employed to direct programmers to write sophisticated algorithms that give them data on what subjects to write about and how to structure articles to appear in top results for a search term.
Demand Media's entire business model is built around creating content that will rank high in millions of long-tail search results which contain Google ads that will be clicked on over a number of years. Google is obviously aware of Demand's SEO'd content and their Adwords revenue strategy which makes Google's perceived stance of encouraging bloggers and publishers to write 'content for users, not their search engine' a joke.
The problem with content produced for search results is that it competes with content produced for users. It comes down to what makes the best search results, articles written with passion and experience and for the reader or articles written to rank high for a search term by someone paid ten bucks?
Google, it's time to revisit whether you want to remain the best in search or just the best in getting ad clicks.
And Google, in order to remain the best ... you must punish with lower search
results 'write to rank'
articles!
More on the topic here:
Demand Media CEO: Google Not
Talking About Us
Google has a new project in the works that appears to be a direct competitor to
Groupon. It's called Google Offers. According to an official fact sheet about
the product,
obtained by Mashable, Google Offers is "a new product to help
potential customers and clientele find great deals in their area through a daily
email."
Should Groupon have sold to Google when it had the chance?
Share your thoughts.
This sounds exactly like Groupon, and based on the screenshot embedded in the
document (view the whole thing
here), it looks quite similar too.
"For businesses, it's a smart and easy way to find new high -value customers and
bring them right to you," the sheet says. "With our prepaid model, there are no
out-of-pocket expenses to spread the word about your business to the millions of
Google users and subscribers in your local area. You only pay when a customer
buys your offer."
Benefits mentioned in the document include: getting in front of potential
customers in your city, bringing in both new and valuable customers with great
deals, exposure across Google ad networks at no additional cost, managing your
offer with tools to track and measure ROI, and getting paid quickly with no
out-of-pocket expenses.
It then proceeds to outline a five-step process for businesses to create an
offer, market it, run the offer, collect the money, and serve customers.
Now, the product is not widely available yet, but the company has confirmed that
it is in fact real. Google
gave Search Engine Land the following statement:
Google is communicating with small
businesses to enlist their support and participation in a test of a pre-paid
offers/vouchers program. This initiative is part of an ongoing effort at Google
to make new products, such as the recent Offer Ads beta, that connect businesses
with customers in new ways. We do not have more details to share at this time,
but will keep you posted.
So, the keyword there is "test", but it's hard to imagine this not turning into
a full-fledged offering, considering the company's obvious thirst for jumping
into this space. As you probably know, Google recently offered a reported $6
billion to acquire Groupon, the leader in the deals space, but Groupon turned it
down, and is reportedly preparing for a $15 billion IPO.
The question is: was Groupon smart
to turn down Google’s offer? All valuations are based on growth,
and a lot can happen in a year – especially a year when Google is one of your
main competitors. And Google already has a lot of relationships with businesses
and users (through various products, search, business listings, advertising,
etc.) that Groupon is still working on building.
During Google's earnings call, in which the company discussed the new changes in
management, co-founder Sergey Brin
alluded to some new products that are coming, but would not get
specific. We wonder if this is one he was referring to.
Google's former VP of Search Products and User Experience, Marissa Mayer, who
recently
shifted to Google's products and services related to local markets
and geolocation, pointed out recently that
Google already has Groupon-like products.
"I think that when you look at our overall suite of services, especially around
our advertising, we already have some things that are like this," Mayer said in
an
interview with Media Beat (embedded below). "We have things like
coupons and offer extension ads that allow merchants to basically make offers to
our users. So we're looking at how we can take that technology and put it to
use, especially in the location space."
Well, Google Offers would be a much more obvious product to compete in the
space, and could only complement Google's existing offerings, which span far and
wide. According to Google's earnings report for the fourth quarter of 2010,
Google generated $8.44 billion in revenue. Obviously much of that is from
advertising. You can see the exact breakdown as reported
here.
Google's advertising reach is far and wide, and the company is
increasingly returning local search results over true organic web
results in general searches. If Google Offers gets incorporated into this (and
it's hard to imagine that it won't), it's going to be incredibly powerful. It's
worth noting that Google Offers also utilizes Google Checkout from the looks of
the screenshot, but that's another story.
So, one has to wonder if Google made the right decision by rejecting Google's
offer. Should the company have accepted or does it have the power to remain a
leader in the space?
Groupon is rapidly expanding into more countries (sometimes
by acquisition of other Groupon clones), and it just
raised nearly a billion dollars in a recent round of funding. Groupon
says it intends to use this toward fueling global expansion, investing in
technology, and providing liquidity for employees and early investors.
Groupon is also
gearing up to advertise during the Super Bowl pre-game (the game
itself was sold out). This should attract a lot of eyeballs, and could help
spread the Groupon brand name to a lot more people who aren't already using it.
It's also worth noting, however, that last year, Google ran it's first-ever TV
spot during the Super Bowl. The leak of Google Offers comes at an interesting
time (just before the AFC and NFC championship games, which will determine who
goes to the Super Bowl, to be played next month). Could Google have something in
store for the Big Game this year?
Before announcing his new role with the company,
Eric Schmidt discussed the key points of Google's strategy for 2011,
and they are all about mobile. And where does local search work the best?
Perhaps it's premature to say, but Google may become a force to be reckoned with
in the deals space that Groupon is currently enjoying. Google hasn't had the
best of luck in all of it's endeavors, but this has potentially huge ties to
both of the things Google is best at - search and advertising. Plus, it's not
like acquiring more Groupon clones is out of the question.
Related: If
You're Not Local, How Can You Compete in an Increasingly Local Google?
Will Google dominate the deals
space?
Tell us what you think in the comments, or
join the discussion on our Facebook page.
Google may be losing some of its charm. Two months after Groupon supposedly
turned down an acquisition offer worth $6 billion, rumors indicate that a small
company called Path has declined an offer worth an initial $100 million.
If you haven't heard of Path, you're not alone. "The Personal Network," as
former Facebook employee and Path CEO Dave Morin labeled it in an
introductory blog post, just launched in November, and has only seen
around two million "moments shared" between users since then. (Divide that by
two or three to get an optimistic user count.)
Anyway, Michael Arrington
wrote this afternoon, "Google made a move, eventually offering $100
million for the company plus an earnout of $20 million or so. . . . Taking that
Google offer would seem to most people like a no brainer."
"But," Arrington continued, "Path turned the offer down. And Kleiner stepped in
and invested. At a roughly $25 million pre-money valuation, we've heard from
multiple sources."
So let the speculation begin. Will Path be the next Facebook/Twitter/whatever?
Did the company blow a golden opportunity? Does Google have way too much
money? Or are we looking at another broad tech bubble?
We'll be sure to pay more attention to Path in the future, regardless.
Using an app on a smartphone can be both easy and fun. Browsing through dozens
or hundreds of them, on the other hand, might result in an unscheduled trip to
the optometrist. So this afternoon, Google introduced the Android Market
website in the midst of some other Android announcements.
The Android Market website is exactly what its name should lead you to expect: a
site that lets users navigate the Android Market from a normal browser. A post
on the
Google Mobile Blog explained, "The website makes it easy to discover
great new apps with a bigger, brighter interface."
This development isn't just about screen sizes and the accuracy of mice,
however. The post continued, "You can also send apps directly to your Android
device with just a few clicks - no wires needed. We've built in new social
features, too. You can share apps with your friends through Twitter. And you
can read and post app reviews directly to Android Market from the web or from
your device."
The
Android Market website should be live in the very near future (or
now, actually, except some people have reported problems signing in). Expect
app sales to increase as a result.
As for those other announcements, Android developers are sure to welcome new
support for in-app payments. This will help them sell small add-ons and
upgrades to users without cooking up a whole new app.
Then just about everybody who comes into contact with Honeycomb should
appreciate improved graphics brought on by hardware acceleration, built-in video
chat, easy multitasking, and a new notification system.
Depending on who you ask, Google Music is either weeks or months away from
launching.
A report from Businessweek
suggests that the launch may come as soon as next month.
Whereas CNET
says we're months, rather than weeks, away. So, what's the hold up
here?
Business Insider has a new theory.
An anonymous source of theirs, who has "extensive knowledge" of the online music
space, told them that publishers are dragging their heels. Surprise.
The Situation
Google wants to launch a music service that lets users buy songs and have them
downloaded into the cloud – accessible from anywhere. The problem appears to be
that the publishers expect to be paid for every download. This is why Apple and
Amazon don't allow repeat downloads. Even though it's outrageous to expect fans
to pay twice to download songs they've already bought – that's the situation.
If a fan buys a song at home, stores it in the cloud, and wants to download that
same song onto their work computer, publishers expect to get paid –
again.
It's a bit anti-consumer of publishers to have
these expectations, but this is the music industry.
Business Insider's source doesn't see anyone getting a license to launch a
consumer pleasing personal cloud service anytime soon. Why?
The major labels are very uncomfortable with "a model where you can just throw
anything into the cloud and stream it, if what you threw into the cloud was not
legitimately purchased," said Sony Music executive Thomas Hesse at MIDEM.
Take a Mile
If the major labels give fans an inch, they will take a mile.
The most avid file-sharers, in theory, could create their own personal
cloud-based music service with a big enough collection. The labels don't want
that.
However, Michael Robertson of MP3tunes.com is in a legal battle now with EMI. If
he wins, it would make Google's negotiations with rightsholders unnecessary.
Stay tuned.
Originally pubished on HypeBot.com
About three weeks ago, Google announced that Chrome would no longer support the
H.264 video codec. Now, following some unpleasantness over allegedly copied
search results, Microsoft's struck back by introducing an H.264 extension for
Chrome.
To be fair, there's room for interpretation regarding how aggressive this move
is (or isn't). Microsoft's offered similar plug-ins for Firefox for quite some
time, and no one's identified any real animosity there.
But on the official
IEBlog, a post stated this morning, "Developers want confidence that
what they write will work for consumers. Consumers and businesses want
confidence that video on the Web will continue work - and that they will not
face legal risk for using it. Google's decision to drop support for H.264 from
its browser seems to undermine these goals."
Meanwhile, on the
Interoperability @ Microsoft blog, a different post added, "At
Microsoft we respect that Windows customers want the best experience of the web
including the ability to enjoy the widest range of content available on the
Internet in H.264 format."
So there you have it: subtle arguments that what Google's doing isn't in
everybody's best interest.
Now place your bets on whether a future version of Chrome will break
Microsoft's extension, and if so, how long it will be before this
devolves into engineers from Google and Microsoft having a loud exchange of the
"He's touching me!"/"No I'm not!" variety.
iPhone owners now have another option when it comes to apps that can help them
save money. Almost exactly a year after it became available to Android users, a
version of Google Shopper for the iPhone has launched.
Obviously, Google's a little late to this game on the iOS platform, and the new
version of Google Shopper doesn't offer any fresh, groundbreaking features. But
the app is free, and its functionality is hard to dispute.
To start with, users can "[l]earn more about products and read relevant user
reviews," as a post on the
Google Mobile Blog explained. It's possible to "[c]ompare prices at
online and local stores," and "[s]ave and share products for later
consideration," as well.
Meanwhile, the real advantage of Google's tool is that it works off typed
searches, barcode scans, or voice searches, which is rather unique.
We're sure at least a few iPhone owners will give the app a try. Then Google's
no doubt hoping the exposure will improve users' opinion of its brand, and
perhaps nudge them towards trying Android the next time they shop for a
smartphone.
Our readers outside the U.S. should just note that Google Shopper's only
available to people in America and the U.K. at the moment.
Google announced that it is now adding results from Hotpot right in regular
Google.com search results (with the local Google Places results it's already
putting there).
If you're not familiar with Hotpot, launched late last year, this video pretty
much sums it up:
was
inevitable, and it's available in 38 languages now, and it certainly makes
search results more social. That is if you actually have friends using Hotpot.
I'd say there's a good chance you probably have more friends using Twitter,
however, and they're naturally talking about local businesses, restaurants, etc.
That's why I'm anticipating some kind of integration for the
recently picked up fflick technology, which the company
says is for YouTube, into search results.
In a
recent article at Bloomberg BusinessWeek talking about Google's
mysterious "social layer" project, it said:
Two sources familiar with it, who asked
not to be named because the project is not yet public, confirm that it is
tentatively called Google +1 and that it is designed
to cull data about relationships among users from current services such as Gmail
and YouTube.Google will then let users share material through those connections,
while using the information to make other products more social. Search results
may be skewed toward pages that your friends found useful—for
instance, a Google Maps query for nearby Italian restaurants could return one
that was positively reviewed by someone you know. (emphasis added).
If Google tapped more than just its native Hotpot for delivering friends'
reviews of search results, it could be very powerful. What if you got results
from friends on Twitter, Foursquare, and other check-in services? They did just
add new
ways to check in with Google Latitude.
For now, it's just Hotpot though, so we won't get too far ahead of ourselves.
Either way, Google is more aggressively trying to deliver personalized
recommendations. The review sites like Yelp, who are already critical of Google,
are going to love this.
Bing was
called out for copying Google search results in
a revealing piece by Danny Sullivan, which chronicled a "sting
operation" by Google to bust Bing doing so.
Not long after the article came out, Google's Matt Cutts and Bing's Harry Shum
discussed the matter in front of an audience at a search event. While
the two didn't start throwing punches and kept things fairly civilized, the
tension was not hard to spot. The two did take some shots at each other. Bing
gave reporters the following canned response on the matter:
"We use multiple signals and approaches
in ranking search results. The overarching goal is to do a better job
determining the intent of the search so we can provide the most relevant answer
to a given query. Opt-in programs like the toolbar help us with clickstream
data, one of many input signals we and other search engines use to help rank
sites."
Shum then
posted a more elaborate version of that on Bing's blog. Clearly,
Google was not satisfied with Bing's response however, and was not going to let
that be the final word on the subject, as
Google took to its own official blog, just in case not everyone saw
Sullivan's article.
"As we see it, this experiment confirms our suspicion that Bing is using some
combination of: Internet Explorer 8, which can send data to Microsoft via its
Suggested Sites feature, the Bing Toolbar, which can send data via Microsoft's
Customer Experience Improvement Program, or possibly some other means to send
data to Bing on what people search for on Google and the Google search results
they click," wrote Google Fellow Amit Singhal. "Those results from Google are
then more likely to show up on Bing.
Put another way, some Bing results
increasingly look like an incomplete, stale version of Google results—a cheap
imitation."
"At Google we strongly believe in innovation and are proud of our search
quality," he added. "We've invested thousands of person-years into developing
our search algorithms because we want our users to get the right answer every
time they search, and that's not easy. We look forward to competing with
genuinely new search algorithms out there—algorithms built on core innovation,
and not on recycled search results from a competitor. So to all the users out
there looking for the most authentic, relevant search results, we encourage you
to come directly to Google. And to those who have asked what we want out of all
this, the answer is simple: we'd
like for this practice to stop." (emphasis added)
I'm guessing this won't be the last thing said about the issue from either
company. Things are growing more and more bitter between these search rivals.
Google has repeatedly downplayed Apple and Facebook competition, claiming that
Bing is their main competitor.
Facebook, Foursquare, and Gowalla (along with several other companies) now have
a little more competition when it comes to location-based check-in services.
Starting this afternoon, Google Latitude users can also let their friends know
when they've arrived at a certain place.
Google's rationale for this upgrade is that check-ins add context. Now, rather
than just seeing a pal is on a certain street, a user can figure out whether
he's grabbing a drink at a coffee shop or buying a new vehicle at the adjacent
car dealer.
As for how it works, the check-in process can be about as discreet or obtrusive
as desired. Options range from notifications - where Latitude will nudge users
to check in at nearby places - to automatic check-ins and check-outs to keep
people from fumbling with their phones or appearing to spend the night at
Walmart.
Then here's an incentive for individuals to play along: the act of checking in
can take a person to a business's Place page, allowing them to learn more about
it.
There shouldn't be much to worry about on the privacy side of things, either. A
post on the
Official Google Blog explained, "[W]e thought carefully about how to
make checking in to places quick and easy while giving you control over your
privacy. Just like when sharing your location with Latitude, checking in is
100% opt-in, and you can choose to share any check-in with your friends on
Latitude, publicly on the web and your Google profile, or just yourself."
The main problem, of course, is that Google's quite late to the check-in game
and could have some trouble getting potential users' attention.
When making a big decision, many people like to do some research on their own
before meeting with a salesperson. And sellers might prefer this arrangement,
too, since it saves them from having to answer the same basic questions over and
over. So Google's probably made a wise move by releasing a "Guide to Going
Google" for schools and universities.
Think of this as a sophisticated online sales brochure designed to promote
Google Apps for Education. A post on the
Official Google Enterprise Blog explained that the
Guide "provides tools and resources that help students, faculty,
staff and alumni make the most of your transition."
More specifically, "The guide outlines six steps to successfully going Google:
technical deployment, outreach, training, getting the word out, going live, and
staying up to date."
Also, by offering two different editions, Google made sure people at
institutions of all sizes and makeups (in terms of students' ages) would be able
to find info related to their situation.
It's easy to imagine this will persuade some teachers, professors, and
administrators to take the next step. Then in case anyone's in need of
additional encouragement, Google put together a video highlighting Google Apps
success stories at a few different colleges.
least a couple more instances of Google Apps adoption to occur as a result.
As previously
reported, Danny Sullivan
revealed a "sting operation" set up by Google, which appears to show
that Bing has been copying some of their search results. Bing has now responded
with more than the canned statement it previously gave to reporters.
"We use over 1,000 different signals and features in our ranking algorithm. A
small piece of that is clickstream data we get from some of our customers, who
opt-in to sharing anonymous data as they navigate the web in order to help us
improve the experience for all users,"
wrote Harry Shum, corporate VP at Bing in a blog post. "To be clear,
we learn from all of our customers. What we saw in today’s story was a spy-novelesque
stunt to generate extreme outliers in tail query ranking. It was a creative
tactic by a competitor, and we'll take it as a back-handed compliment. But it
doesn’t accurately portray how we use opt-in customer data as one of many inputs
to help improve our user experience."
"The history of the web and the improvement of a broad array of consumer and
business experiences is actually the story of collective intelligence, from
sharing HTML documents to hypertext links to click data and beyond. Many
companies across the Internet use this collective intelligence to make their
products better every day," Shum continued. "We all learn from our collective
customers, and we all should."
"From its inception, we have had what we believe is a distinct approach to
search, and the features and innovation in Bing – from our new user experience
and visual organization approach to our focus on inferring user intent and
helping customers complete complex tasks, Bing has added a new voice and new
experiences to search," he added. "We never set out to build another version of
an existing search engine."
That post came before Shum joined Matt Cutts and Blekko CEO Rich Skrenta on a
panel at
the Farsight Summit. It was discussion around this topic, which
dominated the conversation. Most of the time was spent with Shum and Cutts going
back and forth on the subject, though much in the way of new information came to
light.
Essentially Cutts maintained the Google position of "Bing's cheating", and Shum
maintained the position described above.
"My view is that we just discovered a new form of spam or click fraud and the
Google engineers helped us to figure it out," Shum said at the event, adding
that he wishes people could share things like that with them before taking it to
the press and getting a "wow effect".
He also said that it would be great if he and Matt could compare signals that
they could use.
Right.
He also said Google needs to be more transparent. Matt said he thinks Google is
about as transparent as it can be without giving away signals that would let
people spam the search engine.
Shum did play the "Google has a toolbar too" card, but Cutts said users see "big
red capital letters" letting them know about the data sharing as soon as they
install it.
What it all boils down to is that Microsoft is looking at user clicks whether
they are using Bing, Google, Blekko, or whatever, but Google is not, according
to Cutts. "We don't use clicks from Bing's users in Google's rankings," he said.
Google has partnered with some of the world's most well known art museums to
bring the works of more than 400 artists online.
The
Google Art Project allows users to take a virtual tour inside 17 art
museums and view more than 1,000 works via Street View. Some of the museums
include, The Metropolitan Museum of Art and MoMA in New York, The State
Hermitage Museum in St. Petersburg, Tate Britain & The National Gallery in
London, Museo Reina Sofia in Madrid, the Uffizi Gallery in Florence and Van Gogh
Museum in Amsterdam.
Key features of the
Google Art Project include:
*Dive into brushstroke-level
detail: On top of the 1,000+ other images, each of the 17
museums selected one artwork to be photographed in extraordinary detail using
super high resolution or “gigapixel” photo-capturing technology. Each of these
images contains around 7 billion pixels.
*Explore inside the museums:
the Street View team designed a brand-new vehicle called the “trolley” to take
360-degree images of the interior of selected galleries. These were then
stitched together and mapped to their location, enabling smooth navigation of
more than 385 rooms within the museums.
*Create your own collection:
With the “Create an Artwork Collection” feature, you can save specific
views of any of the artworks and build your own personalized collection.
Google has devised a way for Egyptians to tweet by calling a phone number and leaving a voicemail. The voicemail will be automatically interpreted into text and tweeted in real-time. This is extremely important to the democracy movement in Egypt in light of an attempt by the Egyption government to close Internet communication. Here is Google's blog post announcing the arrangement:
"Like many people we’ve been glued to the news unfolding in Egypt and thinking
of what we could do to help people on the ground. Over the weekend we came up
with the idea of a speak-to-tweet service—the ability for anyone to tweet using
just a voice connection.
We worked with a small team of engineers from Twitter, Google and SayNow, a
company we
acquired last week, to make this idea a reality. It’s already live
and anyone can tweet by simply leaving a voicemail on one of these international
phone numbers (+16504194196 or +390662207294 or +97316199855) and the service
will instantly tweet the message using the hashtag #egypt. No Internet
connection is required. People can listen to the messages by dialing the same
phone numbers or going to
twitter.com/speak2tweet.
We hope that this will go some way to helping people in Egypt stay connected at
this very difficult time. Our thoughts are with everyone there."
I write a fair amount about local search because it's an important topic that's only going to become more important as millions upon millions of folks move over to smart phones to do their browsing and shopping.
The undisputed leader in all things search is Google and so it's important to pay close attention to the shifting landscape of local tools and services created and supported by Google. You might want to start with this overview video from Google – How Local Search Ranking Works.
In today's post I want to cover the Google Place page and make sure you understand some of the ways to get this centerpiece in the local search game working hard for you.
1) Claim – The first step of course is to claim your Place page. There's a pretty good chance that a listing exists from a phone record so start with Add Your Listing page and see if you can locate by phone number. Once you do you'll be given the chance to edit the listing. You will have to verify ownership and any changes to basic information will require that you verify again, but make sure you do it. Take the official Google Place Page tour here.
List your business name exactly as it is, don't get cute by adding geographic terms as Google may whack you for this. List your address and even if you have a toll free number list your local number as the area code is a big location signal for Google (You can list more than one number.)
Home based business or businesses that want to designate a wide service area can choose this option in Service Areas and Location Settings and then list zip codes or service distance and then hide the home address from the listing if they like. – This video describes service areas.
2) Keywords, Categories, and Description – During the process of enhancing your profile you will get the chance to pick the category that best describes your business. You get to use 5 and you should add them all. Make sure you use the most accurate terms suggested by Google in their list, but you can create custom categories not on the list if they are indeed accurate. This is a place where Google gets a little miffed if you try to stuff location words in so be careful and don't get too creative.
Use your description to get your important keywords and location terms in – blah blah blah a keyword and keyword service serving city, suburb and neighborhood – but don't stuff, make these read well to human eyeballs.
3) Add Video and Images - Google gives you the ability to add photos and video and you should take advantage of this. In fact, you absolutely should add at least one photo, even if it's just your logo, as it will show next to your listing in place searches. You get the chance to upload a photo from your computer, but consider adding images to Google Picasa or Flickr and taking the time to geotag them. This way when you add the photos by giving Google the URL to the photo you get some extra geographic data.
You can list up to 5 YouTube video URLs and my feeling is that if these are described, optimized and geotagged well on YouTube (a Google company) it can only help your cause. Video embedded in your page also makes for a more engaging page when someone shows up too.
4) Google Tags and Google Boost - Tags and Boost are two new local advertising options for your Place Page and they do cost money. By purchasing either of these options you won't enhance your chances to show up higher in Google's index, but you can make your listing stand out and they may be worth the fairly low cost.
For a flat monthly fee of $25, businesses can enhance their listings that appear on Google.com and Google Maps with a yellow tag that emphasizes specific information such as a coupon, video, website, menu, reservations, photos, or a custom message.
Boost enables business owners to easily create online search ads from directly within their Google Places account. This way your local ads show up in the sponsored results and you get a blue pin instead of a red one. (Not available everywhere yet – use this form to get notified when it's available in your city)
5) Rate and Review – Anyone visiting your Google Place Page can write a review as long as they have a Google account. Ratings appear to play a fairly significant role in getting your Place Page to rank well although Google won't say much on the subject. Getting lots of positive reviews, even if they weren't a ranking factor is good for business. While you don't want to create anything that is fake you do want to put some energy into stimulating reviews.
§ Any time a customer compliments ask for a review, post those reviews in other prominent places such as your store and website.
§ Go through your list of customers and highlight those with GMail addresses – there's a good chance they are can more easily participate.
§ Get in the habit of reviewing your business customers, suppliers and partners – check out the Google Hotpot tool.
The local search game will continue to evolve, but don't pass up this chance to start building your local foundation right now!
Originally published on DuctTapeMarketing.com
Last week, Demand Media
launched its initial public offering. Today, the company announced
the closing of the IPO of 10,235,000 shares of common stock at $17.00 per share.
From the release:
Demand Media sold 5,175,000 shares of
common stock, and the selling stockholders sold 5,060,000 shares of common stock
in the offering. Demand Media received net proceeds of approximately $77.2
million from the sale of its shares, after deducting the underwriting discount
and estimated offering expenses. Demand Media intends to use the net proceeds
for investments in content, international expansion, working capital, product
development, sales and marketing activities, general and administrative matters
and capital expenditures. Demand Media will not receive any of the proceeds from
the sale of shares of common stock by the selling stockholders.
After the launch, it didn't take long for Demand Media to rack up a valuation
surpassing even the New York Times, with a market cap of $1.8
billion, according to reports.
The question still remains, however, whether Demand will be able to live up to
its high valuation, with a model that greatly depends on Google, who has been
talking about shifting the focus of its webspam reduction efforts to "content
farms". It's been debated whether or not "content farms" refers to sites such as
those from Demand Media, and I'm not going to repeat the spiel here. If you want
to see a variety of takes on the topic, read the following articles and reader
comments that go with them:
- Is This Google Algorithm Change About Content Farms or Not?
- Demand Media CEO: Google Not Talking About Us
- Should 'Write To Rank' Articles Be Punished by Google?
- Google: Are You Really Serious About Removing Web Spam?
The bottom line is that Google has been silent on whether or not Demand's sites
are considered content farms by their standards, though a simple Google search
for the phrase "content farm" will bring you up numerous results mentioning
Demand Media.
We may see more quality content (or at least content perceived as such) coming
from Demand Media in the future, as the company
will reportedly seek to acquire premium content sites. They've
already tapped celebrities (like
Tyra Banks) in the past, so it would not be surprising to see more moves
like that.
