-
Website
http://www.scobleizer.com/ -
Original page
http://scobleizer.com/2007/08/08/why-google-is-walling-off-its-news-garden/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
There are 2 issues however. Issues #1: Do you define profits as the money Google is making or the money Google is making plus the money you are making through the traffic they send you. Issue #2: there is no simple and mainstream way to syndicate and track advertisement.
The problem you are referring to is identical to the problem of "can feed readers make money?" and one of the reason why people still publish (stupid) partial feeds.
Jason C. had some ideas on how to build a system to syndicate adds in feed readers and share profits. Something like this needs to emerge and be as simple as adwords for this problem to go away.
(In this specific case, I thought Google was giving some money to they source for using information and images and that some of the constraint they are putting on or just due to those legal contracts...but I might be wrong)
-Edwin
For instance, I know that TechMeme studies my link blog behavior but it neither gives me credit for that, nor does it send any traffic my way. But it definitely is profiting off of my work.
TechMeme make money off you, you make money off us, we make money off them.
Every post is about your videos, then we watch them and that pays your bills.
You profit off the work of other people, people who build stuff. They need to advertise it and you provide a cheep mechanism.
I liked your "Parse the various parts of a post and put it into buckets." that made me LOL. Buckets. That's the sort of thing I tell my CEO to try and get him to understand. Yes, programming is like LEGO... haha, no programming is like doing 3D sudoku puzzles. Fun.
monk.e.boy
The idea of attribution is very tricky. Do you know that the vast majority of the time, when a blogger learns something on Techmeme and blogs about it, Techmeme won't get credit for the discovery? That's very similar to the situation you alleged. Is that wrong? I'm not sure. BTW, you're probably among the best bloggers as far as crediting Techmeme goes, but I bet you still don't do it half the time.
Anyhow, for the record, I should state that lately, Techmeme has NOT used your link blog.
Have a few companies put aside a fund to start a propoghanda war against Google Spider, and have the main concept be a Google bot blocker guised as a spam protector on sourceforge, then use the promo cash to popularize the hell out of it.
Have the user-agent list autoupdate that way if Google tries to hack a new user agent for the google bot to bypass the list, it will be freshly blocked again.
Google's results will become irrelevant after about a month and the stock will plummet to zero.
Microsoft and other competitors in search have more than enough money to do something like this. Just look at what they did with get the facts.
Also consider that every shared server you have people load this on will kill 100 or more sites from being indexed in Google, so advertise it on webhosting forums and server admin forums first.
http://www.webhostingtalk.com/
There's a good one. It's run by the same company as hotscripts.com
This is what I see wrong with what Google is doing, and why it is likely to go no where.
From everything I've seen, there is no customization. They are simply asking people who already commented to comment further, but comment on what? How are those questions being decided? Who is the individual (s) that decide, 'we need to know this', we'll ask it to the 'experts.' How are the questions being qualified? Then there's the whole can of worms of, okay, the 'expert' answered this, now I want them to answer this.....and on and on.
What works with comment section like Digg or the one that I'm commenting on now is that it is interactive with the users. Google is creating 3 areas and putting a wall around one.
The initial article
The readers
The experts
By adding the experts into the mix, there becomes a whole slew of intangibles that Google, I believe is not thinking deeply enough about.
All they are seeing is 'this is different' 'this will separate us from the rest.'
That's like asking why they don't let you spider search results. Why don't they just open up my Gmail for spidering too?
If I searched on Yahoo for some news, and got something on Google that pointed to the original article, I would be frustrated and confused. I think their just trying to not dilute search results with repetitive content.
It would be kind of like looking at someones Facebook page, and seeing someone else talk about that someone and Facebook.
There aren't any ads on google news. Sure, they might indirectly make money off somebody visiting news and then searching the web and clicking an ad... but then they're making money off of search ads.. NOT news.
It's simply driving traffic- that's how Google makes money, and the key to that is AdSense, not search ads.
"Oh, and we don’t like it that companies are making profits off of our work. It +is+ our work that is building TechMeme and Google News, isn’t it?"
http://www.internetnews.com/xSP/article.php/348...
"All machines run on a stripped-down Linux kernel. The distribution is Red Hat (Quote), but Hoelzle said Google doesn't use much of the distro. Moreover, Google has created its own patches for things that haven't been fixed in the original kernel."
So where's Linus's royalty check?
He after all coded more of Google than Larry Page and Sergey Brin combined.
Pay up Google. What if Linus had walled his stuff off from you???
They're pissants Scoble. All of them. Very wealthy and fearful pissants. Sorry.
http://www.stargeek.com/item/333709.html
Here's what happens when *you* try to "organize the web".
A free open source project too. It *really* shows that they hired a bunch of people away from Microsoft recently.
The bad apples are over there now rotting the tree.
direct link, the 2nd link from the last post was bad. The user information they are referring to is just a web page for the user such as is spiderable and is *spidered* by google to sell adwords to people and make money.
I suspect Google must have agreements with Reuters and other news organizations that allow Google to crawl and present their content on news.google.com. The suspect the walled garden is required by some of these agreements.
There are many metrics for value in data collection: "signal to noise", ROI, etc.
I think Google is attempting to create a comment strategy that improves the comment mechanism. Only those with significant knowledge on the story should get a forum. That's a capability that comes with scale... Is Google evil for attempting to leverage scale? Probably not. If they leverage scale to unfairly compete with a start-up then the consumer looses.
Your post clearly makes the case that there's room for improved automated news search that leverages intelligence over market position.
The letters to the editor at the New York Times are often more influential than the Spudville Times. Scale matters... it funds editorial judgement.
The Spudville Times will be driven from the market before the NY Times folds...
What amazes us all is how far Scoble has scaled in collecting and filtering news. You must get very tired at times.
When everyone can comment on a given news item (which they can on their own blog)it buries the opinions of the people within the story who may want to "set the record straight" or have story elements that add an insider opinion. I am not saying a disagree with you, I just think that this is an interesting way to look at news
IF the whole point of Google News is to drive traffic to the news sites that have adsense... then it wouldn't make any sense to wall it off. They'd be eliminating potential traffic to those sites.
-Dan Grosp
http://www.grosp.com
NPR but these guys seem to be giving more priority to BBC even al jazeera
http://www.faceoftruth.com