| 12:58 pm on Feb 24, 2005 (gmt 0)|
As I posted yesterday morning:
(it is actually "local search" news)
| 1:27 pm on Feb 24, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|The selection and placement of reviews on this page were determined automatically by a computer program. No movie critics were harmed or even used in the making of this page. |
| 1:29 pm on Feb 24, 2005 (gmt 0)|
If you search 'movie:' with a UK location or zip code then you get Google local.
If you search 'movie: ' with the name of a film then you get the review search, then if you click through to a review the link goes through Froogle. I have to wonder what the Froogle connection will be.
| 2:11 pm on Feb 24, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I sure wish they would finish a project before they start new ones. I am still not impressed with the quality of the froogle results. Come on guys... it seems like your company is suffering from attention deficit disorder.
Now, what time is Sideways on at my local theater.....
| 2:22 pm on Feb 24, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Ciml: It's using froogles review system that is why it's going through there.
| 3:07 pm on Feb 24, 2005 (gmt 0)|
"No movie critics were harmed or even used in the making of this page."
Typical PhD geek humour
| 11:22 pm on Feb 24, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Gotta say I love the zip code search - quicker and much more useful than any other approach I've trued to finding all local movies.
| 2:43 am on Feb 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>I sure wish they would finish a project before they start new ones.
I gather you don't have experience in parallel algorithms?
Google ... does.
| 4:32 am on Feb 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|"We'll expect more traffic flow overall in movie names," said Marissa Mayer, Google's director of consumer Web products. She said increased inventory will increase bidding. "We're basically creating a new market for AdWords." |
If entertainment marketers do decide to up their bidding, it may be a defensive -- rather than an offensive -- move. One agency exec with concerns is Ian Schafer, president of Deep Focus, whose clients include MGM and Moviefone. Schafer noted the movie search results push organic listings further down the page. These listings include official movie sites, which he believes are often what searchers are after anyway.
there ya have it, right from the horse's mouth.
| 4:35 am on Feb 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|I gather you don't have experience in parallel algorithms? |
Google ... does.
they still haven't gotten anything right in a long, long time. especially the algorithm, parallel or not.
| 11:43 am on Feb 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Too many irons in the Google fire?
| 2:06 pm on Feb 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>>>I gather you don't have experience in parallel algorithms?
No, none at all. Not even sure what it means, I have a clue, but I don't really want to know. But I am sure of one thing. Google has too many services in Beta. Froogle has been in Beta for nearly a year and a half, the results are horrible. There are several other services which do not seem up to par.
I am glad they are innovative, Google is my primary SE.
| 1:59 am on Feb 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I must say I am more and more impressed with the quality of the movie results. At least for areas I've tried, Google has data on really small indy theaters, not just the major distributors. They've even got film screenings from museums and universities.
I know of no other place that puts all this together in one spot - not even the major print newspapers.
Too many betas in the fire? Well, Google just might be lining up their ducks for final release in a timely fashion - to help them stay on top of the news cycles when MS, Y! etc make bigger waves. At least Google calls them a beta - not so with other companies in many cases.
| 8:47 pm on Feb 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>>>At least Google calls them a beta
Ya, you might be right. I might be too critical and should learn to be more patient when it comes to complex coding and stuff.
| 1:14 am on Mar 4, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Talk about quiet! Ive never seen it mentioned on Google! They must not want the news of it to spread.:)