General

The BBC is reporting on a change in Google’s policy on showing ads in relation to searches on abortion. Previously, Google was not allowing religious groups to place text ads for the term.

In a statement, a Google spokesperson told BBC News: “Following the review we have decided to amend our policy, creating a level playing field and enabling religious associations to place ads on abortion in a factual way.”

The key here is going to be “in a factual way.” I’m guessing Google’s concern was in not wanting Google.com to become a battle ground for moral issues, particularly highly emotional ones.

Tagged as: General

{ 0 comments }

Last week, Google announced Knol, a site that allows trusted authors to create content around specific subjects. As with anything Google does, the media leapt to crown Knol as the next big thing since the domestication of fire.

Hell, just look at what Steve Rubel said: Wikipedia and Wikia are Dead. Google Just Killed Them

I have posted before about my ire over any article that uses the words "Google" and "Killer" in the same sentence. (Start here, for an overview.) Usually, it’s the media trying to crown some new search engine as a "Google killer," but in this case it’s in Google’s favor. It doesn’t matter though, because it’s still crap.

Anyone saying Knol will be a Wiki-killer must not know much about Knol or Wikipedia. Knol isn’t and won’t be a Wikipedia killer. Saying Knol is a Wikipedia killer is like saying the Segway is a Ford killer. Sure, they both have wheels, but that’s about it.

Knol and Wikipedia are not the same thing. If anything, Knol is more like Squidoo, About.com, or even iVillage. But the media will try to tie Knol-Pedia together in a knot because it makes for a better article.

Let’s also be clear about one thing. Google has only created one application that ever "killed" anything — the search algorithm. There were plenty of search engines before Google, now there are only three others of mention – Yahoo, MSN, and Ask. Other than that, no other Google product has ever put fear into anyone.

Let’s review:

• Orkut didn’t hurt MySpace or Friendster (Friendster killed itself). When Facebook launched, Orkut wasn’t worth a second thought. But hey, Orkut is the most popular site in Brazil, so maybe they are onto something.
• People continue to flock to Yahoo Answers, while Google Answers died a slow death and was eventually shut down.
• GMail didn’t harm Hotmail, Yahoo Mail, or any other free email application. In fact the other free email applications didn’t even bother to copy anything from Gmail. It seems to be the other way around. Yahoo added in an IM/Chat function into their mail application months ago. But when Google (copied) did it a few weeks ago, it received much press.
• Google Talk was launched with lots of press coverage and fan fair. But it’s usage is tiny and has never budged. It hasn’t come close to "killing" Yahoo IM, AOL IM, or for that fact MSN Messenger.
• Google Docs was touted as an "Office Killer". (See here and here, for two of many examples.) All these months later, where are all the stories about Microsoft’s falling market share for Office? Even after the addition of a presentation portion of Google Docs, it is still a poor version of StarOffice, not Microsoft Office. (I wonder if anyone referred to Google’s Presentation addition as a PowerPoint Killer? … oh, dear lord!)
• Google Checkout has not slowed down PayPal.
• Google purchased Blogger.com a long time ago, and is still the "not Typepad or WordPress" application for blogging.
• Google’s Universal Search gets lots of press. But Ask.com did it months beforehand, and did it much, much better.

I could go on, but I don’t need to.

I will, however, agree with one thing Steve Rubel said.

The search engine will prioritize content from its own system and rank the most credible articles more highly than anything in the open source encyclopedia.

He is correct about that. When Google acquired YouTube, suddenly YouTube videos were elevated in the rankings much higher than ever before, whereas videos from any other source are rarely, if ever, shown. To me, that sounds like something Microsoft would do.

Tagged as: General

{ 2 comments }

My high school volleyball coach always used to say, "it’s all about fundamentals." He said it so often that to this day, I can still hear it in my head like he is standing in front of me.

While search has many exciting frontiers, at its core is a single fundamental: keyword research. I have written about keyword research several times here, I wanted to draw attention to Julie Batten’s article over at ClickZ. It’s called Effective Keyword SEO Research.

It’s a great reminder of the core offering of SEO, or a great introduction to those wanting to learn.

Tagged as: General

{ 0 comments }

Yesterday, Boeing
announced it was going to delay the delivery of the first round of 787 Dreamliners by 6 months. The list price of this plane is around $146 million dollars.

So I was a little surprised when it appeared that Target was selling 787 Dreamliner’s on
their web site. At least, that is what their PPC ad on Google appears to claim.

Tagged as: General

{ 0 comments }

Google Killers. I’ve mentioned them before (here, for example). Many of these so-called Google killers are akin to child stars from the 1980s: Where are they now?

Now we have another "Google killer." This one is called PowerSet and they have very clearly set their sites on Google. In an article on MSNBC, PowerSet claims to have developed the most power natural language search engine.

From the MSNBC article: The distinction means Web surfers will theoretically be able to get more meaningful results by typing more precise search requests in the form of straightforward questions like "What did Steve Jobs say about Apple?" instead of entering an ungrammatical mishmash like "Apple Steve Jobs said."

While it is true that keyword searches are not always a shining example of the Old Kings English, the fact remains that people are now accustomed to searching in a specific way. Search is now an established  industry, more than a decade old, and the single or double keyword based search habit is well established by
searchers all over the world.

Assuming PowerSet is correct – that they have indeed built the most amazing natural search algorithm – they still have to pretty much retrain the already instilled habit of a searcher.

Lest we forget, Ask.com has gone down this path and stepped away from it. Ask.com started as AskJeeves.com and was marketed as the natural language search engine. The idea behind the experience was a searcher would type in a fully formed question to Jeeves. But a few years ago, the butler went away and the Teoma backbone took over to better serve the searcher.

But let’s also ask the question: is the assumed lack of natural language searches a problem? I decided to conduct a small test to see. I conducted a variety of searches, all in natural language and all on Google.

"What do tadpoles eat?"
That came to mind because my son asked me that question a few weeks ago. I found my answer very quickly, in the first few results. (See the results to the search here.)

"How many mammals are there?"
(Again, a question my son asked me. See where I’m getting my inspiration?) Again, the answer to the question is found in the first few results on the first page. (See the results to the search here.)

"How big is the universe?"
(Guess on how I came up with this one??) Again, there is no lack of directly relational
results on the very first search results page. (See the results to the search here.)

"When did Steve Jobs announce the new Ipod?"
(OK, I thought of that one on my own.) But again, the results on the first page of
Google clearly lead me to a direct answer. (See the results to the search here.)

Clearly, in my small test, Google has no trouble with natural language searches at all. This indicates to me that overall, Google’s ability to handle natural language searches is not a problem if someone should happen to search that way.

I also generally have issues with anyone that calls themselves a Google killer. Maybe they do it
for the press or maybe they do it to get Google’s attention. But if a lofty claim requires lofty results. It starts to sound a lot like the guy in the neighborhood that is good at basketball and claims he could play in the NBA if he wanted to. Sure you can, buddy.

After all, there are plenty of companies that have made that very claim that never came close to delivering.

Bonus: In order to find the picture of Gary Coleman, again, I used a natural language search on Google. "Where can I find a picture of Gary Coleman?" Obviously, I had no trouble.

Tagged as: General

{ 1 comment }