Google are you becoming an Ads hole?


Google's claims about keeping organic listings separate from advertising are ringing increasingly hollow. I actually think they have every right to do exactly what they appear to be doing now – mixing ads and organic listings – they just should not mislead people about this, claiming that they don't do it!

Here's a search for "dallas to SFO". The results page sports not one but TWO entire ad blocks in the white, formerly "organic listings only" section. On my 15" laptop screen about 65% of the results page shows advertising.

Amr at Yahoo pointed out recently that Google could have trouble keeping up earnings since the advertising was now very well optimized. But how about just adding a LOT more ads?

Web Results 110 of about 3,290,000 for dallas to sfo. (0.14 seconds)
    Sponsored Links
Cheaper Than A Taxi
Major Airports. Tour Specials.
Business Charters. 415-505-4634.
http://www.cheaper-than-a-taxi.com
Flight To Dallas
SuperSearch Across Multiple Sites
And Find Low Fares To Dallas
http://www.travelzoo.com
Flight To Dallas
Search Flights Now & Save Big
With CheapTickets®, It's Simple!
http://www.CheapTickets.com

Flight To Dallas
Find Low Fares On Major Airlines!
Trusted For Great Deals Since 1987.
http://www.CheapSeats.com

Dallas Flights
Don't Waste Time! Find the Lowest
Price from Airlines & Travel Agents
Dallas.OneTime.com

Texas – Low Fares
Book Your Trip on United & Save.
E-Fares, Last Minute Deals & More!
http://www.United.com

Cheap Dallas Flights
Compare airfare deals to Dallas
& save big on airline tickets!
http://www.CheapFlights.com

Flight To Dallas
Major Airlines, Major Savings!
The Smarter Fare Search
http://www.FareFox.com

More Sponsored Links »

 

Sponsored Links

Dallas Flights
http://www.Delta.com The Official Delta Site has special deals and everyday low fares!

Flight To Dallas
http://www.ORBITZ.com Find Special Low Fares on ORBITZ. Book Flights, Hotels, Cars & More!


Departing: Returning:
Search: Expedia Hotwire Orbitz Priceline Travelocity

Product search results for dallas to sfo
Dallas Cowboys Visor – $12.95 – Sports Fan Outlet
Dallas Cowboys Logo Cap – $15.95 – Sports Fan Outlet
Motels Hotels Restaurants and Bars by Hornbeck, James S – $80.00 – Bibliophile Bookbase

 

Google Wifis San Francisco….sung to the tune of “I left my router…in San…Fran…CISCO”


It's brilliant for Google to offer free internet to any metro area, and maybe even rurally though that gets more complex logistically. Google doesn't need ISP fees, they to keep up market share and ad clicks. Even a linked logo to Google will probably create enough ad clicks to justify the cost here and certainly if you include brand awareness it's worth the money for them.
A drop in Google's bucket of cash to consolidate the position as search leader.

Where the HECK are Yahoo and MSN when all these cool initiatives spring up?

ASK ing Walt Mossberg why he stopped using Google search.


Henry Blodget poses some provocative search questions and gets a thoughtful answer from Walt Mossberg, who has switched from Google to Ask as his primary search tool.  

This is significant as I recall that it was people like Mossberg, with a huge audience, who reported early and favorably on Google, creating the favorable buzz that launched them from obscurity to search stardom in just a few years (also less well known people like me and the thousands of other web savvy folks who helped with the positive Buzz about Google back in the ancient internet times c1998).

I don't think internet habits die all that hard which is why I have Google puts AND admire Google's brilliance at the same time.  Online fortunes, literally and figuratively, can change overnight.  Note that over a decade we saw Alta Vista, then Yahoo, and now Google as the 800 pound gorilla of search.  The new game has Yahoo and Google equal in actual relevance (though not in perceived relevance) with Ask and MSN catching up soon.  

All use different approaches and eventually there will probably be a "breakout application" that will do a much better job.  As Jeremy Zawodny has noted people won't switch because you are a "little better". The next search giant may need to be "great".  It might remain Google but it could also become, for example, IBM who arguably has the best but too-slow-for-prime-time search routine called "WebFountain".

Check out this new search company called “Microsoft”


John Battelle's excellent interview with MSN search engineer Gary Flake reminded me of a long talk I had with Andy Edmonds in New Orleans PubCon last year.  Andy is a former Mozilla geek now working at MSN to determine search relevancy.  Andy is VERY sharp and reminds me of guys like Jeremy at Yahoo who can see far beyond the narrow corporate interests into the heart of what's up with the evolving internet.  (though they rightfully are sometimes protective of those corporate interests).

Also, at MIX06 I was impressed with how hard the LIVE search team was working and felt that they are getting the resources and respect needed to make big changes at MS in search.

Back in June of 2005, Andy was very optimistic and obviously sincere in his assumption that relevancy at MSN would equal Google's sooner than most were thinking   It's not happened yet but the Flake interview suggests that Microsoft's use of artificial intelligence in their algorithm is improving fast.   If as Gary suggests MS has a superior configuration (using a 64 bit architecture) that will allow deeper analysis things MS search could get very good very fast.

I won't hold my breath, noting when talking to guys at Google and Yahoo they tend to dismiss MS search as "hopeless".      Part of this is their ego talking but mostly it's an assumption that Microsoft no longer is doing  bleeding edge research needed for a breakout in search quality.    People at MSN like Gary and Andy challenge that assumption.

SPAM is in the eye of the beholder?


For many the term web spam simply means unwanted junk email, but in the search community the definition of spam tends to be far more comprehensive and, to me, confusing. Obviously totally irrelevant junk is spam, but what about poorly written, marginally relevant information written by a seventh grade student about her class project dealing with asbestosis?

Few would call THAT grade school project "spam", yet most internet professionals would say "spam" if the *exact same information" was prepared by an outsourced team in an effort to rank for the term "asbestosis" becuase it fetches big money on the pay per click market.

In this example intention is defining the material as spam and that approach bothers me. I appreciate he fact that major search engines lean in the direction of objective measurements of relevancy, which probably do not attempt to factor intention into the equation except in extreme cases where, for example, Matt's spam team would ban a site for manipulation.

I suppose in this case they'd probably apply different metrics to the two sites above though I'm guessing they very rarely apply non-objective analysis. For one thing it's not scalable. For another it's hard (impossible?) to define subjective criteria.

Searching for Myspace with John Battelle


John Battelle is the web's best "search watcher" and he's posted a great summary of recent events in search HERE at Searchblog.

I would note though that he does not address the significance and growth velocity of the Myspace phenomenon, which I'd suggest is the best, and crappiest, website in history.

Myspace proves that much of the Web 2.0 dialog is misguided, still emphasizing technology improvements over human considerations which lie at the heart of the "new" web and at the heart of the ugly but overwhelmingly successful Myspace.

In many ways I'm a big fan of Myspace as I think it's passes many of the tests that other sites fail – easy to join, navigate, and participate. It passed the critical mass of users long ago and continues to grow wildly – now with 66 million online. Myspace is a prime study in "mass appeal". It's ugly because people, on average, aren't very artistic or clever or well-organized. This aspect of the human condition leads to the web's largest collection of junky pages, and to the web's largest community of super active users.

My personal jury is still out on the "evil" side of myspace with the potential for stalking and young people mingling with unsavory or dangerous kids and adults. The user base is now so huge one must be very cautious in the interpretation of recent criminal activity at the site. Whenever you have a collection of 66 million people you'll get crime.

That said, Myspace probably has a greater community responsibility than it currently acknowledges or deals with proactively – this is certainly the case with the web at large where most onliners maintain that companies have few responsibilities outside of policing outrageous abuses of their services.

For the good of the entire online and offline community this must change, and it will change.

Newsweek: Web 2.0 = The Live Web


I enjoyed Newsweek's article about Web 2.0, which they preferred to call "The Live Web". It was fun to see several of the companies and people I've encountered recently mentioned in the article. Mary Hodder from MashupCamp was pictured and quoted as was Tim O'Reilly who I just met at Mix06.

They gave Tim far too short an interview. He is unsurpassed in his understanding of the new web but I'm guessing he was a bit too old (he's about 50?) to meet Newsweek's editorial slant on the story which was young, hip, and cool. (Whoops – they didn't mention how casual – sometimes downright disheveled – most of the new technorati tend to be.)

Newsweek's Cover girl Caterina Fake was supposed to be at Mashup Camp but missed it. I'd hoped to meet her and her husband who pioneered Flickr and then sold it to Yahoo. Caterina's blog is one of the most insightful personal views about 2.0 along with those of her amazing Yahoo tech dev co-workers Jeremy Zawodny and Danah Boyd.

Although I'm always VERY impressed with folks from Google, it's Yahoo that really seems to be aquiring the companies and minds that lie at the heart of the new Web's "social" vs "technological" emphasis.

Yahoo seems to have a better handle than Google (who in turn beats Microsoft) in understanding the implications of the vast social networking that is forming a new internet backbone. A backbone characterized by people far more than by technology. That said, I'm not sure anybody "gets Web 2.0", because it's changing fast, dramatically, and in unstable ways.

What a fun new world!

Naked Conversations with Robert, Jeremy and Matt


Robert Scoble and Shel Israel's book Naked Conversations probably should have kept it's working title "Blog or Die", but it's an excellent read nonetheless.   The point they hammer home with many good examples is that corporations better jump on the blogging bandwagon or suffer the consequences of missing what many would say may become the biggest communication bandwagon of all time.

As if to emphasize the power of blogs and the freewheeling nature of the new corporation two of my favorite online guys – Matt Cutts of Google and Jeremy Zawodny or Yahoo have traded blogs as what has got to be the top April Fools online event so far today.

Given that these two represent two of the top public faces of their respective companies, it's obvious that the NEW corporate landscape – blogging and otherwise – ain't nothing like the old one.  

I like that.

The Google Story


I read two books up at the lake. David Vises "The Google Story" was an entertaining and informative history of Google from humble beginnings as Larry Page and Sergey Brin's Stanford PhD project to the earth shaking internet giant Google.com. I didn't feel I was getting any really "deep" information however. I kept feeling as I often do when talking to people at Google that they are simply too loyal and too enamored with Google to share insights that might reflect poorly on the company. I'm actually in the picture of Matt Cutts taken at SES San Jose last year. The very favorable tone seemed odd because Vise is a distinguished reporter. I'm wildly guessing that he (perhaps even subconsciously) sacrificed some critical observations in exchange for better access and candor about the basic story.

This "guarded" nature of comments about Google dovetails with points made in Scoble and Israel's "Naked Conversations", the second book I read up at Odell Lake which I'll review next.

Overall though I remain convinced that Google is

1) Special, especially with regard to the incredible intelligence, innovation, and involvement of the founders. The rapid ascent of Google may allow more of this "founders energy" to have a positive impact than where a company grew more slowly.

2) Sincere. This is a slippery slope but I think they remain fairly steady and non-compromising about doing great stuff for the right reasons.

3) Overpriced. I simply don't understand the stock price, which seems to assume Yahoo and MSN have no interests or abilities relating to grabbing a bigger share of the online advertising pie.

NMohwy.com experiment continues…


Interestingly, Google stopped the rapid re-indexing of NMohwy.com even though they have recently downloaded the sitemap. What's odd is that the immediate effect of breaking off this domain and setting it up separately with non duplicate (but similar) information was that the NEW pages were indexed with NEW cache dates. No effect on traffic.

NOW the pages at NMohwy.com show OLD cache dates (often Feb 5, 2005) and have been relegated to supplemental index except for Home page. The key event in this experiment will be the reindexing of the "new" pages which look very much like they did years ago before Google started hating these pages.

Were the problems getting properly indexed and ranked from GOOGLE changing it's opinion about our site or from SITE errors WE made as we improved things?

Even after a year of conferences, emails from Google and others, hundreds of questions, site reviews (even one by Google at Las Vegas PubCon!), and many changes made we don't know the answer to this simple question, though I think duplicate content filtering is be the most likely category for our problem.