Why Bite the Google Hand That Feeds You? 192
Posted
by
ScuttleMonkey
from the traffic-is-bad dept.
from the traffic-is-bad dept.
Techdirt pointed out that not long ago, John Byrne, ex-editor-in-chief of BusinessWeek.com and now CEO of newly founded C-Change Media, decided to tackle the problem of why publications seem to be so vehemently opposed to Google being a part of their business process. While there aren't any earth-shattering revelations, it is a great, succinct description of the problem. "I received several solid answers from followers of this blog, including Frymaster who immediately took sides in the ongoing war between Traditional Media and Google. Wrote Frymaster: 'I reject out-of-hand the assertion that Google is profiting from others' content. Rather, I say that Google profits from connecting users to content. It is a service that most web publishers appreciate greatly. Google, unlike any other search engine ever, goes to great pains to deliver the least-skewed results possible. Google is constantly on the hunt for people who game their system. That's why they succeed. There is a direct connection between Google's user-centric, community-oriented approach and their financial success.'"
"Skewered" Scholar (Score:1, Interesting)
I can tell you Google Scholar is skewed, for instance by not citing a highly cited (in print) original research article (not even deep in the listings) but citing a later, derivative one instead. I contacted Google about the matter twice, including once when Scholar was quite new, and they've done nothing about it.
Re:"Skewered" Scholar (Score:1, Interesting)
"Skewed" implies a systematic or deliberate bias. So far, all you're whining about is Google failing to index a single paper which may or may not be accessible from any online repository.
Assuming, of course, the legitimacy of an anonymous coward who can't be bothered to provide evidence. And thinks Google Scholar search results are "cites".
Re:Wait, let me see if I got this right (Score:1, Interesting)
That's easy. One of the primary uses of authority is to cover up unreasonableness. Children notice the hypocrisy of their parents but are usually intimidated into not pointing it out for fear of getting in trouble. Workers notice that many company policies are convoluted, don't make sense, or serve purposes other than their stated purposes and are told to embrace them or be fired. Politics, eh, don't get me started. We live in a "do as I say, not as I do" sort of world all because people don't have the guts to face and correct their own character flaws. The psychic burden we bear for this is unimaginable.
Yahoo News (Score:4, Interesting)
I guess they realize there is more money in going after Google than there is in Yahoo.
Re:Excuse me? (Score:3, Interesting)
Nobody likes middlemen, especially middlemen who cut into their bottom line.
I like middlemen like Google that connects sites to searchers. The searchers like it. Who is this Nobody that doesn't like it, besides Murdoch of the News Corporation?
Google provides a link to the sites in the search results. Yes, they have ads, but how does that cut into the bottom line of a news site that people can find have an article with info the're looking for? When the searcher hits the site, they can click on the ads the news site is running if they want to. Without search results, few but regular readers would know about the article to be there.
And that is what Murdoch is really complaining about, lack of regular readers. He wants subscriber only access to news sites. He wants that if we want to find something, we do it within his pay walls.
I had a subscription to Wall Street Journal, but I didn't renew (renewal just came up) and told them it was specifically because Murdoch was citing success of Wall Street Journal subscriptions to justify his fantasy, and I wanted no part of justifying it.
Of course, it helped that my debit card had been changed from the one they on file (without my permission, I do not recall authorizing them to perform automatic renewals), otherwise they would have renewed it whether I wanted to or not. The only reason they communicated with me was because the card on file had expired and they needed me to supply them the new one.
I'm a little more careful who I provide my new card info to now.
rd
Hey, last generation, adapt or die, k? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Wait, let me see if I got this right (Score:2, Interesting)
( people don't change because other people want them too , they change because they want too ) .
people do change, especially when they think they're dying or would rather be dead. i changed a lot mostly what i needed to come from inside, but that inside change took place in a stint in the nut house, 5 hospitals and 7 or more stays in hospitals did force change on me. i still decided the type of change. then again i did come back to slashdot, so perhaps forced change has it's limits. anyways its the holidays and i'm doing mostly fine a little residual fear, but not much
Re:advertising is the thing (Score:2, Interesting)
Please, bring up Google News [google.com] and count the ads on that page.
I don't do Google searches looking for news, nor does anyone I know. If I'm just keeping tabs on the news I sequence through the awesome bar: google news, ars, el reg, /. and the rest, with a sprinkling of the bbc or whathaveyou when there's time.
In all cases where I'm looking for content traditionally served by media publishers , the only ads I see are on the publishers' sites, not Google's.
Google doesn't show ads when you're looking for movie times. Type "movies, <your zipcode>".
Google doesn't show ads when you're looking for concerts. Type "concerts" etc.
Google doesn't show ads when you're looking for news.
So it isn't that
google has first go at ads
because google forgoes that opportunity.
As the summary points out,
Google, unlike any other search engine ever, goes to great pains to deliver the least-skewed results possible. Google is constantly on the hunt for people who game their system.
Murdoch's and many others' real objection to Google is that Google's service allows convenient comparison of their companies' product with the competition, and does so honestly. But they can't say that, of course.
Re:Screw Google. (Score:3, Interesting)
Before the Internet became widespread, high schools and libraries had to pay big dollars ($20 a query, as well as a monthly fee) so they would have dialup access to a database that would search for sources. Usually you had to be *very* good at phrasing, else you would get absolutely nothing relevant (as the database only would show the first 20-30 hits), and have to do another expensive query with better terms.
Do we want to go back to this model, where we would have to subscribe to a paywall to keep Google's bots running and their server farms up? I'll take Google's text ads instead of having to have a credit card on file and pay big cash per search.
Re:some moderate views (Score:3, Interesting)
press hate google because it drives UP quality (Score:3, Interesting)
Traditionally, the press have cultivated "loyalty" among their readership - not factual reporting. That means they want people who are comfortable with their output and will believe (or at least agree with) their content and read what is put in front of them without any critical thought. The way people find news with google is that they go and search for a topic or story or word - not for a publications's title (which they already have bookmarked). That puts pressure on the content providers to publish true, concise, and short pieces that googlers will compare with the other search results from other news sources,. before settling on reading the whole story (and advertisements) from one newspaper or news outlet.