<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Google economist on Google&#8217;s success: Huh?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://joeduck.com/2008/02/25/google-economist-on-googles-success-huh/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://joeduck.com/2008/02/25/google-economist-on-googles-success-huh/</link>
	<description>Have Blog. Will Travel.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 18:54:27 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dan Keldsen</title>
		<link>http://joeduck.com/2008/02/25/google-economist-on-googles-success-huh/#comment-74412</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Dan Keldsen]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Feb 2008 01:39:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://joeduck.wordpress.com/?p=1539#comment-74412</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;Caution, has been shown to be habit forming.&quot; - that&#039;s certainly a far more plausible story than &quot;heck, we&#039;re just so good, what can I say?&quot;

Transparency is tricky - and I&#039;d say despite talk of transparency, as you say, there&#039;s a fair amount of opaque on that slide...

Like most, I&#039;m addicted to google for web search as well - it&#039;s far too easy to &quot;just google it&quot; - even though, as someone covering enterprise search, I make sure I change it up from time to time and specifically explore alternative tools, both personally, and in presenting options as examples in research documents or literal presentations.

For anyone to ever believe their own marketing so deeply as to not question their status, is the path topples giants. Recall Hotbot? Excite? Altavista? Excite could do no wrong, for a while, until the wheels fell off.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Caution, has been shown to be habit forming.&#8221; &#8211; that&#8217;s certainly a far more plausible story than &#8220;heck, we&#8217;re just so good, what can I say?&#8221;</p>
<p>Transparency is tricky &#8211; and I&#8217;d say despite talk of transparency, as you say, there&#8217;s a fair amount of opaque on that slide&#8230;</p>
<p>Like most, I&#8217;m addicted to google for web search as well &#8211; it&#8217;s far too easy to &#8220;just google it&#8221; &#8211; even though, as someone covering enterprise search, I make sure I change it up from time to time and specifically explore alternative tools, both personally, and in presenting options as examples in research documents or literal presentations.</p>
<p>For anyone to ever believe their own marketing so deeply as to not question their status, is the path topples giants. Recall Hotbot? Excite? Altavista? Excite could do no wrong, for a while, until the wheels fell off.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: horatiox</title>
		<link>http://joeduck.com/2008/02/25/google-economist-on-googles-success-huh/#comment-74395</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[horatiox]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Feb 2008 16:46:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://joeduck.wordpress.com/?p=1539#comment-74395</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Interesting analysis from Freakonomics, but I don&#039;t think it&#039;s that rational. Google functions like an online clique or club (or perhaps sibling group). BY googling, the consumer-searcher vicariously participates in the phunn that, like Google alpha-executives participate: you, for a few nano-moments, are sort of a virtual executive!  The name itself (some massive number with millions of zeroes following it, ah believe) connotes geekiness. Billy Bob and Daisy Mae now with a few points and clicks may join the Yakuza, or something. 

Academic economists often suggest that they are doing something like science, but a closer inspection of consumerism shows that the supposed &quot;rational choice&quot; is anything but rational: it&#039;s more like &lt;i&gt;higher-primate consumption patterns &lt;/i&gt;or something (and there is, for the few empirically-inclined among us, data suggesting that consumer preferences often operate sort of unconsciously, if not in some nearly Darwinian fashion). Veblen had suggested as much a few decades ago, with his theory of &quot;conspicuous consumption.&quot; (perhaps not &quot;true in all possible worlds&quot;, but accurate in most market contexts).]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Interesting analysis from Freakonomics, but I don&#8217;t think it&#8217;s that rational. Google functions like an online clique or club (or perhaps sibling group). BY googling, the consumer-searcher vicariously participates in the phunn that, like Google alpha-executives participate: you, for a few nano-moments, are sort of a virtual executive!  The name itself (some massive number with millions of zeroes following it, ah believe) connotes geekiness. Billy Bob and Daisy Mae now with a few points and clicks may join the Yakuza, or something. </p>
<p>Academic economists often suggest that they are doing something like science, but a closer inspection of consumerism shows that the supposed &#8220;rational choice&#8221; is anything but rational: it&#8217;s more like <i>higher-primate consumption patterns </i>or something (and there is, for the few empirically-inclined among us, data suggesting that consumer preferences often operate sort of unconsciously, if not in some nearly Darwinian fashion). Veblen had suggested as much a few decades ago, with his theory of &#8220;conspicuous consumption.&#8221; (perhaps not &#8220;true in all possible worlds&#8221;, but accurate in most market contexts).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

