| 8:42 am on Jan 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
AP Article [story.news.yahoo.com]
| 9:47 am on Jan 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Our mission is to organize the world's information, and that includes the thousands of programs that play on our TVs every day. Google Video enables you to search a growing archive of televised content – everything from sports to dinosaur documentaries to news shows. |
This is amazing, especially the preview. Google 60 Minutes [video.google.com]
| 10:26 am on Jan 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Can't believe I'm typing this but Yahoo's search is better
| 10:28 am on Jan 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>How do they monetize this one?
Ads in the SERPs depending on what you were looking for? If you search for "sex and the city" you'll probably be more interrested in a trip to new york then a Truck.
| 11:00 am on Jan 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Wouldn't it be awesome to even view the videos. THAT would be huge ;)
| 11:49 am on Jan 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Video search featuring no video. I wanted to make sure they had no video so I typed "boobs" into the search and found text and some captions next to TV shows. No video.
I think what Google is doing is pretty obvious but I haven't heard anyone catch on.
After their blunder of a lifetime by announcing to the world how their algo (pagerank) works, scores of SEOs started churning out content. If you extrapolate where we are today out 10 years, every single combination of words that don't even exist will be created by automated content generators. The web will grow to such a point that there will be more spam out there than anything else. So in order to provide some content that is useful, Google is amassing any content possible that is vetted.
You've got Google.gov, google scholar, google news, google from the transcripts of shows, etc. More and more those results will be filtered into the regular results and the web itself will have less play.
That means the rich get richer. I'm not saying it's all a plan for the following, but a side effect that benefits Google as well as the medium-to bigger players is if you want targetted traffic, you have to pay for adwords.
Google is just finding a subtle way to make paid advertising blend with organic results and appear to not "sell out" like the others. They are doing it in a smart way. But for the independent webmaster, the free ride is over and has been for some time now.
| 12:45 pm on Jan 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Every result in my test searches shows "Video is currently not available." Not very useful (yet?)
Maybe it's just my search terms, how about an option for "show only available videos"?
From what I see, it's to show you what is "on the air" right now or in the past.
They are simply using close captioned text and screenshots of the video streams.
[edited by: amznVibe at 12:59 pm (utc) on Jan. 25, 2005]
| 12:57 pm on Jan 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I don't think there will ever be video. I mean, if Google can't find any video with boobies on the web now, they never will :)
| 1:03 pm on Jan 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Anyone remember what Brin said at the World Economic Forum in Davos last year?
Basically he said that Google won't be doing video search, and gave his reasons (lack of standards and compatibility in the video software industry, a lack of content, etc).
Hmmm... isn't lying to the public "evil"? ;) I guess Google Video Search was inevitable though...
| 1:35 pm on Jan 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|if Google can't find any video with boobies on the web now, they never will |
ROTFL. Now we know the real reason for Microsoft Active Accessibility (MSAA) in Macromedia Flash Player 7!
| 1:41 pm on Jan 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Interesting to see that Yahoo was the first to actually add it to their homepage.....hmm....
| 2:55 pm on Jan 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Google is taking snippets of video from several San Francisco TV broadcasts. Those stations paid for those broadcasts. Local advertisers are included in those broadcasts (I can see a local ad snippet). So how will the originators of the content feel about this eventual (possible) rebroadcast of this material with the local ad running infinitum on the web? It looks like a lawsuit waiting to happen.
I guess we are looking at the blurring/merging of television and web and it looks like it will be entertaining if nothing else.
| 3:35 pm on Jan 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I did a search on Jonny Carson (one of my all time heros) and all I got were scripts from shows!? It is waving candy in front of us and then not delivering. That was no use to me as a searcher. hmmm...
ummm, what's the point - other than to tease and taunt?
So where's the video in this "video search" stuff?
[edited by: Brett_Tabke at 9:29 pm (utc) on Jan. 25, 2005]
| 3:46 pm on Jan 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
"Right now we're just testing this product, so you'll find programs only from a limited number of channels, which we've been indexing since late December 2004. You can expect to see more and more content as we continue to add new channels."
No Johnny Carson recorded.
[edited by: Brett_Tabke at 9:28 pm (utc) on Jan. 25, 2005]
[edit reason] please do not break links...thanks ;) [/edit]
| 3:56 pm on Jan 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I agree with Brett, just showing me images and then the script leaves me feeling robbed at the end!
| 4:46 pm on Jan 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
"But search engine analyst Charlene Li of Forrester Research said Googles latest innovation was likely to disappoint many people because it did not provide a direct link to watch the previously-broadcast programming. "
and I doubt they will be able to do that, and still make $$. You have to deal with thousands of sources and each video has different value. This is great for people doing opposition research, like politicians, talks shows, and so on. This way if the want to see what (for example) Rumsfeld said about the war in Iraq then they can use Google and then get the relevant video. Other than that, it's just interesting to see that it can be done.
"So how will the originators of the content feel about this eventual (possible) rebroadcast of this material with the local ad running infinitum on the web? It looks like a lawsuit waiting to happen. "
methinks G got permission for that.
| 5:14 pm on Jan 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
This is great for people doing opposition research, like politicians, talks shows, and so on. This way if the want to see what (for example) Rumsfeld said about the war in Iraq then they can use Google and then get the relevant video.
That's what the Library of Congress and National Archives are for, actually. Every word that has come out of Rumsfeld's mouth (in public) is easily accessible by you or congressional researchers.
Google seeems to have gotten the GOOD stuff here. I don't understand how it's useless to Brett as a searcher. Did you notice that Google has what appeared on tv YESTERDAY indexed with transcripts available already? Anyone here watch 24 [video.google.com]?
| 7:15 pm on Jan 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I like that you can do a search like
and find out about the movie, and also see news reports about the story behind the movie too. It lets you find 150+ instances on television where people mentioned Coach Carter.
Yahoo targets video on the web, and it looks like there's only one web result so far for that search. It's just different philsophies; instead of looking for video on the web, we record television programs, index them, and then return pointers to the exact place in a TV program to where a query is mentioned.
| 7:20 pm on Jan 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Yeah but GG ..the wholepoint of a Video search is to see VIDEO ..not to read about video lol
I suspect ..that is being worked on..no way is this the final product
| 7:49 pm on Jan 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
This is great! You know why? As a result of seeing the AP article I now (through this thread) know about Yahoo!s new video search capabilities.
I search for freeskiing and look at all those clips. I just have to click a link to play them.
Unfortunately, Google has no results. As soon as they get some results, and then put in links to play the videos, theirs might be ok too.
Lets see, Yahoo has fresher results (search I mean) and better capabilities. Hmmm.
| 9:20 pm on Jan 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I get Google's point and did from the beginning. Their only mistake is in naming it. Not that I can think of a good name. Somehow SearchAboutVideo.google.com doesn't have a nice ring to it. But GG, you can have that name gratis ;)
| 9:28 pm on Jan 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Ads in the SERPs depending on what you were looking for? If you search for "sex and the city" you'll probably be more interrested in a trip to new york then a Truck. |
You mean like on Google News?
This is great. I can see what they said on the news YESTERDAY. My favorite part is "Video is currently not available". WOW!
| 10:25 pm on Jan 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Hmmm video search that shows pictures - its like a bad David Copperfield illusion.
| 10:56 pm on Jan 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I think this is actually quite a big thing and a great idea by a Google staff in his 20% time no doubt. It might not be much use at the moment, but once ondemand TV is more of a reality then this will be the sort of services that will make ondemand so much better than the current setup. May be they want that dark fibre to launch their own ondemand video network.
BTW, who would have known that the teletubbies were secretly vSEO experts! (search for green)
| 12:05 am on Jan 26, 2005 (gmt 0)|
My opinion is, that this is a great feature and will be useful within 3 years beyond what we can imagine now.
Abstracts of videos are nice, if you think of Discovery channel or your favourite series, which are not available on DVD yet.
A friend of mine records all series he likes and burns it on DVD, his collection goes into the 10,000s discs now... guess what? he wrote himself a database tool to index all that and tell him in which folder the deep space nine episode is, where that alien does this and that...
If we will be finally able to put our comments and data NEXT to the results (like stored locally and combined with the desktop search), this application will make a lot of people happy.
Especially people who spend not 75% of their life in front of a computer (nobody in here, I guess ;-)
| 1:15 am on Jan 26, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Somebody was tinkering with the the TivOs.
indexing television shows...lol
At some point the people that are creating this content aren't going to buy into this.
| 4:40 am on Jan 26, 2005 (gmt 0)|
When I do an image search, I expect to see images; when I do a news search, I expect to read news; when I do a video search, I don't expect to see "Image not available" and read the friendly banter between Dick & Jane at the anchor desk.
Maybe Google could spend some of that new wealth on some Tivos to expand their one-month, San Francisco-biased index? Clearly this product is nowhere near ready for, uh, primetime.
And sin of sins, the error page doesn't even offer a link to the video or any other Google homepage.
| 6:12 am on Jan 26, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I may get in trouble for posting this.....
(from GoogleGuy and my bosses) but as a Yahoo I was a bit surprised by the Google video announcement today. Over at Yahoo (slash Overture, slash AllTheWeb, slash AltaVista), we have been working with the video space for a long time. You may remember the Virage/Altavista Clinton-Lewinsky demo, or the ATW ftp video search. The idea of Tivo'ing, or DirectTV'ing, or Dish'ing TV into a Virage Videologger or IBM style closecaption/speach recognition system has been around for a long time.
I'll have to admit that we have been working on it :-), but for Google to announce a video product without securing at least one provider that can provide actual video is surprising. Over the next few months there will be a number of announcements from various media content owners making video available via Google and Yahoo. However, we at Yahoo, feel that an open approach will benefit both 'Top Tier' content owners and bloggers alike. Just try a search for 'star wars kid', or 'tsunami' on Yahoo!. Welcome to the powerful future of video search!.
oh... and by the way... we also think our image search kicks some serious but. Yahoo! Multi (image/audio/video) media rocks!.
Sorry Googleguy, I'll be sure to read about it in 20-30 years after the book has passed copyright and I can see it in Google Print :-). Ooops, did I mess up how many years I had to wait?
| 6:17 am on Jan 26, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Was that the first shot of the war [webmasterworld.com]?
| This 36 message thread spans 2 pages: 36 (  2 ) > > |