Comments on: Google’s knol project

By: Fools Gold

Fools Gold — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 06:50:51 +0000

Perhaps its simply easier to copyright “Knol” than “Knowledge”.
I see a good deal of internet comment viewing this in terms of monetizing wikipedia.

By: pipa

pipa — Sun, 16 Dec 2007 16:21:21 +0000

What does knol mean? Doesn’t sound like a “no”? :p

By: Google's Knol Project Update - Lots of BUZZ on the Internet | zedomax.com - a blog about DIYs, hacks(wii hacks, iphone hacks), and satiric opinions on gadgets and technology today.

Sun, 16 Dec 2007 02:25:18 +0000

[...] Joe Duck – Google’s knol project [...]

By: Fools Gold

Fools Gold — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 22:58:48 +0000

Well, using the example of Insomnia and general Sleep Hygiene, I’m sure the page will be in the ‘pablum’ category. Nothing new, nothing controversial, nothing offensive to major corporations or advertisers. If you have Insomnia, Google Knol will turn out to be a great page to read: it will make you start yawning right away! Yet there will be credentials and what passes for the ‘high road’ to quality.

By: JoeDuck

JoeDuck — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 17:50:20 +0000

monetization of mediocrity

Ha – nice turn of phrase there FG. You have also created a completely adequate description of the world of internet publishing revenue.

From the blurb and example it appears Google will try to take a “high road” and keep the quality and credentials high. However, any money schemes will become a slippery slope to diminished quality.

By: Fools Gold

Fools Gold — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 16:30:23 +0000

Well, if you divide the world into “gruel, pablum and oatmeal” the gruel will be monetized and of interest to some, the pablum will be monetized and of interest to many and the oatmeal will be monetized and of interest to an unknown number. In reality, I think we are looking at the monetization of mediocrity with no requirement that the named “author” is the actual creator rather than a cream-skimmer. Maybe I’ll actually go to this Google Knol stuff an create a page on butterflies. I don’t mind having my name linked to a topic on which I know nothing…as long as I somehow get ad revenue from Google.

By: JoeDuck

JoeDuck — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 16:09:24 +0000

FG I think this will be a simpler format – working towards a quick authority article rather than for big time research. It’ll be interesting to see how if they stop treating the wiki articles as favorably as now. Monetization of this will also be interesting – I’m guessing they’ll do a rev share with authors, which is a good approach IMO.

By: Fools Gold

Fools Gold — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:21:09 +0000

Does the knol project constitute an implicit admission that “Google Scholar” is a failure? Or atleast that it is inadequate and cumbersome?

I would think that anyone putting a search term into google scholar would come up with the information that would be expected to be in this knol project. Or atleast would come up with the search hits that would be the raw data for the knol project.

Perhaps its an admission that Google Scholar is not so scholarly. Is this Knol Project a “lets skim the cream off WikiPedia and profit by it” venture? A way to provide WikiPedia content with ads by injecting some intermediaries who will make meaningless changes?