| 5:31 pm on Jul 13, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Microsoft in Talks to Buy Claria [webmasterworld.com]
| 6:01 pm on Jul 13, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Gator changed its name to Claria and yes, they are one of the biggest suppliers of adware ever.
| 6:08 pm on Jul 13, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Interesting timing indeed. Should we perhaps also mention Microsoft Downgrades Claria Adware Detections [eweek.com] ("Microsoft's Windows AntiSpyware application is no longer flagging adware products from Claria Corp. as a threat to PC users.") too.
Does Microsoft want to buy the adware, the stats, the ad network or the search technology?
| 7:02 pm on Jul 13, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|"Microsoft's Windows AntiSpyware application is no longer flagging adware products from Claria Corp. as a threat to PC users." |
If Micro$oft cared about their customers, they would buy Claria, keep some of the intellectual property rights and technology, shut down the adware, and fire the management. But I said "If".
Sometime we will be able to outlaw adware. But until then companies like Claria and Casale are hurting the rest of us on the web. We need to get these people behind bars.
| 7:09 pm on Jul 13, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Gator changes name to Claria to lose the stigma (yea, that's gonna work). Microsoft downgrades spyware status. Microsoft interested in buying Claria. Now this. That about catches everyone up methinks.
| 7:11 pm on Jul 13, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I think Microsoft made a major mistake in passing on Claria (if they did - which from what I hear - the fat lady hasn't sung on that deal yet.). The surf tech that claria has now, is one possible search tech future. I think it is powerful and something that Google is already well ahead of all the other engines combined on.
Please leave the politics and flaming for another site.
Being first - doesn't mean biggest.
| 9:15 pm on Jul 13, 2005 (gmt 0)|
If that's the case and M$ wanted to pud a lid on that can of worms (Claria search technology)...this may lead to a lot of guess work...does M$ has any behavioral tech? do they think Claria is a real threat? and more...
me thinks that all this booing that's going on the internet about M$+claria may've just did lotsa harm - they could've killed 2 rabbits in one shot, stopped claria adware and moved closer to G$$gle in search.
| 9:43 pm on Jul 13, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|the fat lady hasn't sung on that deal yet.). The surf tech that claria has now, is one possible search tech future. |
I hope the song isn't over, for everyone's sake.
I personally don't think there's anything political about it, and shouldn't be. A technology is nothing more than a tool that's used for a purpose. I've run over a possum on a dark country road at night and driven someone to the hospital for emergency surgery that saved their life on another night. The car was just a piece of machinery headed toward a destination. Technology has nothing intrinsic in itself and by itself, it's a neutral entity.
From all I've gathered, MSN is intent on striving sincerely and earnestly toward being a world-class search engine. And once they reach that point as a serious contender, the fact that the playing field will be more evenly leveled means more benefit and opportunity for everyone concerned - especially webmasters.
MSN Search, from what I've been seeing, has extraoardinary capability for lexical analysis of websites and pages and deciphering semantic context. They can give a searcher the exact page they need by detecting the presence of one word used as a noun and placing it in a phrase modified by the word used as an adjective. That's a relevant result for the user and that's what search is all about.
But they've always outsourced their PPC (most all, anyway), so what they lack is historical user data and demographic indicators, being deprived of the statistician's edge for not having had their own technology in place.
The other two major players both own and have the benefit of the operations for statistical usage, so Claria technology and stats in the hands of Microsoft could give them the needed ingredient to be on equal footing, to everyone's benefit.
Webmasters have been in "eggs in one basket" mode for too long; and healthy competition between the engines is a good thing that can only serve to improve search all around and give everyone, surfers and webmasters alike, viable choices and opportunities.
Just a fairly "laymen's" opinion, but for sure traffic from MSN Search can be pure gold in some markets, and from a users viewpoint, I'm very impressed with their search so far, especially considering that time-wise they're still in their infancy.
| 12:18 am on Jul 14, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>> Sometime we will be able to outlaw adware
sure...as soon as you can define "spyware".
| 4:17 am on Jul 14, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|>> Sometime we will be able to outlaw adware |
sure...as soon as you can define "spyware".
Spyware and Adware are two different things. Spyware collects information, either on the users web visiting or getting data from files on a computer and transmitting to another person.
Adware causes pop-up to appear when the victim calls up a web site that has not programmed or authorized the ad to appear.
Both of these have defined in precise legal language for use in statutes. (I don't have copies of the definitions right now, but I have read them). There is no problem with the definition.
Companies such as Claria claim that when the software loaded on victims computers the victims give permission for the data collection or for the pop-up adds. However, the permission is usually in the form of a statement in the End User Licensing Agreement (EULA), typically after a thousand words of text shown in a small scrolled window. Sometimes there is text on a web page saying "We don't do ___" and near the end of the EULA "statements to the contrary in this agreement or other published material notwithstanding, we reserve the right and you specifically grant us permission to ___"
Language has been proposed to prevent this kind of "permission". If fact, similar language exists in other laws. You might notice that in signing certain contracts you have to initial certain important paragraphs.
Writing the law is not a problem. Passing it is. There is big money from some major, well known, companies fighting the bills.
| 9:38 pm on Jul 23, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>I think Microsoft made a major mistake in passing on >Claria (if they did - which from what I hear - the fat >lady hasn't sung on that deal yet.). The surf tech that >claria has now, is one possible search tech future. I >think it is powerful and something that Google is >already well ahead of all the other engines combined on.
Right you are, Brett. This could have been a hella smart buy. Have you ever talked with the folks at Claria? Brilliant. And since users don't seem to mind bahavioral ads per se - they just hate pervasive popups and other intrusive media types - MSN could find its advertising becoming much more valuable to advertisers if they introduced behavioral/demographic targeting.
Yahoo has been offering this for years, people. If you have a Yahoo account of any kind, chances are that you've been targeted at least once for behavioral campaigns. Too bad "bahavioral" is too often substituted in advertisers' minds with "spyware".
| 11:50 pm on Jul 23, 2005 (gmt 0)|
It's not "bahavioral" that is substituted for spyware, it's "Claria/Gator" that is substituted for spyware.
| 6:16 pm on Jul 24, 2005 (gmt 0)|
they just hate pervasive popups and other intrusive media types
Very true. When I go to Yahoo or other sites that have ads, I don't care if the ad is randomly displayed or is targeted based on behaviour, demographics, or whatever.
What I do hate are ads that popup when I am not visiting a site that displays them. For example, when I called up webmasterworld.com and the window was covered by a popup advertising cheap webhosting services.
The latest problems I have had are Casale Media popups and Lycos sidebar search ads, neither of which I have been able to get rid of.
If Microsoft wanted to do a public service they would buy Claria and the others, fire the management, and shut them down.