Subscribe to SearchDay, our free daily e-mail summarizing the day's Search Marketing News.

Back to Main

September 17, 2006 - September 23, 2006


Search Headlines & Links: September 22, 2006

Below, a recap of stories posted today to the Search Engine Watch Blog, along with other items we've spotted but not blogged separately:

From The SEW Blog...

  • Google Loses Appeal On Posting Belgian Ruling
    Google loses appeal on posting court ruling from Reuters covers Google losing an appeal that it should not be required to post the ruling of a Belgian court over a copyright infringement lawsuit on its Belgian web search and news sites. It now will be fined 500,000 euros per day for each day it fails to comply. Google has a further appeal on the entire case, including posting the ruling, that will be heard in November. My past article Google's Belgium Fight: Show Me The Money, Not The Opt-Out, Say Publishers has more about that and the entire case....
  • Publisher Groups To Test New Search Engine Rights Management System
    Several mostly print publisher groups say they are to test a new "Automated Content Access Protocol" that they feel will head off conflicts with search engines. A release with more information is below....
  • Google & Saturn Team Up On Video Ads, Google Earth Promotion
    Marketing on Google: It's Not Just Text Anymore from the New York Times covers how Google is partnering with a traditional ad company to do an integrated campaign for General Motors, one that begins today to promote the Saturn brand in Google Earth, video ads through Google AdSense For Content and other unnamed Google products (fair to say, those old school text ads will be part of it)....
  • BusinessWeek's Good Look At Click Fraud
    Via Micropersuasion, Click Fraud is a BusinessWeek cover story on, well, click fraud. What's new from stories we've already read and read and read about click fraud before? Lots, ranging from a new advertiser pressure group, to an industry estimate that click fraud is 10 to 15 percent, along with a couple outing themselves as fraudsters. It's well worth a read. Here are some highlights: BusinessWeek talks about its investigation coming up with "paid to read" rings, spread out in a way to presumably avoid detection. We get a named Minnesota couple talking about how they "dabbled" in click...
  • Google On How To Let Googlebot In, Keep Bad Bots Out
    One of the things that came out of our Bot Obedience Course at SES San Jose last month was a wish that search engines somehow made it possible for site owners to know they were sending "trusted" or "certified" spiders. Now Google's suggested one way this can be done....
  • Webmasters Complaining About Google? Get A Job Helping Them Know!
    A new job opening from Google, Webmaster Trends Analyst. It's all about helping Google monitor what webmasters are upset or concerned about at forums, conferences and other venues. From the job description: Responsibilities: Monitor webmaster issues (in various online forums, conferences, internal questions, etc.). Analyze data for trends. Formulate recommendations. Route issues using appropriate escalation paths. Investigate specific issues, as needed. Sounds like a perfect job for Barry Schwartz! Of course, if I lose yet another news editor to a search engine, oh vey!...

Headlines & News From Elsewhere

Posted by Danny Sullivan on September 22, 2006, 12:56 PM | Permalink


Google Loses Appeal On Posting Belgian Ruling

Google loses appeal on posting court ruling from Reuters covers Google losing an appeal that it should not be required to post the ruling of a Belgian court over a copyright infringement lawsuit on its Belgian web search and news sites. It now will be fined 500,000 euros per day for each day it fails to comply. Google has a further appeal on the entire case, including posting the ruling, that will be heard in November. My past article Google's Belgium Fight: Show Me The Money, Not The Opt-Out, Say Publishers has more about that and the entire case.

Posted by Danny Sullivan on September 22, 2006, 12:10 PM | Permalink


Publisher Groups To Test New Search Engine Rights Management System (Updated)

Several mostly print publisher groups say they are to test a new "Automated Content Access Protocol" that they feel will head off conflicts with search engines. A release with more information is below.

Exactly how the system will work, why it is different or better than existing systems like robots.txt or meta robots tags, isn't explained. More details are promised to be unveiled at the Frankfurt Book Fair on October 6.

I'm planning to talk with the World Association Of Newspapers to learn more about their plans next week, so I may have more before the formal unveiling. I've had a very informal talk already, and the view seems to be to find a way to make the existing systems work better. That's appreciated, and it's something the search marketing community has long wanted. But it's something I hope will involve more than just a group of publishers with mostly print interests.

My Google's Belgium Fight: Show Me The Money, Not The Opt-Out, Say Publishers article from earlier this week explains how in my view, the entire issue that has erupted in Belgium is less about keeping content out of search engines and more about trying to force them to pay publishers for inclusion. Right now, any publisher that feels copyright is somehow infringed by being in a search engine has a very easy, very selectable way to keep whatever they want out: robots.txt files or meta robots tags. These work on a web-wide basis, have support of all the major search engines, plus have been used by users from publishers of all types. They could definitely be improved -- but in the Belgium case in particular, using them would have solved the exact problem that was raised.

Here's the release:

GLOBAL PUBLISHERS HEAD OFF LEGAL CLASH WITH SEARCH ENGINES: NEW RIGHTS MANAGEMENT PILOT IMMINENT

In the week that the publishers of Le Soir and La Libre Belgique won their case in the Belgian Courts against Google for illegally publishing content on its news service without prior consent, the World Association of Newspapers (W.A.N.), the European Publishers Council (E.P.C.) the International Publishers Association (I.P.A.) and the European Newspapers Association (E.N.P.A), are preparing to launch a global industry pilot project that aims to avoid any future clash between search engines and newspaper, periodical, magazine and book publishers.

The new project, ACAP (Automated Content Access Protocol), is an automated enabling system by which the providers of content published on the World Wide Web can systematically grant permissions information (relating to access and use of their content) in a form that can be readily recognised and interpreted by a search engine “crawler”, so that the search engine operator (and ultimately, any other user) is enabled systematically to comply with such a policy or licence. Effectively, ACAP will be a technical solutions framework that will allow publishers worldwide to express use policies in a language that the search engine's robot “spiders” can be taught to understand.

Gavin O'Reilly, Chairman of the W.A.N., said: “This system is intended to remove completely any rights conflicts between publishers and search engines. Via ACAP, we look forward to fostering mutually beneficial relationships between publishers of original content and the search engine operators, in which the interests of both parties can be properly balanced. Importantly, ACAP is an enabling solution that will ensure that published content will be accessible to all and will encourage publication of increasing amounts of high-value content online. This industry-wide initiative positively answers the growing frustration of publishers, who continue to invest heavily in generating content for online dissemination and use.”

Francisco Pinto Balsemão, Chairman of the E.P.C., said: “ACAP will unambiguously express our preferred rights and terms and conditions. In doing so, it will facilitate greater access to our published content, making it more, not less available, to anyone wishing to use it, whilst avoiding copyright infringement and protecting search engines from future litigation.”

ACAP will be presented in more detail at the forthcoming Frankfurt Book Fair on 6th October and will be launched officially by the end of the year. W.A.N., the E.P.C. and I.P.A. will run the pilot for a period of up to 12 months and it will be managed by Rightscom Ltd.

===

The European Publishers Council is a high level group of Chairmen and CEOs of European media corporations actively involved in multimedia markets spanning newspaper, magazine and online database publishers. Many EPC members also have significant interests in commercial television and radio.

The World Association of Newspapers groups 72 national newspaper associations, individual newspaper executives in 100 nations, 13 news agencies, and nine regional press organizations, representing .more than 18,000 publications in all international discussions on media issues, to defend both press freedom and the professional and business interests of the press. The International Publishers Association is a Non Governmental Organisation with consultative relations with the United Nations. Its constituency is of book and journal publishers world-wide, assembled into 78 publishers associations at national, regional and specialised level. The European Newspaper Publishers' Association – is a non-profit association currently representing 5 100 national, regional and local newspapers. These daily, weekly and Sunday titles are published in 24 European countries where ENPA's members are operating in their national markets.

Postscript: I've just received this briefing paper that explains more. I've skimmed it and attached one note marked in bold. Basically, the existing robots.txt or meta robots systems can do a lot of what's already described here. What they cannot do is help search engines access content because the publisher allows this only through a licensing agreement, something the Belgian publishers seem to want. In addition, the pilot can do all it wants. Unless some major search engines agree to cooperate, the pilot will go nowhere. Again, I'll follow up more on this next week after talking with the groups involved.

ACAP
Automated Content Access Protocol

A briefing paper for publishers on a project in planning

1       Executive summary

All sectors of publishing face a “search engine dilemma”. The value of search engines to users – and to those who publish on the network – is incontrovertible. However, search engine activities can be very damaging to specific online publishing models. The undifferentiated model of permissions management (essentially either allowing or forbidding search of content) is inadequate to support the diverse present and future internet strategies and business models of online publishers.

At the beginning of 2006, the major publishing trade associations established a Working Party, chaired by Gavin O'Reilly, Chairman of the World Association of Newspapers, to consider the issues that this has raised. As a result, the World Association of Newspapers and the European Publishers Council are planning a project which will develop and pilot a technical framework which will allow publishers to express access and use policies in a language which the search engine's robot “spiders” can be taught to understand. This will make it possible to establish mutually beneficial business relationships between publishers and search engine operators, in which the interests of both parties can be properly balanced.

The project is provisionally called ACAP (for Automated Content Access Protocol). ACAP will develop and pilot a system by which the owners of content published on the World Wide Web can provide permissions information (relating to access and use of their content) in a form in which it can be recognised and where necessary interpreted by a search engine “crawler”, so that the search engine operator (and perhaps, ultimately, any other user) is enabled systematically to comply with such a policy or licence.

This paper is intended to brief publishers on the outline of this project and to encourage their active support and participation when the project is launched in September 2006.


2       Background – the “search engine” problem

At the beginning of 2006, the major Europe-based publishing trade associations – including the World Association of Newspapers (WAN); the European Publishers Council (EPC); the European Newspaper Publishers Association (ENPA); the International Publishers Association (IPA); the European Federation of Magazine Publishers FAEP); the Federation of European Publishers (FEP); the World Editors Forum (WEF); the International Federation of the Periodical Press (FIPP) and Agence France Presse  – established a Working Party to consider the issues that are posed by search engines for publishers, and to look at ways in which mutually beneficial relationships can be established between publishers and search engine operators, in which the interests of both parties can be properly balanced.

All sectors of publishing have a “search engine dilemma” (even if we disregard the particular problems that book publishers have with mass digitisation programmes). Search engines are an unavoidable and valued port of call for anyone seeking an audience on the internet. Search engines sit between internet users and the content they are seeking out and have found brilliantly simple and effective ways to make money from that audience. They have become so dominant that no individual website owner is large enough to have any serious impact on their commercial fortunes.

The benefits of powerful search technology to both users and providers of content are well recognised by publishers – although even “mere” search functionality can have a negative impact on some publishing business models. At the same time, publishers are aware that search engines are, in following their business logic, inevitably and gradually moving into a publisher-like role, initially merely pointing, then caching and, finally, aggregating and “publishing” and perhaps even creating content themselves, while using publishers' content at will.

In the current state of technology, there can be none of the differentiation of terms of access and use which characterises copyright-based relationships in publishing environments, whether electronic or physical. The search engines can and do reasonably argue that, since their systems are completely automated, and they cannot possibly enter into and manage individual and different agreements with every website they encounter, there is no practical alternative to their current modus operandi.

Whether this (technological and political) gap is there by design or by accident, the search engines are able to make their own rules and decide for themselves whose interests are worth considering.

If publishers are to take the initiative in establishing orderly business relationships with the search engine operators, the response must be to help them to address the problem, both to fill the technical gap and ensure its political implementation. To paraphrase the former copyright adviser to the UK Publishers Association Charles Clark's famous claim that “the answer to the machine is in the machine”, the challenges that are created by technology are best resolved by technology. Since search engine operators rely on robotic “spiders” to manage their automated processes, publishers' web sites need to start speaking a language which the operators can teach their robots to understand. What is required is a standardised way of describing the permissions which apply to a website or webpage so that it can be decoded by a dumb machine without the help of an expensive lawyer.

In this way, one of the search engines' most reliable rationalisations of their “our way or no way” approach will have been removed, and a structure which embraces and supports the diverse present and future internet strategies and business models of online publishers will have been created.

As a result of the work of the Working Party, a proposal was made to develop a permissions based framework for online content. This would be a technical specification which would allow the publisher of a website or any piece of content to attach extra data which would specify what use by search engines was allowable for that piece of content or website. The aim will be for this to become a widely implemented standard, ultimately embedded into website and content creation software.

Following the commissioning of a brief feasibility study, WAN and EPC have taken the initiative to establish a project to develop and pilot this framework to express publishers' access and use policies. A detailed plan for this project – provisionally called ACAP (for Automated Content Access Protocol) – is currently in development.

This paper is intended to brief publishers on the outline of this project and to encourage their active support and participation when the project is launched in September 2006.

3       ACAP – the vision

ACAP will develop and pilot a system by which the owners of content published on the World Wide Web can provide permissions information (relating to access and use of their content) in a form in which it can be recognised and where necessary interpreted by a search engine “crawler”, so that the search engine operator (and perhaps, ultimately, any other user) is enabled  systematically to comply with such a policy or licence. Permissions may be in the form of
 

• policy statements which require no formal agreement on the part of a user
• formal licences agreed between the content owner and the search engine operator.

There are two distinct levels of permissions which need to be managed within this framework:

• The permission given to the search engine operators for their own operations (access, copy and download, cache, index, make available for display)
• The delegation of rights given to the search engine operators to grant permissions of access and use to search engine users (search, access, view, copy, download, etc)

Although these can be managed within the same framework, it is important that the differences between them are recognised.

4       Use Cases

We include two informal Use Cases which are illustrative of the type of challenge that we seek to solve through ACAP.

4.1     USE CASE A: NEWSPAPERS

Newspaper publisher A would like all search engines to index his site, but only search engines X, Y and Z may display articles (because they have paid a royalty) on their news pages, and then only for 30 days. All images must be fully attributed as they are in the newspaper. The newspaper publisher uses articles syndicated by other newspapers and news agencies and cannot grant permission for those items, to the extent of the third party rights. Articles should not be permanently cached.

NOTE FROM DANNY: Using existing systems, publishers privileged enough to be included in news search engines don't have their articles displayed. They have links to those articles displayed, along with a description, something that people do all over the web and is generally accepted as fair use. Specific search engines can be blocked, if that's the desire. Specific images can also be blocked. Publishers can require those reprinting their content to install blocks as well.

4.2     USE CASE B: BOOKS

Book Publisher B invites search engine operators X, Y and Z to index the full text of his latest college text books. The web site where the full text is stored should not be made visible to search engine clients. He wishes that search engine users can browse only 2 pages of a maths book, but 20 pages of a philosophy text book. Search engine users should be able to buy individual chapters for private use, at $5 and $3 per chapter respectively.

5       Business requirements

Although it will be an integral part of the ACAP project to further develop and confirm the business requirements of publishers for the operation of the framework, significant progress has already been made in identifying the high level business requirements against which any technical solution must be measured. In summary, the solution must be:

• enabling not obstructive: facilitating normal business relationships, not interfering with them, while providing content owners with proper control over their content
• flexible and extensible: the technical approach should not impose limitations on individual business relationships which might be agreed between content owners and search engine operators; and it should be compatible with different search technologies, so that it does not become rapidly obsolete.
• able to manage permissions associated with arbitrary levels of granularity of content: from a single digital object to a complete website, to many websites managed by the same content owner
• universally applicable: the technical approach should initially be suitable for implementation by all text-based content industries, and so far as possible should be extensible to (or at the very least interoperable with) solutions adopted in other media
• able to manage both generic and specific: able to express default terms which a content owner might choose to apply to any search engine operator and equally able to express the terms of a specific licence between an individual search engine operator and an individual content owners
• as fully automated as possible: requiring human intervention only where this essential to make decisions which cannot be made by machines
• efficient: inexpensive to implement, by enabling seamless integration with electronic production processes and simple maintenance tools
• open standards based: A pro-competitive development open to all, with the lowest possible barriers to entry for both content owners and search engine operators
• based on existing technologies and existing infrastructure: wherever suitable solutions exist, we should adopt and (where necessary) extend them – not reinvent the wheel

The approach taken should also be capable of staged implementation – it should be possible for initial applications to be relatively simple, while providing the basis for seamless extension into more sophisticated permissions management.

Although the scope of the project is initially limited to the relationship between publishers and search engine operators, a framework which meets these requirements should be readily extensible to other business relationships (although details of implementation would not be the same in every case).

6       The Pilot Project

The ACAP pilot project is expected to last for around 12 months. In outline, it anticipated that the project will:

• confirm and prioritise the business and technical requirements with the widest possible constituency: agreement with all stakeholders is essential if the project is to succeed in the long term
• agree which specific Use Cases should be implemented in the pilot phase of the project, starting with a relatively simple approach
• develop the elements of the technical solution: it is anticipated that this will primarily involve the development of standards for policy expression, although it will also be necessary to develop the tools for the implementation of those standards
• identify a suitable group of organisations willing and able to participate in the pilot project; it is currently anticipated that this could involve four or five publishers and one of the major search engines; participants will need to be in a position to dedicate technical and time resources to the project to enable it to succeed
• pilot the standards and the tools, to prove the underlying concepts

In parallel with the development of the technical solution, a significant stream of project work will involve the development of a sustainable governance structure to manage and extend the standards (and any related technical services) which will be needed after the project phase of ACAP is complete.
To avoid duplication of effort, ACAP will also establish liaisons with relevant standards developments elsewhere. In particular, the project is already in contact with EDItEUR  with respect to its development of ONIX for Licensing Terms; and, in view of the significance of identification issues, with the International DOI Foundation.

7       Next steps

It is anticipated that the project will be launched publicly in September 2006; there is a great deal to be achieved between now and then, and at launch it will be possible to be much more explicit about plans and expectations.  However, it is very important that the publishing community as a whole is ready and willing to respond positively when the project is launched.

The feasibility study commissioned by WAN, EPC and ENPA concluded that this project is technically feasible – and indeed requires little in the way of genuinely new technology. Rather, it requires the integration and implementation of identification and metadata technologies that are already well understood. It is also possible to chart a developmental path which does not demand that every element of the framework must be in place before any of it can be usefully implemented.

However, this is not to suggest that everything will be simple, not that it can be achieved without cost. A significant part of the project cost will have to be borne by those organisations that agree to participate in the pilot, in the development of their own systems; however, there will also be central costs, to which it is hoped that other publishers will be prepared to contribute.

If you have any questions about this project, or would simply like to express your support, please contact: info@the-acap.org

Posted by Danny Sullivan on September 22, 2006, 10:41 AM | Permalink


Google & Saturn Team Up On Video Ads, Google Earth Promotion

Marketing on Google: It's Not Just Text Anymore from the New York Times covers how Google is partnering with a traditional ad company to do an integrated campaign for General Motors, one that begins today to promote the Saturn brand in Google Earth, video ads through Google AdSense For Content and other unnamed Google products (fair to say, those old school text ads will be part of it).

Meanwhile, Cameron Othuis points out how BMW is letting opportunities slip by in by overlooking paid ads. Similarly, last month, Steve Plunkett dropped me an email where he was amazed that Pontiac was running those TV ads we've mentioned before about Googling them in his area but without paying more attention to the organic results.

To prove his point, he created a page to rank well for pontiac dealers dallas-ft.worth at Google, which now ranks first. Of course, that's a lot of words, making it easier to rank. A search on pontiac dallas doesn't list him, though pontiac dealers dallas does. While perhaps Pontiac could do more on the organic side, they aren't complete invisible -- and that big fat paid link at the top saying "The Official Pontiac Site" is pretty noticeable.

Postscript: See Google / Saturn Video Ad for an example of the landing page for the ads

Posted by Danny Sullivan on September 22, 2006, 6:58 AM | Permalink


BusinessWeek's Good Look At Click Fraud

Via Micropersuasion, Click Fraud is a BusinessWeek cover story on, well, click fraud. What's new from stories we've already read and read and read about click fraud before? Lots, ranging from a new advertiser pressure group, to an industry estimate that click fraud is 10 to 15 percent, along with a couple outing themselves as fraudsters. It's well worth a read. Here are some highlights:

BusinessWeek talks about its investigation coming up with "paid to read" rings, spread out in a way to presumably avoid detection. We get a named Minnesota couple talking about how they "dabbled" in click fraud to earn $5,000 over four months by setting up sites with Google and Yahoo ads, then paying other people to click. Ouch -- not a good thing for either company to have someone flat out admitting. Not sure the wisdom of that couple stepping forward, either!

Further down, BusinessWeek suggests clicks aren't a good measure of consumer interest:

Google and Yahoo are grabbing billions of dollars once collected by traditional print and broadcast outlets, based partly on the assumption that clicks are a reliable, quantifiable measure of consumer interest that the older media simply can't match.

Actually, it's still a fairly good assumption. That's because clicks can often be related to a conversion action -- a purchase. If you're getting a lot of clicks but no conversion, you might have a bad pitch, bad product or bad clicks due to click fraud. Unfortunately, many marketers won't know any of this due to the failure to measure conversion at all. Add in conversion tracking, and you have a one-two punch that makes these type of ads so powerful.

The story gives us a new estimate for click fraud, 10 to 15 percent:

Most academics and consultants who study online advertising estimate that 10% to 15% of ad clicks are fake, representing roughly $1 billion in annual billings.

Maybe. Maybe not. Those the reporters talked with aren't named. I've continued to hear ranges that go from practically nothing (what the search engines say, and they do have to be counted into the estimates) to as high as 50 percent. I've not heard anyone agreeing on a particular range.

BusinessWeek says some big brands will push on click fraud later this month:

In late September a coalition of such major brands as InterActive Corp.'s (IACI ) Expedia.com travel site and mortgage broker LendingTree is planning to go public with its mounting unease over click fraud, BusinessWeek has learned. The companies intend to form a group to share information and pressure Google and Yahoo to be more forthcoming.

Ironically, IAC's various units such as Ask sell pay-per-click ads themselves, nor have I see anyone suggest that Ask is somehow immune to click fraud. Frankly, people probably haven't looked at it much simply because the overall sales and volume are much less than at Google or Yahoo.

We've got a former anonymous Yahoo manager saying click fraud can't be stopped:

"Advertisers should be concerned," says a former Yahoo manager who requested anonymity. "A well-executed click-fraud attack is nearly impossible, if not impossible, to detect."

Google, which usually gets the brunt of click fraud criticism I'd say, gets a small reprieve from one advertiser:

Google, he says, does a better job than Yahoo of screening for fraud. But neither adequately protects marketers, he argues.

That advertiser does the drill down that often is so much better at illustrating click fraud than the general talk about it:

How, he wants to know, did he receive traffic this summer from PCs in South Korea which are clicking on insurance1472.com and insurance060.com? The only content on these identical sites -- and five other clones with similar names -- are lists of Yahoo ads, which occasionally have included MostChoice promotions.

The story then goes into the idea of "recycled" ads -- IE, contextual placements that can range from domain parking services to sites that simply scrape search results as if they are presenting "new" content.

We get a deeper look into an alleged pay-to-read ring:

He owns about 20 paid-to-read sites, he says, as well as 200 parked sites stuffed with Google and Yahoo advertisements. But he says he will take down healthinsurancebids.com to avoid discovery. He claims to take in $70,000 in ad revenue a month, but says that only 10% of that comes from PTRs.

BusinessWeek then joins some of these rings:

BusinessWeek reporters received a torrent of e-mail showcasing hundreds of parked sites filled with Google and Yahoo ads. The groups urged participants to click aggressively on ads.

And interviews a former pay-to-reader:

At one point, she says she belonged to as many as 50 such sites but earned only about $200 all told. More recently, she says, most PTR sites have dropped the pretense of caring whether members are interested in the sites they visit.

Google and Yahoo are cited as saying they filter this stuff out.

Of course, further down in the story, I want to scream at one of the advertisers to just stop advertising outside Google itself:

But as clicks from ZapMeta kept arriving, Fleischmann demanded in an Aug. 7 e-mail to Google: "You should be trusting us and doing something about [ZapMeta] as a partner, instead of finding more ways to refute our data or requests."

The advertiser could easily restrict ads to only show up on the Google search network, which would eliminate the domain and contextual driven traffic that can be so problematic. He'd get less traffic, but he'd also get less frustration.

Then again, his frustration is well understood and a big warning to the major ad networks. As they've gotten bigger, they're more vulnerable to this type of gaming. One way of combating it is the off heard cry to allow more exclusion of particular sites across the network. Google has done a lot here, but more could come. Yahoo seems to have much further to go.

Don't miss the extras that go with the story:

Posted by Danny Sullivan on September 22, 2006, 6:43 AM | Permalink


Google On How To Let Googlebot In, Keep Bad Bots Out

One of the things that came out of our Bot Obedience Course at SES San Jose last month was a wish that search engines somehow made it possible for site owners to know they were sending "trusted" or "certified" spiders. Now Google's suggested one way this can be done.

Those blocking rogue spiders through IP filtering run the risk that they might accidentally keep some of the "good" bots out. If you don't know all the Google IP addresses, there's a chance you might reject a Google spider accidentally. That might cause your pages to be dropped from Google.

How to verify Googlebot from Matt Cutts at the Official Google Webmaster Central Blog covers a suggested technique to avoid this. Basically, all Google spiders will report they are from the googlebot.com domain. So do a DNS lookup on the IP address. If it comes back as googlebot.com, then you're halfway there. Halfway? Yes, that's because people can lie about domain names. To avoid spoofers, you then have to look up the domain name you found to see if it matches the original IP range.

The blog post explains more, and it's going to make the most sense to tech-savvy webmasters that are implementing some type of IP filtering or blocking already. Not doing that? Then don't worry about this -- it's not really for you.

Down the line, perhaps we'll see less tech-savvy solutions come up, for those sites getting slammed by bad bots but without IP filtering. But this is a great start for now.

Matt's also mentioned this on his personal blog, where people are commenting on the technique.

Posted by Danny Sullivan on September 22, 2006, 5:25 AM | Permalink


Search Forums Roundup: Sept. 22, 2006

Today's SearchDay, Search Engine Forums Spotlight, features our weekly links to this week's hot topics from search engine forums across the web: Links to the week's topics from search engine forums across the web: Yahoo Reports Slowing Ad Sales - Search Engines Can't Read 301's - Google Mobile Ads - MSN Search Vs Windows Live Search: What's The Difference? - Will Google Penalize for Linking to Non Related Sites? and more.

Posted by Chris Sherman on September 22, 2006, 2:02 AM | Permalink


Webmasters Complaining About Google? Get A Job Helping Them Know!

A new job opening from Google, Webmaster Trends Analyst. It's all about helping Google monitor what webmasters are upset or concerned about at forums, conferences and other venues. From the job description:

Responsibilities:

  • Monitor webmaster issues (in various online forums, conferences, internal questions, etc.).
  • Analyze data for trends.
  • Formulate recommendations.
  • Route issues using appropriate escalation paths.
  • Investigate specific issues, as needed.

Sounds like a perfect job for Barry Schwartz! Of course, if I lose yet another news editor to a search engine, oh vey!

Posted by Danny Sullivan on September 21, 2006, 3:13 PM | Permalink


Search Headlines & Links: September 21, 2006

Below, a recap of stories posted today to the Search Engine Watch Blog, along with other items we've spotted but not blogged separately:

From The SEW Blog...

  • Nokia To Integrate Live Search Into Mobile Devices
    Echoing earlier deals with Yahoo and Google, Nokia, the world's largest mobile handset maker, has said it will integrate Microsoft's Live search into its mobile search offering. Here's more from Reuters. The handset makers are doing deals with search brands, while the carriers (at least in the U.S.) are seeking to favor their own search solutions over Google and Yahoo for fear that they'll be bypasssed, just as most Internet ISPs have been online....
  • Flickr/Zooomr/Photo Sharing Marketer Wanted
    I have exactly one spot left for a speaker at our SES Multimedia event happening in October in Los Angeles. I'm looking for someone who generates traffic via Flickr, Zooomr or other photo sharing sites to do a 15 minute presentation for our Images & Search Engines panel. I don't need someone to talk about spider-based search engines. I'm covered on that front. Interested? Read the general speaking and pitching instructions here. Then get in touch by next Tuesday, September 24. The instructions say that all sessions are closed. That's true -- except for this one particular spot. So if...
  • KinderStart Issues An Amended Complaint Against Google
    Eric Goldman wrote that KinderStart has issued a 63 page second amended complaint against Google. KinderStart lost their first case against Google back in July of this year - that case was, in my opinion, ridiculous. This new complaint is even worse. The 43(B)log summarizes the complaints, calling many of them "incomprehensible." Eric Goldman says "I expect Google will file a motion to dismiss, which the judge will grant, at least in part (at minimum, to eliminate the Violation of Free Speech claim). I expect Google to go on the counter-offensive and renew its anti-SLAPP motions."...
  • Chicago Tribune Does Big Search Package
    The Chicago Tribune is running a big package on search today. There's little new or suprrising for regular readers of this blog, but you might find it interesting to see how a mainstream newspaper tries to dive into the search wars. Gunning For Google hosts the package from there, you find.......
  • Google Book Search Adds "Find It At The Library" Link
    The Google Book Search blog announced a feature named "Find this book in a library." How does it work? I went to a book and clicked on the Find this book in a library, which takes you to the OCLC Worldcat. Then you type in your postal code, state, province or country. I entered in a NYC zip code, 10010 into the search box. Then I clicked on the first result and ended up at this page that showed me that the status is available. More details at Google Book Search Help Center....
  • Mining for SEO Gold in Search Engine Patents
    The major search engines are all frequent filers of patent applications. While most of these documents make for fascinating reading, do they offer any useful clues for optimizing web pages that might give search marketers an edge? Maybe, maybe not, said a panel at a recent Search Engine Strategies conference. Shari Thurow was there and has more on the session in today's SearchDay article, Do Patents Point to SEO Gold?....
  • Bush Bio Changes For Miserable Failure Query Due To White House Change
    Since 2004, a search on Google and Yahoo for "miserable failure" has almost always ranked the the official George W. Bush biography tops. Link bombing, as I've covered here, caused it to happen. But yesterday, folks at Threadwatch spotted that it has changed. What happened? The White House moved the bio to a new page, which has caused the old page to disappear for that search temporarily. Now, at least for me, the bio is ranking tops again at a new location. The change is something a future president probably won't like....
  • SideStep Launches Syndication Platform, Partners with Forbes.com
    SideStep today launched its syndication platform, "a simple and easily customizable platform that provides a consistent user experience between SideStep.com and partners who want to incorporate SideStep's award winning travel search technology into their own sites." While I'm still waiting for a strong API affiliate program from one of the travel search engines, this is a step in the right direction. Sure beats trying to compete with the OTAs (Expedia, Travelocity, Orbitz) on the pay per click (PPC) engines. In conjunction with the new syndication platform, SideStep announced its first partner, Forbes.com, which launched the luxury travel site ForbesTraveler.com. Not...

Headlines & News From Elsewhere

Posted by Danny Sullivan on September 21, 2006, 12:45 PM | Permalink


Nokia To Integrate Live Search Into Mobile Devices

Echoing earlier deals with Yahoo and Google, Nokia, the world's largest mobile handset maker, has said it will integrate Microsoft's Live search into its mobile search offering. Here's more from Reuters. The handset makers are doing deals with search brands, while the carriers (at least in the U.S.) are seeking to favor their own search solutions over Google and Yahoo for fear that they'll be bypasssed, just as most Internet ISPs have been online.

Posted by Greg Sterling on September 21, 2006, 11:55 AM | Permalink


Flickr/Zooomr/Photo Sharing Marketer Wanted

I have exactly one spot left for a speaker at our SES Multimedia event happening in October in Los Angeles. I'm looking for someone who generates traffic via Flickr, Zooomr or other photo sharing sites to do a 15 minute presentation for our Images & Search Engines panel. I don't need someone to talk about spider-based search engines. I'm covered on that front. Interested? Read the general speaking and pitching instructions here. Then get in touch by next Tuesday, September 24. The instructions say that all sessions are closed. That's true -- except for this one particular spot. So if you're a fit, interested, let me know.

Posted by Danny Sullivan on September 21, 2006, 11:05 AM | Permalink


KinderStart Issues An Amended Complaint Against Google

Eric Goldman wrote that KinderStart has issued a 63 page second amended complaint against Google. KinderStart lost their first case against Google back in July of this year - that case was, in my opinion, ridiculous. This new complaint is even worse. The 43(B)log summarizes the complaints, calling many of them "incomprehensible." Eric Goldman says "I expect Google will file a motion to dismiss, which the judge will grant, at least in part (at minimum, to eliminate the Violation of Free Speech claim). I expect Google to go on the counter-offensive and renew its anti-SLAPP motions."

Posted by Barry Schwartz on September 21, 2006, 10:51 AM | Permalink


Chicago Tribune Does Big Search Package

The Chicago Tribune is running a big package on search today. There's little new or suprrising for regular readers of this blog, but you might find it interesting to see how a mainstream newspaper tries to dive into the search wars. Gunning For Google hosts the package from there, you find....

Inside a Web giant's manic search for staying power is the first part, where the Trib gets "a rare extended look inside" the Googleplex that instead ends up dwelling a lot on YouTube. The Tribune seems to have arrived when Google was upgrading Google Video, so they seem to have the impression that Google's all about beating YouTube.

Still, it was interesting to see that a recent employee audit shocked CEO Eric Schmidt, who discovered only 60 percent of worker time was spent on Google's core business. "It was quite alarming to find that we were below the 70 percent without knowing it," said Schmidt, from the article.

Man vs. machine in battle for clicks is the second part, with lots of quotes from various search engine companies on how they are all battling against each other.

Meet Google's credibility cop is a focus on Google spam fighter Matt Cutts.

There's much more, but I easily missed the items on the home page when I originally wrote this, because they are off to the side rather than listed below the three main stories. Here they are:

Posted by Danny Sullivan on September 21, 2006, 9:35 AM | Permalink


Google Book Search Adds "Find It At The Library" Link

The Google Book Search blog announced a feature named "Find this book in a library." How does it work? I went to a book and clicked on the Find this book in a library, which takes you to the OCLC Worldcat. Then you type in your postal code, state, province or country. I entered in a NYC zip code, 10010 into the search box. Then I clicked on the first result and ended up at this page that showed me that the status is available. More details at Google Book Search Help Center.

Posted by Barry Schwartz on September 21, 2006, 8:18 AM | Permalink


Mining for SEO Gold in Search Engine Patents

The major search engines are all frequent filers of patent applications. While most of these documents make for fascinating reading, do they offer any useful clues for optimizing web pages that might give search marketers an edge? Maybe, maybe not, said a panel at a recent Search Engine Strategies conference. Shari Thurow was there and has more on the session in today's SearchDay article, Do Patents Point to SEO Gold?.

Posted by Chris Sherman on September 21, 2006, 7:07 AM | Permalink


Bush Bio Changes For Miserable Failure Query Due To White House Change

Since 2004, a search on Google and Yahoo for "miserable failure" has almost always ranked the the official George W. Bush biography tops. Link bombing, as I've covered here, caused it to happen. But yesterday, folks at Threadwatch spotted that it has changed.

What happened? The White House moved the bio to a new page, which has caused the old page to disappear for that search temporarily. Now, at least for me, the bio is ranking tops again at a new location. The change is something a future president probably won't like.

The old page lived here:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/gwbbio.html

You can see a copy of it via these listings at the Internet Archive. It was up since at least September 2001.

The new page lives here:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/

The old page uses a meta refresh command to send both humans and search engine spiders from the old to the new page. A fast meta refresh, to my knowledge, is treated by at least Google as a 301 permanent redirect.

Over at Yahoo, the old address is still ranking tops. At Google, yesterday the bio was completely gone. Today, at least for me, the bio is back up but at this new address, like this:

060921.jpg

Why the change? My money is on the Bush Administration finally getting someone smart about search engines in to "solve" the miserable failure problem. The new page is a common page that potentially may be used by all US Presidents, rather than one specifically about George W. Bush. All those links making the old page come up will now make the overall page for ALL US Presidents rank well for that term.

Interestingly, this "overall" page seems to have existed nearly as long as the dedicated page to Bush, according to the Internet Archive. In January 2001, it hosted his bio. By September 13, 2001, it became an overview page, with his bio moved to that dedicated URL above.

Eventually, Bush will leave office, and so a dedicated page to him will return. This will likely be something like this:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/gb43.html

That follows the naming convention of pages for other US Presidents, as you'll find here. It also begs the question of why it wasn't created, if the Bush Administration suddenly felt the White House pages about US presidents needed a shake up.

Interestingly again, if you visit that page, you'll see that Bush still has a dedicated page listed here:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/biography.html

Since that's actually his bio, the old bio more appropriately should point to that location.

Political games aside, Bush should have a unique page dedicated to himself, rather than making use of a generic page any US President might later encounter. The reason is simple. There are actually plenty of educators and other with no political gripe against Bush that might need to link to his bio or already have done so. This change fails to defuse the link bomb but certainly messes up many pages pointing at his bio with good intentions in the years to come.

For past coverage from us on this issue, see:

Posted by Danny Sullivan on September 21, 2006, 6:05 AM | Permalink


SideStep Launches Syndication Platform, Partners with Forbes.com

SideStep today launched its syndication platform, "a simple and easily customizable platform that provides a consistent user experience between SideStep.com and partners who want to incorporate SideStep's award winning travel search technology into their own sites."

While I'm still waiting for a strong API affiliate program from one of the travel search engines, this is a step in the right direction. Sure beats trying to compete with the OTAs (Expedia, Travelocity, Orbitz) on the pay per click (PPC) engines.

In conjunction with the new syndication platform, SideStep announced its first partner, Forbes.com, which launched the luxury travel site ForbesTraveler.com. Not a bad partner to start with. The terms of the deal (or any deal involving the syndication platform) aren't crystal clear, but with a white hot online advertising market, I'd assume that there's a nice revenue share for all advertising sold through a partner's site.

Read a bit more at VerticalSearch.net.

Posted by Brian Smith on September 21, 2006, 3:38 AM | Permalink


Search Headlines & Links: September 20, 2006

Below, a recap of stories posted today to the Search Engine Watch Blog, along with other items we've spotted but not blogged separately:

From The SEW Blog...

  • Google's Belgium Fight: Show Me The Money, Not The Opt-Out, Say Publishers
    I've had a long talk with the group that so far has successfully sued Google in Belgium over indexing, a talk that leaves me thinking they don't fully understand how search engines work and why their arguments over copyright infringement will ultimately fail. Then again, the case is really about trying to convince Google it should pay to carry their news content. A closer look at all this in the story below, as well as an update on the situation in general, including an appeal for Google that's been granted....
  • See Google Results As If You Are In Another Country
    This morning at the Search Engine Roundtable, I reported that you can now easily Check Your Google Results in Any Country. How? Well, go to oy-oy.eu/google/world/ and then select the locations you want to compare side by side. Danny and I tested this out and it seems to be working well. Danny is in the UK and I am in the US, we searched on liar in Google.com, both not signed in to Google. I then compared the results Danny saw on his screen and I saw on my screen, with a side by side comparison of the US location...
  • The Unchanging Search Interface
    Why Search Sucks & You Won't Fix It The Way You Think from me on my personal blog Daggle covers a session I did at Euro Foo Camp this week. It looks at how the search interface of major search engines has largely stayed unchanged over time. We're still using what I call the "DOS of Search." Interestingly, the Google Base change that just happened is a unique event -- the first major search engine to have an important property without that all-important search box on the home page. For me, it's just another sign of how Google Base is...
  • Again, The Need For Search Ad Revenue To Stand Alone
    Has the search bubble popped, given Yahoo's warning yesterday about declining ad revenue? That warning generated a stock plunge that has hit both Yahoo and Google. No, it's probably not a search bubble. Instead, it's a lesson in the danger of not breaking out search ad revenue from other forms. Exactly as Robert Scoble notes here, the ad slip at Yahoo is not necessarily a search ad problem. What Robert calls "banner ads" is more specifically display advertising, graphical ads that are not pay-per-click text ads that show up in response to a search. Yahoo has a much bigger display...
  • Google Webmaster Central's Vanessa Fox & Amanda Camp Interviewed
    Seattle 24x7 has an excellent conversation with Vanessa Fox and Amanda Camp of Google on Google Webmaster Central and working at Google. Both Google women began working at Google in April of 2005 in Seattle. They discuss the conception of Google Webmaster Central (also known as Google Sitemaps). The discussion also goes into the 20% time and recruiting Google women. You can see a picture of the "Seattle's Sisters of Search" also....
  • Microsoft To Enter Chinese Market With China Telecom
    People's Daily Online reports in Microsoft opens search market with China Teleco that Microsoft is starting push their way into the Chinese search market through a new deal with China Telecom. China Telecom China's is said to be China's largest "network operator and internet provider, providing 25 million customers with broadband service. It has more than 80 million internet users and over 400 city portal webs." The deal, in some way, will give the 25 million customers Live Search features (not sure how exactly). As we noted earlier, Baidu is rocking in China, Google is doing OK and Yahoo is...
  • Google Base Drops Search Box As Part Of Usability Improvements
    The Google Base Blog announced that they have updated the Google Base home page to make it easier to use. Garett Rogers over at Googling Google has a deeper look at those changes. Basically, merchants were confused on the different options available to them, so Google made it clearer. A significant change from a searcher's standpoint is that they have removed the search box from the Google Base home page. You can still search, but you need to be within Google Base already to do so, such as from the dashboard. This makes it probably the first Google search product...
  • Yahoo Teams Up With Gore's Current TV
    The news is buzzing about the Current TV and Yahoo partnership. Current TV, founded by Al Gore, and Yahoo announced the launch of The Yahoo Current Network. This network is to "combine professional and user-generated video clips" reports the New York Times. The paper says each show will likely "be preceded by a 15- or 30-second commercial," which is the first time Yahoo "included commercials with user-generated content." TechCrunch notes that this video at Yahoo describes a bit more about how the shows will run, and it also describes "VC2," viewer created content (i.e. user generated content). The user contributed...
  • Zillow Adds 'Owner-Generated' Content
    Real estate search site Zillow.com has added personalization features and the ability for homeowners to publish their own information beside Zillows home-valuation "Zestimates." A new "My Zillow" feature allows users to track homes and save other content to a personal page. Zillow previously allowed homeowners to modify and/or correct the details, features and amenities of their homes and recalculate the estimated value. Those details and modifications can now be made public beside Zillow's own Zestimate if owners so choose. Zillow's Zestimates have been critiqued in some quarters for being inflated or otherwise inaccurate. This capability will help add more accurate...
  • Citysearch Launches in San Diego
    Venerable local search provider Citysearch has launched a new site in San Diego, California. Recently, Citysearch has added "insider lists" (users' local favorites) and local sales events to its mix of editorial and user-generated content. After a period of retrenchment, Citysearch traffic is up and the Citysearch brand appears to be resurgent. The site also provides all the local content for sister IAC property Ask Local....
  • Video Search Usage for August 2006
    Hitwise just released August 2006 market share data for the most popular online video search sites.
  • Yahoo CEO Says Ad Growth Slowing Down; Ask.com To Increase Market Share
    The Wall Street Journal reports that Terry Semel, Yahoo's CEO, has warned that online advertising growth will be slowing in automotive and financial services industries. He said that there is still growth, but "but they're not growing as quickly as we might have hoped at this point in time," Semel said. On that news, Yahoo's shared dropped $3.47, or 12%, to $25.54. Barry Diller, CEO of IAC, said he can see Ask.com gaining market share, about 8 to 10 percent share. More details on that story at Reuters.com. Postscript From Danny: See my follow-up post, Again, The Need For Search...
  • Customizing Your Own Search Engine
    Want to build your own search engine that skews toward your favorite sites or topic, but don't have a few billion to start up your own company? No problem: A number of companies are now offering services that let you tweak their technology to create a highly personalized search experience for you and your blog or web site users. More on these services by SEW correspondent Phil Bradley in today's SearchDay article, Your Search, Your Way....

Headlines & News From Elsewhere

Posted by Danny Sullivan on September 20, 2006, 3:50 PM | Permalink


Google's Belgium Fight: Show Me The Money, Not The Opt-Out, Say Publishers

I've had a long talk with the group that so far has successfully sued Google in Belgium over indexing, a talk that leaves me thinking they don't fully understand how search engines work and why their arguments over copyright infringement will ultimately fail. Then again, the case is really about trying to convince Google it should pay to carry their news content. A closer look at all this in the story below, as well as an update on the situation in general, including an appeal for Google that's been granted.

Let's go back to the beginning. In March, Copiepresse tells me it started legal proceedings against Google over its inclusion of Belgian news sources without explicit permission. The organization represents a number of publishers that were concerned over being indexed.

Information about the case, including a summons, was all set to Google in the United States, according to Copiepresse. A hearing was held in Belgium on September 5th, then the ruling came out last Friday, September 15. Google didn't take part in the hearings, for reasons it says it is still investigating.

The ruling required that Google do two main things within 10 days of receipt:

  1. Remove French and German-language content from the publishers from Google Belgium's web sites or pay a fine of €1 million per day
     
  2. Publish the ruling on Google Belgium and Google News Belgium or pay a fine of €500,000 per day

Over this past weekend, Google says it complied with the first part. It removed links to at least these news sources, Google told me:

dhnet.be
grenzecho.be
lacapitale.be
lalibre.be
lameuse.be
lanouvellegazette.be
laprovince.be
lecho.be
lequotidiendenamur.be
lesoir.be
pressbanking.com
votrejournal.be

It's been noted that Google did more than remove these sites from Google News Belgium. They were removed from Google Belgium entirely. Here are a couple of searches that demonstrate this:

site:dhnet.be
site:grenzecho.be
site:lacapitale.be
site:lalibre.be
site:lameuse.be
site:lanouvellegazette.be
site:laprovince.be
site:lecho.be
site:lequotidiendenamur.be
site:lesoir.be
site:pressbanking.com
site:votrejournal.be

Some have thought this is an example of Google getting revenge, robbing these publishers of regular traffic they probably assumed was safe in a fight over Google News indexing. For its part, Google said its reading of the ruling meant that the sites had to be dropped entirely from Google Belgium:

Order the defendant to withdraw the articles, photographs and graphic representations of Belgian publishers of the French - and German-speaking daily press, represented by the plaintiff, from all their sites (Google News and "cache" Google or any other name within 10 days of the notification of the intervening order, under penalty of a daily fine of 1,000,000.- € per day of delay;

I've bolded the key part. Google says it interpreted "all their sites" as being all sites that it views the court having jurisdiction over, anything using the Google.be domain. In addition, Google has removed the sites from Google News worldwide, saying it is treating the ruling as it would any request to be removed from Google News. In those cases, you're dropped entirely, not on a country-by-country basis.

The sites do still appear in a searches via Google.com or other Google editions not aimed at Belgium. While these sites can still be reached from Belgium, Google considers them outside Belgian jurisdiction.

That view is sort of laughable, though I understand the reasoning well. It's unlikely that Google Belgium is actually being served up out of Belgium, so artificially pretending that Google.com another other Google sites are somehow "outside" Belgian jurisdiction makes no sense. However, this type of pretending isn't that unusual. It's a nice way for search engines to act like they are following the ruling of a particular country by making changes on "that country's Google." It's also a convenient way for particular courts to feel they've exerted jurisdiction over sites that that they might really not be able to control.

Overall, Google has complied with the first part of the ruling. As for the second, it hasn't posted the required notices and says it will wait for a ruling due out Friday specifically about that issue. It argued yesterday in a hearing for appeal that posting the notice on the home pages wasn't necessary given all the publicity the case has now received.

An appeal for the case overall was granted. It will be heard on November 24, and the entire matter is largely in limbo until then. I hesitate to consider the case a victory for Copiepresse given that the first hearing -- for whatever reason -- had no defense from Google at all.

This leads me to Copiepresse's complaint with Google. In the group's view, Google has illegally copied material without permission. It feels that in some way, Google should get permission before indexing.

Indexing, of course, is not copying. Search engines do read pages in to make them searchable, as my Indexing Versus Caching & How Google Print Doesn't Reprint article explains in more detail. But indexing isn't reprinting pages, in the way some arguments try to make it. Google does show cached copies, something raised in the case. But cached copies aren't shown within Google News search, which was the main focus of this case (as an aside, one US court has ruled cached copies aren't an infringement, something I disagree with but something also easily rectified through no caching mechanisms).

I had a very long conversation about the permissions issue with Margaret Boribon, secretary general of Copiepresse, to try and better understand how they wanted Google to operate. Why not use commonly understood and effective mechanisms such as robots.txt files or meta robots tags to prevent indexing?

"If you do so, you admit that Google does what they want, and if you don't agree, you have to contact them. This is not the legal framework of copyright," Boribon said.

This is an age old issue in the search engine world. By default, search engines assume that permission is granted to index a document, in order to make it searchable. Technically, shouldn't they get explicit permission? Legally, that might make things safer. Logistically, it would never work. Many sites don't have clear contact details. Some domains themselves contain multiple sites. Moreover, there are millions of sites across the web. Contacting them all beforehand simply wouldn't work well.

I asked Boribon about this, how her group would propose search engines undertake such a task.

"I'm sure they can find a very easy system to send an email or a document to alert the site and ask for permission or maybe a system of opt-in or opt-out," she said.

Would it be OK for such a system to work automatically, I asked? Yes, that would be fine. A machine-to-machine connection would be OK, she said. So then, I asked, why not use the existing robots.txt or meta robots systems?

Both mechanisms are easy, automatic ways for publishers to declare if they grant indexing permission or not. In fact, I'd argue that both are a way for search engines to ask beforehand for the very permission that Copiepresse wants them to seek. Major search engines -- not just Google -- all request or check these blocking mechanisms.

Boribon rejected the existing solutions. One issue she had was that they weren't legally endorsed. That's true, but that's also something I think will change over time. In the US, we've had one case recently where opt-out solutions like tags have been accepted.

Outside the US, there have been some scatted cases, such as this one from 1997 in the UK involving news indexing. But none of these cases have seemed to stop the search engines.

The Belgium case could be different. What happens in one country isn't applicable to others. It may be that Copiepresse will prove its point that permission should be sought in advance. Alternatively, a court could endorse existing blocking mechanisms as having legal force.

That's what I think should happen. These systems pose an easy way for anyone who doesn't want to be in a search engine to stay out. If the issue with Copiepresse was really about not being indexed, all of the publications it represents could easily stay out through those solutions. Google -- like other major search engines -- doesn't index sites against their wills.

There's more at work here, of course. The publications DO want to be in Google. The action is simply an effort to force Google to the bargaining table and get paid for inclusion, from what I can see.

"Our purpose is not to be excluded. Of course, we want to be in the system, but on a legal basis," said Boribon. "We want to be remunerated."

Her group's view -- as is the view of the World Association Of Newspapers that she also referenced several times -- is that Google is exploiting sites. It is making money off these sites and giving them little or nothing in return.

Most search marketers hearing this have to stifle laughter or disbelief. That's because most search marketers want all the search traffic they can get. It's free, easy and converts well. They understand that search engines give them plenty of value and complain most when something happens to take that traffic away, as was the case with the Google Florida Update of 2003.

I'm not going to spin out the argument that search engines generate far more benefits from the indexing they do than harm. For one thing, I think this is self-evident given the sheer amount of concern of getting into search engines, rather than out of them. If you must have more argument, see my past post, Search Engines As Leeches, The Difference Between Paid & Free Listings & Keyword Price Rises.

The difference between most publishers on the web and those of Boribon -- or book publishers also suing over Google's scanning program -- is that they think they are special, in my opinion. They think they have content that is more important than other content on the web, content that is either entitled to more protection or that warrants payment for being included.

Several times, Boribon stressed that those who spent a lot of time and money on their works deserved to be compensated by Google. My response was that I don't care if content is worth €1 or €1,000,000. It is entitled to the same protections. To be fair, Boribon agreed when I made that point. Yet our talk still continued to be riddled with her references to the high value of some content or the concept that only some content had protected status.

I've been through this before. Why Don't Book Publishers Object To Web Indexing? covers how one book group, while admitting that copyright law should apply the same regardless of whether works are in digital or book form, still suggested that online works were somehow different:

I think the issue is much more acute where the content is not made freely available by its copyright owner - which is, of course, the case for all the in-copyright content Google are planning to digitise from libraries.

Skipping past copyright law, let's focus on payment for inclusion. Boribon said that Google had made special arrangements with Le Monde to include it in Google News, explaining that was one of many examples of Google targeting the most important sources for special treatment.

My response was Google has special arrangements with lots of publishers that have content that can't easily be indexed. If Le Monde required user registrations, Google couldn't spider the site without contacting them and being allowed in. Indeed, it's the same thing Google has done for the New York Times, as we've covered. It's something Google (and other search engines) does for even non-news sites, if they have important content that it thinks should be gathered.

Google is not paying Le Monde or the New York Times for these arrangement, however -- something that Boribon seemed to believe the case, and no doubt other publications do as well. Google confirmed with me it has no payment system like this with Le Monde. But such a belief highlights the huge education challenge Google faces, trying to help these publications that have mistaken notions of how it -- and all search engines -- operate.

Of course, Google does have one paid relationship with a news source that came to attention recently, the Associated Press. Google still hasn't explained exactly whether this was a relationship it did to prevent an AP lawsuit over being in Google News or a separate agreement to pick up some of AP's content for reuse.

Fair to say, AP's content is important enough and helpful enough to Google that it did decide to enter into an agreement to make use of it in some way. Boribon's group feels their content is important enough that it should obtain some type of agreement as well.

This is also an old story, in some ways. Tom Mohr in Editor & Publisher earlier this month was only the latest of those with the newspaper industry sounding a call for newspapers to band together to deny content in hopes of getting paid:

But what if 2/3 or more of the U.S. newspaper industry sits on one platform, managed by Switzerland Inc.? What if Switzerland Inc. decides to deny Yahoo! and perhaps Google access to newspaper industry content for three months, followed by a negotiation for better terms? That's the power of a network.

The World Association Of Newspapers had a similar call earlier this year:

Web search engines, such as Google and Yahoo, collect headlines and photos for their users without compensating the publishers a cent, according to the World Association of Newspapers (WAN), which announced Tuesday that it intends to "challenge the exploitation of content" by the Googles and MSNs of the Web.

The Belgian lawsuit is simply another step forward in pushing for that payment, exactly what Google CEO Eric Schmidt described as "negotiation being done in a courtroom" when I spoke with him last month:

Because of our scale and because of the amounts of money that we have, Google has to be more careful with respect to launching products that may violate other people's notion of their rights. But also, frankly, we find ourselves in litigation and the litigation was expensive, and diverts the management team, etcetera, from our mission. In the cases that you describe, most of the litigation in my judgment was really a business negotiation being done in a courtroom. And I hate to say that, but that is my personal opinion. And in most cases a change in our policy or a financial change would in fact address many of the issues.

In the end, I want honesty. If the Copiepresse or the AFP (also suing Google) feel Google doesn't have permission to index their content, then just use the easily implemented mechanisms to get out and stay out. Don't file unnecessary court cases, nor just single out Google as the whipping boy when Yahoo and Microsoft, to name only two search engines, operate the same way.

Is it about getting paid? Is it that these publishers think they are so important they should get money for being included, since links alone to their web sites make search engines more comprehensive. That's fine, but you don't need a court case for that either. Just opt-out. If you're worth it, Google and the others will come running to the negotiating table. If you're not, well, no one's going to miss you -- but you'll miss the search engine traffic, as the Belgian publications almost certainly are discovering to their horror now.

I don't want lawsuits that seriously threaten web search itself. Bourbon's ruling potentially applies to all content, not just news content, in Belgium. Anyone could sue Google and other search engines saying that robots.txt blocking isn't explicit enough. If that happens, Boribon's organization is going to find searching the web from Belgium is difficult, since there won't be any content in Google, Yahoo or other services at all.

That would be ironic, given that Boribon says she's a regular Google user. She's routinely using a service where virtually none of the content listed is there because of some explicit approval process. That's hypocritical, given her group's lawsuit. If they don't believe opt-out mechanisms are sufficient, then none of these member publications should be using Google or any search engine as part of their daily routines.

Postscript: V7N points at WAN to combat 'search engine spiders', which has the World Association Of Newspapers suggesting incorrectly that search engines have no technological solution to spider only some content. They absolutely do. Content can be flagged on a page-by-page basis, if that's what a content owner wants to do.

Posted by Danny Sullivan on September 20, 2006, 3:23 PM | Permalink


Customizing Your Own Search Engine, Continued

In in today's SearchDay article, Your Search, Your Way, Part Two, SEW correspondent Phil Bradley continues his look at a new generation of search services that let you build sophisticated customized search engines with little or no work—and best of all, at no cost.

Posted by Chris Sherman on September 20, 2006, 11:34 AM | Permalink


Mid-September 2006 Search News Recap Posted

If you're a Search Engine Watch member, the latest edition of Search Engine Update newsletter has been posted. It recaps top stories in search from the first part of this month.

Posted by Danny Sullivan on September 20, 2006, 9:59 AM | Permalink


See Google Results As If You Are In Another Country

This morning at the Search Engine Roundtable, I reported that you can now easily Check Your Google Results in Any Country. How? Well, go to oy-oy.eu/google/world/ and then select the locations you want to compare side by side. Danny and I tested this out and it seems to be working well. Danny is in the UK and I am in the US, we searched on liar in Google.com, both not signed in to Google. I then compared the results Danny saw on his screen and I saw on my screen, with a side by side comparison of the US location and the UK location with the data center www.google.com. Our results matched the results at the tool.

US Results I saw at Google.com were:
(1) www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page4.asp
(2) emperors-clothes.com/indict/liar.htm
(3) www.imdb.com/title/tt0119528
(4) www.liar.be
(5) www.iep.utm.edu/p/par-liar.htm
(6) www.lyingliar.com
(7) www.queendom.com/tests/minitests/fx/liar.html
(8) stylusmagazine.com/stypod/archives/513
(9) www.allmarketersareliars.com
(10) www.bigfatliarmovie.com

UK Results Danny saw at Google.com were:
(1) www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page4.asp
(2) www.liar.be
(3) www.imdb.com/title/tt0119528
(4) www.emperors-clothes.com/indict/liar.htm
(5) www.iep.utm.edu/p/par-liar.htm
(6) www.lyingliar.com
(7) www.queendom.com/tests/minitests/fx/liar.html
(8) www.met.police.uk/about/blair.htm
(9) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar_paradox
(10) www.allmarketersareliars.com/

Danny's number eight result is very specific to the UK, you see a UK police commission page (link bomb?).

So now we have a tool that you can check local organic result sets for in Google. We also have way to preview AdWords ads by geo specific criteria.

Posted by Barry Schwartz on September 20, 2006, 9:55 AM | Permalink


The Unchanging Search Interface

Why Search Sucks & You Won't Fix It The Way You Think from me on my personal blog Daggle covers a session I did at Euro Foo Camp this week. It looks at how the search interface of major search engines has largely stayed unchanged over time. We're still using what I call the "DOS of Search." Interestingly, the Google Base change that just happened is a unique event -- the first major search engine to have an important property without that all-important search box on the home page. For me, it's just another sign of how Google Base is not intended to be a consumer-facing product, as I've written before.

Posted by Danny Sullivan on September 20, 2006, 9:22 AM | Permalink


Again, The Need For Search Ad Revenue To Stand Alone

Has the search bubble popped, given Yahoo's warning yesterday about declining ad revenue? That warning generated a stock plunge that has hit both Yahoo and Google. No, it's probably not a search bubble. Instead, it's a lesson in the danger of not breaking out search ad revenue from other forms.

Exactly as Robert Scoble notes here, the ad slip at Yahoo is not necessarily a search ad problem. What Robert calls "banner ads" is more specifically display advertising, graphical ads that are not pay-per-click text ads that show up in response to a search. Yahoo has a much bigger display advertising effort than Google. The downturn could be impacting just that side of their ad house.

In fact, the Wall Street Journal article about Yahoo's warning suggests this may be the case:

Yahoo's total revenue last year was $5.3 billion and an unspecified, but significant percentage of that was from so-called branded advertising, which includes graphical display ads as opposed to the small text ads placed beside search results.

Analysts say the two sectors Yahoo singled out generally spend heavily on such display ads. John Aiken, head of equity research at research firm Majestic Research Corp. in New York, said data about Internet activity suggest that search advertising for Yahoo and the broader industry appeared to be growing around expected levels. "Branded [advertising] is going to be a bumpier road for growth than people expected," said Mr. Aiken.

Of course, Google's not necessarily immune. A significant amount of Google's income is from non-search advertising -- contextual ads, some of which are graphical in nature. This is one reason why I'd asked Eric Schmidt at SES last month about breaking out search ad income from other forms. From the transcript of our talk:

Danny: Somewhat related: my understanding is that I still can't go to Google's financials and know how much money is going into content ads versus search – and I care about the search. I mean, to me search is a different intention and contextual. And so when people say, "we're going to measure the health of the search market," I want to know how the health of the search market is from a leader like Google. But I've always felt like when those figures are mixed together, it pollutes the data. For all I know, your contextual network is suddenly tanking, a whole bubble is about to burst out there, but search will be healthy. But the whole search industry might go down with it.

Eric: None of that is going to happen.

Danny: None of that is happening. And I was going to say, alternatively, everything has been doing great.

Eric: Since we're on the record, since we're on the record and it's a public company, I want to make sure that what you just said [that the contextual network is "suddenly tanking"] is not true.

Danny: Right. But that's the opposite to what could be happening. But contextual might be doing wonderfully, and search might be [tanking] …

Eric: They're both doing well. Again, we have a whole bunch of people who are trying to reverse-engineer the economics of Google. And we have historically not wanted to give out the detailed information that you're describing. These are clickthrough rates, CPCs, RPMs, and so forth. There are a number of reasons [not to split these out]. One of course is competitive. But there's a more fundamental reason, which is that anybody who looks at how Google actually runs the ad network makes simplifying assumptions that are not in fact true. And it's important that we, Google, not give out information that can be misused or is essentially false. So we've chosen, to the frustration of many, to not reveal the underlying economics of the ad box. Partly because it's changing so quickly. And all of the estimates that you see are based on smart people making estimates without our assistance. We think for numerous reasons that's the right decision. It's how we run the business.

Perhaps now we'll see some change happen. The failure to do good breakouts, the pollution of other ad revenues mixed in with search, directly causes search to perhaps be seen as in trouble when it might be completely healthy.

In fact, as I told a reporter yesterday, I think search will be just fine given its history. Search was booming during the ad downturn of 1999-2001. It was booming because of its highly measurable, highly converting nature. Born from a downturn, I expect it will continue to ride out any future ones, if not benefit from them.

Posted by Danny Sullivan on September 20, 2006, 9:06 AM | Permalink


Google Webmaster Central's Vanessa Fox & Amanda Camp Interviewed

Seattle 24x7 has an excellent conversation with Vanessa Fox and Amanda Camp of Google on Google Webmaster Central and working at Google. Both Google women began working at Google in April of 2005 in Seattle. They discuss the conception of Google Webmaster Central (also known as Google Sitemaps). The discussion also goes into the 20% time and recruiting Google women. You can see a picture of the "Seattle's Sisters of Search" also.

Posted by Barry Schwartz on September 20, 2006, 9:02 AM | Permalink


Microsoft To Enter Chinese Market With China Telecom

People's Daily Online reports in Microsoft opens search market with China Teleco that Microsoft is starting push their way into the Chinese search market through a new deal with China Telecom. China Telecom China's is said to be China's largest "network operator and internet provider, providing 25 million customers with broadband service. It has more than 80 million internet users and over 400 city portal webs." The deal, in some way, will give the 25 million customers Live Search features (not sure how exactly). As we noted earlier, Baidu is rocking in China, Google is doing OK and Yahoo is in the race.

Posted by Barry Schwartz on September 20, 2006, 8:54 AM | Permalink


Google Base Drops Search Box As Part Of Usability Improvements

The Google Base Blog announced that they have updated the Google Base home page to make it easier to use. Garett Rogers over at Googling Google has a deeper look at those changes. Basically, merchants were confused on the different options available to them, so Google made it clearer. A significant change from a searcher's standpoint is that they have removed the search box from the Google Base home page. You can still search, but you need to be within Google Base already to do so, such as from the dashboard. This makes it probably the first Google search product not to feature a search box.

Posted by Barry Schwartz on September 20, 2006, 8:45 AM | Permalink


Yahoo Teams Up With Gore's Current TV

The news is buzzing about the Current TV and Yahoo partnership. Current TV, founded by Al Gore, and Yahoo announced the launch of The Yahoo Current Network. This network is to "combine professional and user-generated video clips" reports the New York Times. The paper says each show will likely "be preceded by a 15- or 30-second commercial," which is the first time Yahoo "included commercials with user-generated content." TechCrunch notes that this video at Yahoo describes a bit more about how the shows will run, and it also describes "VC2," viewer created content (i.e. user generated content). The user contributed videos can earn $100 for each chosen clip and if that clip is broadcast on Current's television network, you can earn between $500 and $1,000, according to the New York Times.

This is all somewhat a bit interesting in the sense that Google has a long standing relationship with Current TV. They launched the Google Current (more also here) show on Current TV a bit back. Plus Al Gore has been an adviser to Google in the past. Gore said, "Yahoo is very different from Google. Yahoo for a long time has been much more in the media space." Yahoo is a media company, Google is a search company.

Posted by Barry Schwartz on September 20, 2006, 8:25 AM | Permalink


Zillow Adds 'Owner-Generated' Content

Real estate search site Zillow.com has added personalization features and the ability for homeowners to publish their own information beside Zillows home-valuation "Zestimates."

A new "My Zillow" feature allows users to track homes and save other content to a personal page. Zillow previously allowed homeowners to modify and/or correct the details, features and amenities of their homes and recalculate the estimated value. Those details and modifications can now be made public beside Zillow's own Zestimate if owners so choose.

Zillow's Zestimates have been critiqued in some quarters for being inflated or otherwise inaccurate. This capability will help add more accurate data to the content on the site.

Finally, Zillow has added cool "heat maps" to the site, showing by color the price per square foot of any area in the country.

We wrote about Zillow previously here and here.

Posted by Greg Sterling on September 20, 2006, 7:29 AM | Permalink


Citysearch Launches in San Diego

Venerable local search provider Citysearch has launched a new site in San Diego, California. Recently, Citysearch has added "insider lists" (users' local favorites) and local sales events to its mix of editorial and user-generated content. After a period of retrenchment, Citysearch traffic is up and the Citysearch brand appears to be resurgent. The site also provides all the local content for sister IAC property Ask Local.

Posted by Greg Sterling on September 20, 2006, 7:11 AM | Permalink


Search Headlines & Links: September 19, 2006

Below, a recap of stories posted today to the Search Engine Watch Blog, along with other items we've spotted but not blogged separately:

From The SEW Blog...

  • Video Search Usage for August 2006
    Hitwise just released August 2006 market share data for the most popular online video search sites.
  • Yahoo CEO Says Ad Growth Slowing Down; Ask.com To Increase Market Share
    The Wall Street Journal reports that Terry Semel, Yahoo's CEO, has warned that online advertising growth will be slowing in automotive and financial services industries. He said that there is still growth, but "but they're not growing as quickly as we might have hoped at this point in time," Semel said. On that news, Yahoo's shared dropped $3.47, or 12%, to $25.54. Barry Diller, CEO of IAC, said he can see Ask.com gaining market share, about 8 to 10 percent share. More details on that story at Reuters.com....
  • Customizing Your Own Search Engine
    Want to build your own search engine that skews toward your favorite sites or topic, but don't have a few billion to start up your own company? No problem: A number of companies are now offering services that let you tweak their technology to create a highly personalized search experience for you and your blog or web site users. More on these services by SEW correspondent Phil Bradley in today's SearchDay article, Your Search, Your Way....
  • Yahoo Creating "Brickhouse" Internal Incubator To Keep Talent
    GigaOM reports that Yahoo is creating an internal incubator, code named Brickhouse, to give some of Yahoo's talent a place to work without the bureaucracy of a large company. The person running the Brickhouse, love that name by the way, is Flickr founder Caterina Fake. It is apparent that Yahoo knows that hiring new talent is a hard thing to do, but keeping current talent, may be harder -- definitely more important, in my opinion....
  • Yahoo Creating Incubators To Keep Hired Talent
    GigaOM reports that Yahoo is creating incubators, code named Brickhouse, to give some of Yahoo's talent a place to work without the bureaucracy of a large company. The person running the Brickhouse, love that name by the way, is Flickr founder Caterina Fake. It is apparent that Yahoo knows that hiring new talent is a hard thing to do, but keeping current talent, may be harder - definitely more important, in my opinion....
  • Local Matters and Mobile People Partner for Mobile Local Search
    Directory, directory assistance and local search infrastructure provider Local Matters today announced a deal with European mobile search company Mobile People. According to the press release, "The collaboration between Local Matters and Mobile People is designed to bring new revenue opportunities to the Yellow Pages industry by combining mobile search capabilities with existing yellow and white pages information for competing in the growing search marketing industry."...
  • Why Is Wikipedia Advertising On Google?
    Wikipedia Advertising Shows Up on Google from Micro Persuations covers how Wikipedia is apparently advertising content on Google. A search on crowdsourcing in Google brings up a Wikipedia ad in the sponsored listing area that says: Crowdsourced Software 1. Harness this exciting wave. 2. Save money or make money! wikipedia.org/Crowdsourcing Yes, the same landing page is shown on the organic listings as well. So why would the Wikipedia be spending money on those ads? Is it even Wikipedia who is purchasing those ads? Maybe it is a 3rd party that is interested in getting more content added to certain Wikipedia...
  • URL Vs. Navigational Queries Explained: AKA, Why Did URL Searches At Google Change?
    Matt Cutts from Google has a great follow up on our reports that Google Modifies Navigational Search Results from about two-plus weeks ago. In his post, he explains that when you search on a URL (i.e. www.searchenginewatch.com), Google has stopped showing the information for the URL and now shows a standard search on the words in the URL itself. I learned two things from Matt's post....
  • Google's Political Action Committee: Google NetPAC
    Threadwatch Via Threadwatch, Google will flex political muscles PAC to raise money for causes, candidates; lobbyists on board from the San Francisco Chronicle covers how Google has created its own Political Action Committee named Google NetPAC to to support candidates backing "an open and free internet." Google has some small footprints in Washington already, hiring a lobbying firm in the past to help push public policy in the direction Google wants it to go....
  • Google & Apple To Do Content, Ad Deals?
    Google and Apple in iTV content talks from The Register covers how Google may be providing video clips for Apple's "iTV," announced at last week's Apple developers conference. Meanwhile, Apple is about to break big into ad sales from Valleyway covers a rumor ad partnership between Apple and Google. Vallleywag says Apple will soon carry Google ads on its web sites and within iTunes. I guess Google's CEO joining the Apple board does make the two companies more friendly. Google will be providing video content to Apple and plus help Apple monetize their products and content with Google Ads -...

Headlines & News From Elsewhere

Posted by Danny Sullivan on September 19, 2006, 4:11 PM | Permalink


Video Search Usage for August 2006

Hitwise just released August 2006 market share data for the most popular online video search sites. Not surprisingly, YouTube leads with a 45.46% share of visits. MySpace Videos follows with about half the search traffic at 22.99%, and Google Video is the next closest with 10.25% of market share. Yahoo! Video and MSN Video round out the Top 5, with 6.06% and 5.92%, respectively.

Posted by Elisabeth Osmeloski on September 19, 2006, 2:20 PM | Permalink


Yahoo CEO Says Ad Growth Slowing Down; Ask.com To Increase Market Share

The Wall Street Journal reports that Terry Semel, Yahoo's CEO, has warned that online advertising growth will be slowing in automotive and financial services industries. He said that there is still growth, but "but they're not growing as quickly as we might have hoped at this point in time," Semel said. On that news, Yahoo's shared dropped $3.47, or 12%, to $25.54.

Barry Diller, CEO of IAC, said he can see Ask.com gaining market share, about 8 to 10 percent share. More details on that story at Reuters.com.

Postscript From Danny: See my follow-up post, Again, The Need For Search Ad Revenue To Stand Alone.

Posted by Barry Schwartz on September 19, 2006, 12:21 PM | Permalink


Customizing Your Own Search Engine

Want to build your own search engine that skews toward your favorite sites or topic, but don't have a few billion to start up your own company? No problem: A number of companies are now offering services that let you tweak their technology to create a highly personalized search experience for you and your blog or web site users. More on these services by SEW correspondent Phil Bradley in today's SearchDay article, Your Search, Your Way.

Posted by Chris Sherman on September 19, 2006, 11:22 AM | Permalink


Yahoo Creating "Brickhouse" Internal Incubator To Keep Talent

GigaOM reports that Yahoo is creating an internal incubator, code named Brickhouse, to give some of Yahoo's talent a place to work without the bureaucracy of a large company. The person running the Brickhouse, love that name by the way, is Flickr founder Caterina Fake. It is apparent that Yahoo knows that hiring new talent is a hard thing to do, but keeping current talent, may be harder -- definitely more important, in my opinion.

Recent high-profile departures from Yahoo?

- YouTube Hires Yahoo's Treasurer, Gideon Yu
- Martin Child, VP Of Sales & Marketing Leaves Yahoo Search Marketing
- David Beach Leaves Yahoo For Start Up Wink
- Former Yahoo Exec Toni Schneider On Life At Automattic
- Yahoo Loses Director Of Business Development to FeedBurner
- and more available to subscribers of Search Engine Watch here.

Posted by Barry Schwartz on September 19, 2006, 9:16 AM | Permalink


Local Matters and Mobile People Partner for Mobile Local Search

Directory, directory assistance and local search infrastructure provider Local Matters today announced a deal with European mobile search company Mobile People. According to the press release, "The collaboration between Local Matters and Mobile People is designed to bring new revenue opportunities to the Yellow Pages industry by combining mobile search capabilities with existing yellow and white pages information for competing in the growing search marketing industry."

There are already a range of yellow pages-like mobile content services on the market. (Nokia has relationships in Europe with most of the local directory publishers and uses their data to power its local search product.) But the mobile needs and interests of consumers requires expansion way beyond traditional yellow pages content. The user experience is critical in mobile (even more than online) and directory publishers will need to rely on third parties with mobile expertise to create that user experience.

For yellow pages publishers, simply announcing, "now our content is wirelessly enabled," will not be sufficient to gain consumer adoption in a segment that will be even more competitive and difficult than local search online.

Posted by Greg Sterling on September 19, 2006, 9:11 AM | Permalink


Why Is Wikipedia Advertising On Google?

Wikipedia Advertising Shows Up on Google from Micro Persuations covers how Wikipedia is apparently advertising content on Google. A search on crowdsourcing in Google brings up a Wikipedia ad in the sponsored listing area that says:

Crowdsourced Software
1. Harness this exciting wave.
2. Save money or make money!
wikipedia.org/Crowdsourcing

Yes, the same landing page is shown on the organic listings as well. So why would the Wikipedia be spending money on those ads? Is it even Wikipedia who is purchasing those ads? Maybe it is a 3rd party that is interested in getting more content added to certain Wikipedia pages. Maybe there is some financial interest on that page for some company?

Postscript Barry: ClickZ has a quote from Wayne Saewyc, a Wikimedia spokesperson saying, "As far as I am aware, the Wikimedia Foundation is not purchasing Google ads, or any other advertisements for that matter."

Posted by Barry Schwartz on September 19, 2006, 9:08 AM | Permalink


URL Vs. Navigational Queries Explained: AKA, Why Did URL Searches At Google Change?

Matt Cutts from Google has a great follow up on our reports that Google Modifies Navigational Search Results from about two-plus weeks ago. In his post, he explains that when you search on a URL (i.e. www.searchenginewatch.com), Google has stopped showing the information for the URL and now shows a standard search on the words in the URL itself. I learned two things from Matt's post.

(1) Entering in the URL of a site into to a search box is not labeled as a "navigational search" it is labeled as a "URL search." Navigational searches are when you search on a company name, i.e. Search Engine Watch versus a URL search is when you search on a company URL, i.e. searchenginewatch.com.

(2) To a normal user, bringing back search results for a URL search is more useful then bring back the information on that URL, in Matt's opinion. If SEOs and webmasters want to pull that information, we still can still do this by using the info:www.domain.com command. It works like this for this blog, [info:blog.searchenginewatch.com] and it shows you information for this URL.

Posted by Barry Schwartz on September 19, 2006, 8:51 AM | Permalink


Google's Political Action Committee: Google NetPAC

Via Threadwatch, Google will flex political muscles
PAC to raise money for causes, candidates; lobbyists on board from the San Francisco Chronicle covers how Google has created its own Political Action Committee named Google NetPAC to to support candidates backing "an open and free internet." Google has some small footprints in Washington already, hiring a lobbying firm in the past to help push public policy in the direction Google wants it to go.

Posted by Barry Schwartz on September 19, 2006, 8:43 AM | Permalink


Google & Apple To Do Content, Ad Deals?

Google and Apple in iTV content talks from The Register covers how Google (according to Newsweek) may be providing video clips for Apple's "iTV," announced at last week's Apple developers conference. Meanwhile, Apple is about to break big into ad sales from Valleywag covers a rumor ad partnership between Apple and Google. Valleywag says Apple will soon carry Google ads on its web sites and within iTunes. I guess Google's CEO joining the Apple board does make the two companies more friendly. Google will be providing video content to Apple and plus help Apple monetize their products and content with Google Ads - wow!

Posted by Barry Schwartz on September 19, 2006, 8:30 AM | Permalink


Search Headlines & Links: September 18, 2006

Below, a recap of stories posted today to the Search Engine Watch Blog, along with other items we've spotted but not blogged separately:

From The SEW Blog...

  • Baidu Holds 62% Share In China
    LinuxWorld reports that Baidu, the Chinese search engine, has 62.1 percent share based on a China Internet Network Information Centre (CNNIC) report. That is up 10 points from 52 percent in 2005. In terms of brand recognition in China, 86.5 percent identifying with the name "Baidu," where only 64 percent identifying with the name "Google" in China. The study does state that 76.3 percent use more than one search engine regularly. The article everyone is buzzing about is a NY Times article named The Rise of Baidu (That's Chinese for Google), it really does make for a good read....
  • Yahoo To Run Huge Global Advertising Campaign
    Reuters reports that Yahoo is going to be running a multimillion-dollar global advertising campaign consisting of television, radio, cinema and online advertising. The campaign will be promoting a number of Yahoo's products and services, including Yahoo Answers and email. It is reported that the commercials and campaigns will contain the "Do You Yahoo? tagline and take a "humorous look at life with -- and without -- the benefits of Yahoo services." Yes, Danny, donuts are involved, there will be a "Dunkin' Donuts iced coffee giveaway for Yahoo visitors on Friday, September 22."...
  • Belgian Court Orders Google To Remove Content From Google News & Cache
    Reuters reports the big news of the day that Google has been ordered by a Belgian court to remove all articles, photographs and graphics from French-speaking newspapers. Copiepresse issued the complaint and won the court ruling on September 5th. Not only does this require Google to remove content from Google News, the court order requires removing the content from the Google cache. ChillingEffects.org has a link to the full court order....

Headlines & News From Elsewhere

Posted by Barry Schwartz on September 18, 2006, 2:56 PM | Permalink


Baidu Holds 62% Share In China

LinuxWorld reports that Baidu, the Chinese search engine, has 62.1 percent share based on a China Internet Network Information Centre (CNNIC) report. That is up 10 points from 52 percent in 2005. In terms of brand recognition in China, 86.5 percent identifying with the name "Baidu," where only 64 percent identifying with the name "Google" in China. The study does state that 76.3 percent use more than one search engine regularly. The article everyone is buzzing about is a NY Times article named The Rise of Baidu (That's Chinese for Google), it really does make for a good read.

Posted by Barry Schwartz on September 18, 2006, 8:53 AM | Permalink


Yahoo To Run Huge Global Advertising Campaign

Reuters reports that Yahoo is going to be running a multimillion-dollar global advertising campaign consisting of television, radio, cinema and online advertising. The campaign will be promoting a number of Yahoo's products and services, including Yahoo Answers and email. It is reported that the commercials and campaigns will contain the "Do You Yahoo? tagline and take a "humorous look at life with -- and without -- the benefits of Yahoo services." Yes, Danny, donuts are involved, there will be a "Dunkin' Donuts iced coffee giveaway for Yahoo visitors on Friday, September 22."

Posted by Barry Schwartz on September 18, 2006, 8:34 AM | Permalink


Belgian Court Orders Google To Remove Content From Google News & Cache

Reuters reports the big news of the day that Google has been ordered by a Belgian court to remove all articles, photographs and graphics from French-speaking newspapers. Copiepresse issued the complaint and won the court ruling on September 5th. Not only does this require Google to remove content from Google News, the court order requires removing the content from the Google cache. ChillingEffects.org has a link to the full court order.

Posted by Barry Schwartz on September 18, 2006, 8:23 AM | Permalink

See More Posts From:

This Week | This Month