| 6:00 am on Feb 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Actually, it's one of the most enjoyable articles I've read. Thanks!
| 8:18 am on Feb 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
'if it does float for anywhere near $15bn, a lot of people will lose their investment. A more reasonable value, he thinks, would be about $6bn.'
Yeah right, when you get to those kind of figures anything goes. I reckon its worth oooooo 7.5Bn.
| 8:46 am on Feb 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Great article. It makes me want to start my own search engine. I probably would too, if I didn't have so much junk in my garage ;)
| 9:09 am on Feb 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
| 9:12 am on Feb 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
When is the mainstream media going to start talking about nutch as a potential pretender to Google's throne? I keep waiting for it, but I haven't heard a squeak from even Wired as yet. Are there any rumours over at /.?
| 10:41 am on Feb 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|By contrast, 29 per cent visited Yahoo!'s search, 30 per cent searched via Microsoft's MSN, and just 15 per cent used AOL. (In fact, AOL actually uses Google's search engine, as does the BBC.) |
I was under the impression that the BBC initially used Google, but then switched to Inktomi geo-targeting and is still with Inktomi.
The article also mentions Sullivan, who I assume is Danny Sullivan, which I assume is a bit of a mix up, as Sullivan is never introduced in the article. But Chris Sherman - Search Engine Watch's Associate Editor is introduced. Who did he really speak to? The plot thickens...
Anyway that's my nit picking out of the way! Otherwise very interesting.
| 11:12 am on Feb 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Interesting article. It seems to put a more realistic spin on Google's valuation. I can't help feeling that the guys in Google got lucky when they got into the search engine business - Altavista was on the wane and needed that extra push over the cliff. Yahoo at the time was rather muddled. They had a clear shot. But what they did was excellent - they leveraged their search results by syndicating them. Now you have the same thing on a mass market scale with the rubbish from various pages generated only from SERPs flooding search engine indices.
It is surprising to see the mainstream British press picking up on the idea of Microsoft getting into the search engine business for real.
| 11:27 am on Feb 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|When is the mainstream media going to start talking about nutch as a potential pretender to Google's throne? I keep waiting for it, but I haven't heard a squeak from even Wired as yet. Are there any rumours over at /.? |
Wired and /. hardly count as the mainstream press. :) Nutch seems to be Java based whereas most SEs are a combination of C,C++ and or some scripting languages. Nutch is not a search engine business as such. However if Nutch was to run on a p2p network with well coordinated distribution and searching, it would blow Google et al away. Google does not rely on Dmoz for its core list of urls. The whole idea of getting that list of spiderable URLs is the one thing that hammers search engine startups.
| 11:28 am on Feb 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
There was also a small article in the UK paper the Guardian today, which slated Google for junk results and sold up the new Yahoo! search. Independant article was much better though :)
| 12:07 pm on Feb 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Th Guardian?!?!?! The only people that read that rag are aging communist hippys with plated nostril hair.
How can anyone take their articles seriously?
| 12:24 pm on Feb 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
It was stuck on the wall (the article) in the office. The article had some truth to it.
| 12:32 pm on Feb 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
When the happy-clappy 'technology journalists' start getting in on the act, Google had better watch out. Though when the Sun or the Star newspapers start running articles about Google, things will really have hit the big time. :)
| 1:14 pm on Feb 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Actually, having been involved with advertising & marketing campaigns for several years now, my experience of Guardian readers is that they are more likely to be young, relatively well-off technology users. (Early adopters is the buzzword for them in marketing speak).
Though the newspaper's readership isn't huge, it's just those kind of people that can influence word of mouth recommendations - a la Google - to their friends & colleagues.
| 1:29 pm on Feb 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
was a kwalitee article imo :)
| 1:36 pm on Feb 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|Th Guardian?!?!?! The only people that read that rag are aging communist hippys with plated nostril hair |
As an ex-manager of a newsagent let me tell you that more people bought the Guardian then The Independent plus the Guardian as someone else here has mentioned is read mainly by younger intellectual readers and school teachers.
Independent article was pretty good but was wrong about the BBC and Google. The BBC only use Inktomi and stopped using Google a few months back.
These newspaper articles never tell us anything new but it does open the eyes of potential investors and help create an extra few hundred thousend visitors to Google.
| 1:36 pm on Feb 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I stand corrected then.
It just appears to me that the people I know that read the Guardian are quite the opposite, generally over 50 with some weird social ideas.
Just guess im plain wrong.
| 1:43 pm on Feb 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
It's valued the same way everything else is.
It's worth whatever people are prepared to pay for it. The fact that a valuation on that basis does create anomolies (Amazon was a great example of this a few years back) doesn't seem to put people off.
Funny old world.
| 1:56 pm on Feb 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Funny old world. Yep
Shame no one ever over values something of mine....
| 2:18 pm on Feb 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>> by younger intellectual readers and school teachers
...and left wing loonies and unemployed people looking for a government/council/NHS/teaching job. The Guardian gets a large chunk of what the govt throws away on advertising. They do very well out of it and I suppose they look after the cash cows.
Now if you do want a job as a social regeneration project manager at the local council - or a breast feeding coordinator at the local NHS trust - pick up your copy of the Guardian today. (I always kinda fancied that title of breast feeding coordinator. It conjures up images of a Sergeant Major lining up a row of new mothers and screaming, "On my count of three get your right breasts out. All together now...")
BTW, nice article, my guess on the value is $12.67 billion plus or minus 2 cents.
| 2:23 pm on Feb 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Marketing people also read The Guardian on a Monday. I know I did when I was looking for my first job. :)
| 2:46 pm on Feb 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
The Independent's much better than the other broadsheets, it's just everyone's stuck in their ways with the more established newspapers. Experiment UK, experiment! The quality of the paper definitely deserves more readers and now that it's transformed to a compact size it's much easier to read!
Anyway, better stop talking about newspapers and more about Google.....
so google hey....
| 4:13 pm on Feb 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
<It has entered the language; to "Google" someone or something means to use the website to investigate them using the most powerful search tool developed in the past half-century.>
I keep seeing references in the press about Google entering the language and becoming a commonly accepted word. As far as I am concerned this is nonsense. I have never, NOT ONCE, heard anyone using this term. Perhaps it's the people I mix with but I don't think so. How many others talk about Googling someone? Rogering perhaps but not Googling. Come on you media wallahs, get real!
We all know that press reporters are not too concerned about the truth, particularly when they don't know what it is! I think they write this nonsense because it sounds interesting. Let's just hoover this up and put it in the bin.
BTW, the Guardian article mentioned earlier is at [guardian.co.uk...] Not very true or accurate I'm afraid. Someone mentioned the UK newspapers the Sun and the Star earlier. The (sad) fact of the matter is that if either of them carried an article championing the use of another search engine it would have a definite impact here in the UK. That's the way we are as a country folks.
| 4:20 pm on Feb 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I hear people using the expression all the time (London, UK).
| 4:30 pm on Feb 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|The declining quality of Google's search results - which are being spammed by shopping sites and fake pages - is prompting people to try alternatives |
Like I said before the article holds some truth. I have seen a large influx of sites that make me want to surf else where when I want to search for something.
| 6:48 pm on Feb 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|I keep seeing references in the press about Google entering the language and becoming a commonly accepted word. As far as I am concerned this is nonsense |
Ah, so I'm not alone in thinking that this rubbish was created by the media! Nobody I know Googles anything, they don't do a Google, they don't go googling for anything.
If the term isn't widely used here in WW by all the expert webmasters then it's hardly an accepted synonym for online searching.
| 1:38 am on Feb 27, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I'm not so familiar with the characteristics of the different news outlets in the UK, so I'll stay out of that discussion, but I enjoyed reading the article.
| 8:10 am on Feb 27, 2004 (gmt 0)|
GoogleGuy, you don't have time to read newspaper articles. What about those of us whose page titles, cache and description have been dropped? You should be working on this :oŽ
| 9:25 am on Feb 27, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|GoogleGuy, you don't have time to read newspaper articles. What about those of us whose page titles, cache and description have been dropped? You should be working on this |
Googleguy consider your self told off, its all your fault, everything, the lot I am sure your going to rush straight to Googleplex and give them what for!
The poor guy can't even read a newspaper these days, if we carry on like this he won't even be able to participate in topical discussions here in WW.
Can anyone send GG a copy of The Independent?
As for the value of Google and getting back to the discussion how much are they worth to you?
Its difficult to work a true value of an internet company it all depends on future earnings growth.
What is the growth potential?
is their still a lot of growth for Google?
or have they reached the top and competition will start to eat away at their market share?
What areas can Google go down to continue its growth?
To be honest I would not invest in a company that has already grown as the downside seems to far outway the upside potential.
| 9:30 am on Feb 27, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>>If the term isn't widely used here in WW by all the expert webmasters then it's hardly an accepted synonym for online searching.
'google' as a verb is ancient history:
I guess the hoi polloi just haven't yet learnt that they must consult the grandmaster wizards of the internet here at webmasterworld before they start using words referring to the sacred world of internet search engines ;}
| This 59 message thread spans 2 pages: 59 (  2 ) > > |