Google Archives
How Google's paid link policy treads perilously close to evil.
Sorry to bring this up again, but I think Google's paid link policy is anti-competitive (this Forrester post brought it up for me again). Essentially Google has made it clear that if a blogger receives anything for a post, then the link accompanying it should be "nofollow" (something else I've talked about in the past). Now I understand the reasoning behind this (Google is a database of trust and a paid link shouldn't carry the same weigh as an unpaid one), however, asking people to go through the process of adding "nofollow" feels to me like they're putting the onus on individuals to do their job (or at least a job their algorithm should be able to do). (Ted Murphy also makes this point.)
The big issue is summed up nicely over at the Forrester blog: "How do they identify what is paid and what is not? And where do they draw the line? Is it any type of sponsorship within the editorial stream? is it strictly a cash transaction? What about those who receive product samples which could range from a $2 bag of chips to a $30,000 car? What about writers who get all expense paid trips and free meals? What about a celebrity blogging about an endorsement deal? At one point can they determine compensation was exchanged or are they just guessing? And finally what is the punishment for bloggers? It seems as though this type of policy rewards those who don't disclose their compensation and those who do." Not a simple issue, certainly, but Google's approach seems especially wrong on this one.
At the end of the day it just seems like the market has spoken and they like paid links. Now that's not necessarily a good thing (as Matt points out, sometimes the results that are being rearranged are as serious as cancer), but irregardless it's a thing. Everywhere else in the Google world the answer is that the responsibility lies on the shoulders of the algorithm, not the user, so why are things different in this case? The bottom line to me is that this feels like Google trying to stifle competition to Adsense. Paid links and blogger outreach are ways for small publishers to make money without the help of their ad servers and they are trying to strangle it.
To be honest I don't think the nofollow thing is that big of a deal or a burden and in most cases wouldn't have a huge effect on the goals of the campaign, but there's a principle thing here that bugs me. It feels like the big guy, Google, threatening a bunch of little guys with loss of PageRank if they don't play by their rules. While I understand that there is none of us have to be listed in the engine, and if we weren't we would not be subject to any of these rules, however, everyone knows that's not really a viable option with one major player in the category.
I guess I'm just saying it feels a little evil.
Leave a Comment
A bit more on Google's motivation and some thoughts on PayPerPost
Okay, first let's go with Google's motivation.
As I was sitting down with my friend John the other night and discussing my question about Google's overall motivation ("Google doesn't have any real motivation for improving search results because the worse the results are, the more likely you are to click on the ads."), John brought up a point that made even more sense. Imagine a situation where Google continues to improve their results. Eventually their engine becomes so good that you immediately click the first result (which it's close to) or you begin to just skip the results altogether by clicking "I'm Feeling Lucky". If that happens, all of a sudden the money printing machine Google's created stops running. Of course this is an overstatement, but does illustrate a point: From a financial motivation perspective, clearly Google is only motivated to improve it's results to a point that they continue to grow their customer base (which is less based on quality at this point and more based on momentum and partnerships like the one they have with Myspace or Firefox).
So what does all this mean? To be honest I'm not sure. I just think it's interesting. I don't necessarily believe that Google is making decisions this way, however, it does pose some potential issues.
Second, let's talk a little about PayPerPost. I don't know if I've written about it here before, but basically it's a service that pays bloggers to write about websites, companies, products and other stuff. When they first launched around a year ago (at least I think that's when it was) there was an uproar in the blogosphere. People were up in arms that this wan unethical and disgusting. More recently Google cracked down on the service as a paid link scheme, assigning PageRanks of 0 to those that took part. This, of course, has reignited the debate around the ethics of the program (many were happy to see users punished) and I wanted to add my two cents.
I have never seen a problem with PayPerPost. I know this isn't a popular stance, but my feeling is that your reputation is yours to ruin and if you chose to promote a product that sucks and you get found out, you got what you deserved. As for the full disclosure part of it, I don't really care that much. Paid editorial is the worst kept secret in the advertising/publishing business: You don't get editorial space if you're not running advertising. (Obviously this isn't completely true, but it's an accepted fact.) So what's the difference between PayPerPost and what's going on everywhere else in the media universe?
I guess I mostly am writing this to stir things up a bit (though I really do believe in both points of view). Not sure why I'm feeling contrarian today, but what the hell, it's a fun way to be.
Leave a Comment
My thoughts on what Google's thinking.
Like everyone else in the world, I've been thinking a lot about Google over the last few years. Also like everyone, I've asked myself, "what the hell is their strategy?" While I don't think I have the definitive answer, I have a few insights that are fairly obvious but interesting at the same time.
Organize the World's Information
This is the mission that Google prints on everything they do. Most people get it when it comes to their search engine but don't necessarily see how it extends to the other products like documents. My feeling is that Google is slowly taking over all your desktop documents (not necessarily applications).
Think about it this was: What data exists on someone's local drive and not necessarily online? For most people it would probably be email followed by Word documents followed by excel spreadsheets. Other than PowerPoint can you think of another document lots of people create on a regular basis? Google's goal with Gmail and Docs, then, is to pull those things off your local disk and onto the web. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if in the near future they made this process a whole lot easier with some kind of tool that will scan your machine and upload all of them Google servers.
Sweet Spot of the Purchase Process
Here again, we have a fairly obvious one. Part of the reason AdWords is a money-making monster is because you can catch someone in the sweet spot of the purchase process: Right before purchase. If you are in the market for a digital camera and type the model number into the search box you are a hot lead. Companies are willing to spend a lot of money for you to click over to their store. The question is where else can you find people at this point in the process?
Well, it just so happens 411 is pretty good for that. Think about it, when people call 411 for their local Domino's they are at the same point in the purchase process. Just like AdWords, Google could sell that lead to Pizza Hut for a nice chunk of change. (Truth be told, much of this thinking came from an article whose link I can't find.) For those that didn't hear, Google just happened to have released a 411 service. Coincidence?
The question, then, is where else can you find these people? Stores are an obvious one, though I don't know exactly how that would play out. Google kiosks helping customers get relevant information/do research right at the store? No that far-fetched I guess (though I don't have slightest clue how big box retailers actually work). I'm sure there's more, will just require some imagination.
Always On Campaigns
Google has proven they're committed to shaking up the advertising world. They've rightly noted it's inefficiency and have already caused quite a shakeup by popularizing PPC (pay-per-click). Now they want to convince the advertising world that the whole idea of campaigns is silly. After all, consumers don't think about themselves as fitting into some marketers campaign period: They decide they want something and they buy it. Problem is, in the past there was no efficient way to run your campaigns year-round. Enter PPC (and soon price-per-action) and there's no reason not to. As long as the system runs efficiently, and you're only paying for leads, you can't afford not to run your campaigns all the time.
Google hasn't shown how this model extends into other media (especially those whose metrics are a whole lot less cut and dry), but with the amount of money at stake you can be damned sure they're going to try and figure it out.
People Make Search Better
This is the last piece (or the first piece, I guess, since none of the four were in any particular order). The point here is that Google realizes that algorithmic search only extends so far. Human intelligence will be needed, especially as people react more to the cold, calculated nature of our ultra-efficient algorithm-driven universe.
Google has tried this on a couple of occasions, the most notable in my mind being the Google Image Labeler and My Maps.
Alright, I'm exhausted. Sorry the end of this faded out a bit.
Leave a Comment
Using your Google PageRank for profit.
[Editor's Note: This is part two in a series of posts on how to make money off your blog. Part 1 was all about The Deck. Here's the description from the first post: Obviously there are a million different ways to try and make money off a website, the easiest of which is slapping a couple Google ads on there and calling it a day. These three ideas interest me because they're different. They're not your regular CP-whatever deal, instead they're tapping into what makes blogs unique/special and monetizing that.]
As promised, here's part deuce:
2. Text Link Ads
A few weeks ago a friend of mine mentioned their blog had just moved into the black. When I asked how, he responded that once you hit PageRank 6, life is easy.
It's a funny Googlefied world we live in where such a statement hold so much truth. With the way Google works, once your site hits a level of popularity people are willing to pay you just to link to them. Sure there are moral implications with this, after all Google's whole system is based on the idea that a link is equal to a vote of confidence. But who's to say confidence can't be bought?
Lots of companies are going around the web finding PageRank 4 and above sites and paying for links. As I mentioned, this is part of the appeal of The Deck: Rather than redirecting ads they are direct links.
Text Link Ads takes it a step further. As explained on the site, "We specialize in placing static html links on high quality, high traffic web properties." Basically, they're letting sites sell their PageRank. The interesting thing here is it doesn't matter how many, if any, people click through on the ads. All that matters is Google picks them up and gives the appropriate bump to the linked site. Since something like PageRank is so easily quantified it's fairly easy to quantify real value, as opposed to regular CPM buys where people may or may not pay attention to ads, less click on them. Realizing that Google is the center of the web universe, trying to raise your rank based on specific keywords can lead to real results for some businesses. Real results are worth real money.
The Lessons
1. Google is the center of the universe. Where you fall in the results is worth real traffic and thus, real dollars.
2. Better content leads to more incoming links. More incoming links leads to better PageRank. Better PageRank leads to the ability to charge higher rates for text links. Once again the lesson is to write good stuff.
3. Everything in this new media world is an influence game: PageRank is just another measure of it.
The bottom line is that everything comes down to your ability to create interesting content. Since the blogosphere is still such a small world, some of the most committed readers tend to also be linkers. It's all about your audience. They make or break everything you do. Cultivate that audience, they're your most valuable asset. It doesn't need to be about getting new readers, just keep the ones you've got happy. If you've got a happy and committed reader base of smart individuals, there is always going to be someone willing to pay for access. (Hint hint!)
To be continued . . .
Leave a Comment
How a bunch of passionate geeks are all set to take on Google . . . and win.
I love it when a bunch of people rise up and fight against the man. I love it even more when I know that I will directly benefit from said revolution. If you're wondering what I'm talking about, TextDrive, the fabulous hosting company I use (and just purchased a lifetime hosting plan with), has been trying to renew it's Urchin license for about a month now. (Urchin is a web statistics program owned by Google.) For whatever reason, the people at Urchin/Google are not interested in letting TextDrive renew. It appears they're considering restructuring their pricing. Here's an explanation from a blog following the debacle:
Since about mid-August or so, the fine staff have called, e-mailed, and otherwise tried to hunt down someone at Urchin that could help them pay the company money.
Since the Google acquisition, it seems that Urchin has moved datacenters and is “re-evaluating� their pricing model. Looks like they’re pushing hard for a subscription-based, Hosted model.
Meanwhile, thousands of TextDrive’s loyal customers have no web analytics package because Google’s done gone and swallowed them up.
That’s HORRIBLE customer service. I can’t imagine not responding to someone who wants to BUY MY PRODUCT!! Furthermore, a company, that is quite popular, who is ALREADY A CUSTOMER!!!
So, what are the TextDrivers gonna do?
They're gonna build their own freakin' web-analytics software.
And you know what, I have no doubt it will kick Urchin's ass. When you put together a bunch of smart, passionate, geeks who have been wronged, you can build a hell of a piece of software. I suggest everyone watch the drama unfold at the blog and also respond to the survey about your current webstats software (doesn't matter if you're an Urchin user or not).
This is gonna be good. (Props to Garrett Dimon on the link.)
Update (10/1/05): Just to be clear, I don't actually believe they're going to take down Google or even create a program that outsells Urchin. However, I have no doubt it will be a whole lot more kick-ass than Urchin ever will be.
Leave a Comment
The big guy launches a blog search service . . . Technorati and co. tremble . . .
Yes my friends, you are seeing correctly. Google has launched a blog search. Now I don't want to rain on Technorati and co.'s parade, but didn't they see this coming? What happens now? This thing allows you to organize results by relevance or date (a choice I believe Technorati removed some time ago that I found quite useful) and it even includes feeds . . . ooh and ahh (not only that, but you get a choice between Atom and RSS). With that said, here's the feed for a search on "Google blog search" so go ahead and follow all the fun.
Leave a Comment
Way to go guys, just when people start talking about
Yahoo! you go ahead and DOUBLE the storage for every Gmail account. Sweet! (Note: This is not to say that I'm not still incredibly impressed by Yahoo!)
This is from Google's new features page:
G is for growth
Storage is an important part of email, but that doesn't mean you should have to worry about it. To celebrate our one-year birthday, we're giving everyone one more gigabyte. But why stop the party there? Our plan is to continue growing your storage beyond 2GBs by giving you more space as we are able. We know that email will only become more important in people's lives, and we want Gmail to keep up with our users and their needs. From Gmail, you can expect more.
Now not only do you have the best email app on the planet, but you're also offering more storage space than any web-based email I know of.
I just hope this isn't one of those April fools jokes, though if you check the front page of Gmail (you might need to sign out), this appears to be their April Fools Day joke:
Fascinating stuff.
Oh, and by the way, if somehow you still don't have a Gmail account. Drop me a line (nb [at] noahbrier.com) or comment, I should be able to hook you up.
Leave a Comment
Here's the story. There was this Google employee, Mark Jen,
who was blogging about Google. He said some things that were on the less than favorable side about his employer. His site was discovered and linked to. Then it was gone. And the speculation began. Everyone got into the speculation action from
John Battelle to
Google Blogoscoped (check out the
Technorati cosmos search).
Anyhow, it just turns out that Mark had just screwed up and posted some financial information he shouldn't have. He explains in his latest post:
i goofed and put some stuff up on my blog that's not supposed to be there. nothing serious and they didn't ask me to take anything down (even the stuff where i'm critical about the company). i'm learning that google is understandably careful about disclosing sensitive information, even vague financial-related things.
I found this interesting and I'm not completely sure why. I think it's about the speed that speculation travels within this network. I also wonder what the negative effects of this kind of speculation could be. In this case everything looks like it turned out alright, but I imagine this kind of frenzy could cause some serious problems for someone in the not too distant future.
Unfortunately I don't really have the brain power at the moment to explore exactly how. I'll leave that up to anyone interested. Just thought I'd pass along the info.
Leave a Comment
I have written a few times about what I thought was the genius of Gmail's invite system (read 7.22.04: "Has Gmail Already Reached its Trucker Hat Phase?") as a way to create desire and excitement for a product. Well, according to the program manager of Gmail (as reported by Scoble), it's not that at all.
First session I attended? I met Chris Uhlik of Google. He's the program manager of Gmail and the Google Toolbar and a few other things. He gave a talk at 11 p.m. to well after midnight. I asked him why they only give out a few Gmail accounts at a time. Remember, I thought it was sheer marketing genius. Turns out it wasn't. Turns out they don't have enough server capacity to deal with everyone who wants an account. So, when they buy a new server and get it installed they hand out another round of invites. Heh, their server salesperson must cheer everytime he or she sees more invites being advertised on weblogs.
Whatever the case, Gmail is a great product and the invite system certainly created quite a buzz around it. I really enjoy using it, though there are certainly a few features I'm waiting for (like groups for contacts -- is this possible and I'm just missing something?).
Leave a Comment
The SEC was more than a little upset with Google for their interview with Playboy Magazine which will be appearing in the September issue. As a punishment for violating their quiet period, the SEC has forced Google to include the full text of the interview they did with Playboy in their prospectus. (Warning: this takes a very long time to load, Kottke.org has posted the full text of the interview without the rest of the prospectus.) The interview provided some interesting insights into Google's corporate ideologies and was a fun read (as most Playboy interviews are). Brin and Page discuss everything from GMail's privacy concerns to the Chinese government, although I found this exchange the most interesting:
PLAYBOY: How has Google saved lives?
 BRIN: When people look up information in a life-threatening situation. Someone wrote that he was having chest pains and wasn’t sure of the cause. He did a Google search, decided he was having a heart attack and called the hospital. He survived and wrote to us. To help in situations like that, Google has to be quick and correct. Other people have written us with similar stories. We get postcards and pictures of them with their family. Those are extremes, but there are countless other examples. People are helped with their careers. Students are helped when they study. It’s a powerful tool.
PLAYBOY: When someone is having chest pains and searches the web for information about them, for example, it’s essential that the information be correct. How does Google know about the veracity of a website’s information?
BRIN: Similar to other mediaâ€â€books, magazines, whateverâ€â€you have to use judgment.
PLAYBOY: But isn’t the Net, where anyone can put up a web page, more likely to have erroneous information?
BRIN: Yes. Joe Blow can write something in a few hours, post it and it’s on the Net. It could be about neuroscience, and he may know nothing about neuroscience. More typical inaccuracies in other media are from out-of-date material. In both cases, you have to apply judgment. The Internet helps because you can quickly check a number of different sources. If I were seriously interested in something important to me, I wouldn’t just click on the first search result, read it and take it as God’s word.
PAGE: Which is a great thing about the Internet, because you can read information from many sources and decide. Libraries might have some of the information but probably not allâ€â€and not necessarily the most up-to-date.
This relates directly to what I discussed in my Idiocentricity and the Internet post. Brin and Page realize the power of the tool they have created. It has the potential to make people rethink the way they traditionally accessed information. In a pre-internet world, one source was often enough to form an opinion off. In today's digital world, however, that is not the case. The internet teaches us that we should not trust single sources, we should search around and develop our own answers.
What's so amazing about Google is that about 90% of the time the most relevant page for your source comes first. This is because Google is using collective intelligence to figure out where pages should appear in searches. Since the system is based on how many incoming links a page receives we are seeing information at the top that other people have read and appreciated enough to link to. This, however, is only the first step and we must not forget that even with the collective intelligence of the internet world at work, we still need to question all the results we receive and find our own answers. If we begin to rely on Google as we do the library, simply believing that if we find the information in a book there it must be true, then we run the risk of losing the real value of the internet. That value is deeply rooted in the connections, not necessarily just the information.
Leave a Comment
Hi, I'm 