January 31, 2005
Audio: Interview with Blinkx Co-Founder and CTO
Network World Fusion has posted a 5 minute interview (streaming audio or MP3 download) with Blinkx co-founder and CTO, Suranga Chandratillake. Most of the discussion focuses on BlinxkTV, a video search tool that has been available with their client app for several months and officially launched as a standalone site and service in December. If you're looking for more video and audio search tools, we've listed several of them in the blog post: A Look At Other Video Search Tools.
Posted by Gary Price on January 31, 2005, 3:10 PM | Permalink
Google's Top Brass Talk Search
In the past few week's, a couple members of Google's leadership have been sharing their thoughts and views in public forums.
First, Google's VP of Engineering Adam Bosworth, spoke to The Gillmor Gang (you can listen online) about future search engine architecture, personalization, and RSS. Findory's Greg Linden responds to some of Bosworth's comments with his take on the value of personalization.
Second, Google Blogoscoped points us to a transcript of a presentation by Peter Norvig, Google's Director of Search Quality. Norvig discusses semantic web ontologies, automation, and other issues.
Posted by Gary Price on January 31, 2005, 1:43 PM | Permalink
NYT On Yahoo's US Gains & Google's Endless Betas
We've had nearly a year of full-blown search wars, but the New York Times notes in Search Sites Play a Game of Constant Catch-Up that despite new releases and "me too" matching of products, Google has still increased its share of searches worldwide from 44 percent in November 2003 to 47 percent in November 2004.So all's great for Google? Not at all. Yahoo had a gain too, from 25 to 27 percent. And in the US, it was much more dramatic. Google rose from 37 percent to only 38 percent. Yahoo leaped from 29 percent to 35 percent, not that far behind Google's share.
What's behind the gains? The article has lots of quotes from me commenting on how Yahoo shows a desire to define a project, deliver on it and move on. In contrast, I remark how Google delivers something in beta form, then moves on to something else without seeming to finish the job.
Whether this operational style is behind Yahoo's growth or if there are other factors, I don't know. Google responds that it's hard to say it's dropped the ball on any major releases. With respect, I beg to differ:
- Google Images -- one of only two NON-beta products out there -- was allowed to be nearly a year out of
date with images. Only now is it showing signs of being updated.
- Gmail remains both still in beta and invite only mode nearly a year after its rollout. How about finishing it up and making it public before moving into other things?
- The Orkut social network service? Ditto.
- Google Desktop still doesn't support Firefox indexing. We've had some notable Firefox developers get hired
by Google recently -- perhaps they could take a minute or two to help make what we view in Firefox searchable?
- The Google Toolbar that has been out even longer than Google Desktop still doesn't support Firefox.
- Google is literally years behind providing query refinement support to searchers. Google Suggest is
Google catching up on this front with the other major players. It was a "20 percent" free time project that one of its engineers cooked up and still hasn't come onto the
actual site. It should have been an 80 percent time priority to happen years ago.
- Google Catalogs? Another beta project rolled out then apparently abandoned. The most current Ikea catalog is from 2003. Just kill
it, already.
- Google News nearing its third year of beta? Google cofounder Sergey Brin has said before that it will come out of beta when it's ready. If it's not ready after three
years, when will it be?
- Similarly, in the NYT story, Google says it will keep the beta label on things until time can be found to add "important features" to these products. Three years for Google News, over two years for the Froogle shopping search engine -- if time hasn't yet been found to put needed important features on these products, then pull them off the home page.
The reality is that Google seems to have no distinction between what makes a "beta" product versus a "final" product. Even the story notes that some of the beta products from Google have been upgraded with new features over time. Any of those times would have been a time to take them out of beta.
How about this roadmap to follow:
- Alpha: You release a product in limited form to a select group of users. Gmail, Orkut are alphas.
- Beta: You release a product to the general public with the expectation that feedback will be taken over a short period of time (two to three months) before a final release
happens.
- Final: You put the product out on the Google home page or accessible via the More link on the Google home page. Anything out in front of the public in this way is no
longer a beta. If it is still a beta, then get it off the main site and back into Google Labs.
- Point Release: After the final, this is when you add substantial new features to a product. Froogle today is arguably Froogle 2 or Froogle 2.5, given that it has had several major enhancements.
As for point releases, these needn't be labeled for the general public. Froogle doesn't have to be called Froogle 2, for example. But it is useful to use the terminology for those who are commenting on the changes. It lets us say things like "the second release of Froogle" and know there are substantial alterations that have happened.
Google Groups is a classic example of this. Google Groups was a final product. A new Google Groups 2 came out in limited beta. Then it was deemed good enough to replace the original Google Groups. That happened -- but what DIDN'T happen was removing the name beta from what really was a final product.
Believe me, I love that Google has a fun, creative process -- something I did mention as part of my interview for the NYT story but which didn't make the cut. That's probably because I was much more negative about being frustrated by the lack of completion Google has shown.
At this point, Google is well overdue for an operational pause. Don't roll out anything new until you bring stuff out of beta or declare it dead and no longer supported. Then please give me a wealth of new, fun, exciting and technologically disruptive things in the way you do so well -- as well as a firm timeline as to when those things will either receive official, final support or get rolled back out from public view.
More more on this topic, also see More On The Endless Betas Of Google and if you're a Search Engine Watch member, my Breaking Out Of Google's Beta Limbo that charts when major Google services were launched and how they they were (or still are) in beta.
Posted by Danny Sullivan on January 31, 2005, 1:13 PM | Permalink
Yahoo Local & Product Placement On The Apprentice
How A Product Placement Strategy Works from AdAge looks in depth on how Yahoo is promoting its Yahoo Local service through The Apprentice television show.
Apparently, one episode last season got a ton of people to try searching at Yahoo for "apprentice ice cream," though it's unclear if the did this on Yahoo or Yahoo Local.
Yahoo Local is mentioned even more as part of the current series. How much for the placement? Yahoo's not saying. See also The OC Arrested By Ask Jeeves, Too for more on product placements in television for other search engines, albeit unpaid ones.
Posted by Danny Sullivan on January 31, 2005, 12:17 PM | Permalink
Loquine Glupe SEO Contest Begins
In the spirit of the nigritude ultramarine and seraphim proudleduck SEO contests, the latest one is for being tops on Google by March 1 for the term loquine glupe. More details here. Checking Google, there's 1,230 pages already listed for the term.
Posted by Danny Sullivan on January 31, 2005, 11:42 AM | Permalink
Tsunami Ads For Gift Cards? Google, Where's the Review?
Danny's item about Google Adwords, reminded me to post something I'm noticing more and more, ads that have little to do with what the keyword(s) being purchased and/or the text of the ad.
We've heard many times that Google eventually reviews all ads. However, I'm beginning to wonder how long this review process takes. Here are two examples:
+ The search for: "tsunami asia" shows an ad (screen capture) that tells me I might be eligible for a $250 gift card if I enter personal info, complete a survey, and fufill other requirements. Hmmm. What this has to do with the tragedy in Asia is beyond me. This ad does not appear on Yahoo.
+ For the past 6 weeks I've noticed an ad (screen capture) for "disturbing ghost footage" appearing on results page for various search terms, many that don't include the term "ghost." When you click the ad, you'll find an online poll asking for an email address. The first page of the ad says that the "video" is on the second page. However, the second page offers no information.
Want more? No problem. The same set of results also includes the following ads:
+ "Ghost & Paranormal Proof?"
Again, claims that you can register (with an email address) to see videos. The ad offers no info about a video.
+ "View Ghost Pictures Here"
Again, just looking for an address. This is the same ad (minus a few words) that appears when clicking the "disturbing ghost footage" ad mentioned earlier.
Finally, last week I pointed out a "silly" Google ad offering a dating service for "Sexy but Dead" singles. If you look at the last ad listed in today's search, you'll spot an another ad for singles. This time, the singles are still sexy but they've become ghosts. (-:
Posted by Gary Price on January 31, 2005, 11:29 AM | Permalink
Scoble On Anti-NoFollow & Blogs As Not Search Kryptonite
Robert Scoble takes a stab at what he calls a "anti-nofollow religion" that has sprung up in The "no nofollow" religion. To be fair, there's also a "pro-nofollow religion" as well.
As with most debates, the truth is at neither extreme. Nofollow isn't a perfect solution to blogging comment spam, but neither is it a waste of time. It's nice that web authors (not just bloggers, everyone!) have more choices over what will get indexed.
Interestingly, the NoNoFollow site that Scoble is reacting to was apparently started by some well known German bloggers in part worried that nofollow tags might work against bloggers, such as by robbing them of links they see as helpful with search engines.
As I've written before, such arguments bring the bloggers making them much closer to the comment spammers they despise. So this comment from Robert's post echoes with me:
Discriminates against legitimate users as spammers? Huh? Since when did writing a comment mean that you deserve the full search engine juice of getting linked to by someone else?
Robert also touches on the whole "blogs are superpowerful with search engines" topic that I disagree with:
Could be used to further discriminate weblogs. Um, weblogs are actually showing up too high for their real-world relevance. Here, why am I the #3 "Robert? [on Google]"
Why? Not because you're a blogger, Robert. It's because you're a person that lots of people link to with the word "Robert" in your name. Look at the other things coming up tops for "Robert." Most of them are not bloggers.
Heck, here's a new page just up with tips for those using the Blogger system that continues this type of myth of blogs as some type of search kryptonite, able to bring the mighty search engines to their knees:
Blogs rank well in the search engines by their very nature. They are regularly updated with keyword rich content. Most blog writers stick to a main theme for their blogs making relevance easy. Because of the blog?s versatility, the blogger can add more themes to the blog and tie them together, enabling a blog to maintain several strong themes.
Actually, many blog writers are all over the place in what they write about in publishing on their home pages. That dilutes what the home page is about and can cause what its relevancy is for to a search engine to constantly change.
As for "themes," the search engines have consistently said that keyword relevance is done on a page-by-page basis. So have all the pages on a particular topics you want -- that doesn't somehow make the entire site more relevant for a particular term. If having a site be all about a particular topic were crucial, then Amazon would never rank well for anything. Instead, you constantly stumble upon it for a variety of keywords in search results.
Blogs can certainly quickly attract links that search engines depend on, and that can help them more than other sites that don't have the ability to easily generate new links. As more and more content is published through blogs, it's also natural we'll see more of them in search results. But content just being on a blog is not a guaranteed rocket to success.
A search on Google for "cars" doesn't give me any blogs about cars in the top results, despite the fact we've got car blogs out there. A search for "movies?" The same thing.
For more on blogs and search engines, see my older article, Loving Each Other More: Search Engines & Blogs. For more on the nofollow debate and how nofollow goes beyond blogs, see my recent post More On Link Condom & Blogger Worries Over Nofollow.
Posted by Danny Sullivan on January 31, 2005, 11:22 AM | Permalink
Google Employee Advertises Blog On Google?
Dirson has a screen shot of Google employee Mark Jen apparently advertising his blog on Google: Mark Jen Shows AdWords In Some Searches. Jen's blog received much attention after it disappeared for a few days after he made some critical remarks about his new employer.
Why advertise a blog that itself appears to generate no revenue? Conspiracy theory speculation is renewed again that this is some type of Google PR stunt, especially given that the text of the ad used the verboten word of Google in it. How could that happen, without Google's help, InsideGoogle wonders?
Well, Google definitely does prevent ads that use its name in ad copy from going through automatically, at least inintially. However, making use of the exception request, I got a copy of the ad in question up and running within a few seconds.
First, I copied everything in the original ad, submitted, and got this warning back from Google:
Due to trademark reasons, we do not allow advertisers to use 'google' in their Google AdWords ads. This term may be trademarked either for a certain product or service category and may apply only in certain countries.
However, I was also able to request an exception using links provided. I put nothing but the word "test" into the exception field, then submitted. This apparently sent my ad off to Google's editors for review. And despite being active, it didn't show. That made me think that the ad definitely wouldn't show until the review was finished.
Not so. I made a second ad, this time with the only difference being the initials SEW added to the title. This way, if it worked, it would be clear that I got the ad up. And voila, it went live:
So -- proof I could get an ad up with the word "google" in it and make it seem like it was done by Jen because I used his domain in the "display" URL. Had you clicked on it, you would have gone to Search Engine Watch.
In a further change, I then edited the ad to remove the SEW from the title, leaving me with an ad exactly like the one assumed to be from Jen:
The point of this is that anyone can make an ad for anything and point anywhere, at least for a short period of time until Google's editors review the ad -- a process that can take from hours to a few days. So seeing an ad isn't proof that anyone is advertising on anything.
Having said this, it could be Jen's ad. A comment at the InsideGoogle post notes that Google employees all get a limited delivery AdWords account. So perhaps he did decide it was worthwhile to drum up some publicity for the journal.
Meanwhile, Jen blogs onward, explaining that he works on the Google AdSense program as an associate product manager and thrilled that features can move out the door quickly. A feature advertisers have wanted for ages is the ability to pick and choose exactly what sites carry their AdSense ads. How about that feature getting out the door quickly! In another post, he also denies that his blog is a PR stunt.
Posted by Danny Sullivan on January 31, 2005, 10:30 AM | Permalink
Issues With A9's Yellow Pages
The USA Today's Jefferson Graham writes about a few problems he's noticed with a9's just released yellow pages plus + images database. You can read his findings in the article: Oops! Amazon's new online Yellow Pages pictures Rockefeller Ice Skating Rink as a bus. Graham also touches on privacy concerns that some people might have with a9's new service.
Like Graham, I've noticed images that don't match to the correct address. Additionally, I've comes accross many businesses I've searched for not even listed in their telephone directory. For example:
+ Movie Theaters, Silver Spring, MD. There are many to choose from in a 10 mile radius and zero are listed.
+ Chicago Cubs in Chicago didn't return up a phone number or address.
+ Fluky's, a famous Hot Dog joint on Western Ave. in Chicago, is not listed. Other locations are listed.
+ Yahoo HQ in Sunnyvale, CA is not listed.
Posted by Gary Price on January 31, 2005, 9:58 AM | Permalink
Microsoft: No Plans to Integrate Desktop Search into OS
During a panel about search at the Harvard Business School Cyberposium, Mark Kroese, general manager of information services and merchant platform product marketing for MSN, told the audience that MS doesn't plan to integrate desktop search in the operating system.
"'...there's no immediate plan to do that as far as I know,' Kroese said. 'That would have to be a Bill G. [Microsoft chairman and chief software architect Bill Gates] and the lawyers' decision.'"
The remainder of the eWeek article: Microsoft Won't Bundle Desktop Search with Windows, offers more coverage of the http://www.cyberposium.com/index.asp with comments from Yahoo!, Google, and Xerox representatives. Topics include local, paid, desktop, and enterprise search.
Here are a couple of key quotes from the article:
At Yahoo, we think of local search as an extension of vertical search," [Bradley] Horowitz said. "It reaches into a different business model and provides a tremendous amount of value."Microsoft's approach is a bit different, Kroese said. "At Microsoft our heritage is being a platform and our approach to search will not be a lot different."
"Today, paid [search] is a great business model," said Microsoft's Kroese. "But we're also pursuing other business models."
Google's [Deep] Nishar emphasized that "advertising is not necessarily evil." He noted that 40 percent of Internet search queries are commerce-specific queries. Charging advertisers for placement is not unethical, he said.
For additional coverage of Cyberposium, see the News.com article: Future of search rides on relevance.
Posted by Gary Price on January 31, 2005, 9:22 AM | Permalink
Search Forums Roundup: Jan. 31, 2005
Today's SearchDay, Search Engine Forums Spotlight, features our weekly links to this week's hot topics from search engine forums across the web: Google to Open Up API to AdWords Customers - AOL Expands Advertising Opportunities for Local Businesses - Google Adds Video Search - Google Loses Trademark Dispute In France - Google's Supplemental Index - Google Now Allows More Than 10 Words Per Query, and more.
Posted by Chris Sherman on January 31, 2005, 9:18 AM | Permalink
The OC Arrested By Ask Jeeves, Too
Earlier, I posted how A9 got a mention on The OC. Ask Jeeves got an OC-related plug on TV this week, as well.
OK, it wasn't the hip kids of The OC talking about Ask Jeeves but instead the crazy family of Arrested Development -- also set in Orange County's Newport Beach, that mentioned Ask Jeeves. To be specific, it was family lawyer Barry Zuckerkorn (actor Henry Winkler), even better known to many people as The Fonz from Happy Days.
Paid product placement? Nope. Instead, Ask Jeeves senior vice president Jim Lanzone emailed me to say a good college friend of his is the agent of the creator of Arrested Development. He uses Ask Jeeves, so that's apparently worked its way higher. No money was spent, and the mention was a surprise to Ask Jeeves.
"We didn't know about it in advance. We sent them some T-shirts to say thanks," Lanzone said.
All in all, a good opportunity to try out new Google Video (aka Google TV) service, as someone over at InsideGoogle did when commenting there on the A9 mention. Here's a rundown. First, the Ask Jeeves mention:
It's a private Stock, so you cannot just buy up the shares unless someone is willing to sell. Are you sure? That's what they said on Ask Jeeves. All right, who's the majority shareholder now?
The A9 reference is here:
Why, why happened? Did he call you? No, but I a9.Com'd him last night, and according to the O.C. Weekly, he's pretty much everything that's wrong with Western civilization, all wrapped up in one Guy..
For the record, A9 told News.com that it didn't pay for the mention:
"We didn't even know it was going to air," A9 Chief Udi Manber said. But "it shows people like...A9...and that they are telling their friends and family."
Meanwhile, how common is "googled?" Only three mentions: Conan O'Brien, Carson Daly and PBS. But extend it out to Google, and there are nearly 100 mentions of the company. Most are news realted, but looks like Regis is in the "did you Google that" camp.
Yahoo has many more mentions, but many of those see ads for the SBC Yahoo access service. Ironically, Yahoo is the most aggressive of all the services in terms of gaining product placement mentions. None of the above services has ever claimed to pay for these. Yahoo just struck a deal to get it into reality shows of The Apprentice and The Contender.
Posted by Danny Sullivan on January 31, 2005, 9:09 AM | Permalink
Yahoo Plans to License Financial Data
It looks like Yahoo plans to open up a new revenue stream by licensing stock quotes and other financial data.
ZDNet's story: Yahoo to feed its own stock ticker service and the Marketwatch.com story: Yahoo Finance builds licensing biz, offer details.
Yahoo! has been using financial data (quotes, charts, etc.) supplied by Reuters. Now, Yahoo will collect and disseminate this type of data using direct feeds from various stock exchanges and other sources. The service will be called "Quotes from Yahoo Finance."
"This is just about our taking control of the data business ourselves and extending that to other platforms," said Craig Forman, Yahoo's vice president of information and finance.
Forbes has said that they will license data from the "Quotes from Yahoo Finance" service.
Posted by Gary Price on January 31, 2005, 8:40 AM | Permalink
More Gbrowser Talk
If you want some more discussion of a possible Google web broswer, Eric Hellweg's new Technology Review article, Project Googlefox, offers some analysis of last week's news about two Firefox developers who recently joined Google.
Neither Goodger nor Fisher [the two Firefox engineers] is commenting on their new roles, and Steve Langdon, a spokesperson for the company, has also maintained a relative silence on the specifics."I'm not able to share any information on what Ben's going to work on," Langdon says. "Many of Google's products aim to enhance browser products, and we're interested in exploring interaction between browsers and Google's services."
Posted by Gary Price on January 31, 2005, 8:30 AM | Permalink
Revamped Yahoo! Malaysia Launches
According to the article: Yahoo! Launches All-New Yahoo! Malaysia Site, the revamped site was officially launched today. You can find Yahoo! Malaysia at http://www.yahoo.com.my.
The new Yahoo! Malaysia site is the first in Asia to feature the new look launched in the United States (http://www.yahoo.com) in September 2004.
The article also points out that Yahoo! Malaysia will launch a new contest called Y! 10 Search. Contestants can win prizes by guessing the most popular search terms each week for a theme selected by Yahoo!. The contest will run for three weeks beginning February 7.
Posted by Gary Price on January 31, 2005, 8:12 AM | Permalink
Don't Waste Time On Web's Biggest
A new search engine "Web's Biggest" has come out claiming they are bigger than the other major search engines. Wow, rush on over! Don't waste your time.
First, I highly doubt the claim. The search engine provides no count numbers with its results, so there's no way to run comparisons. Doing comparisons always is problematic anyway, but counts are a basic starting point.
It does provide a page that purports to show how it is bigger than the others. Enter a number, and it supposedly generates a random list of sites that supposedly have no or few pages listed at Google, Yahoo and MSN.
Oddly, no matter what number I enter, I get the same sites listed. And the links showing results at the other search engines? They don't use the right commands to bring back accurate results. And when I do use the right command? Over at Google, I get signs that the sites may have been banned. For comparison purposes, this "proof" shows nothing.
But let's assume that this site really was bigger than the others. Time to roll out the trusty haystack analogy of why bigger is better. How can you find the needle in the haystack if "small" search engines hunt through only half of it? That's something we used to hear in the early days of the search engine size wars.
I have my own haystack response that I've long used in these situations. If I dump the entire haystack on your head, can you find the needle then?
Going back to this site, we get plenty of proof on why having the entire haystack is no help if you don't have a powerful magnet to pull the good needles to the top. A search for "movies" brings up a list dominated by porn sites (OK, I suppose they ARE movies). "Cars" brings up travel search engines and give away sites. "US patents" fails to find the US Patent Office.
All in all, I find a good use for the nofollow attribute for the first time. For more on size issues, see my recent Search Engine Size Wars V Erupts post.
Posted by Danny Sullivan on January 31, 2005, 7:56 AM | Permalink
