homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.211.219.178
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member

Visit PubCon.com
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: Robert Charlton & aakk9999 & brotherhood of lan & goodroi

Google SEO News and Discussion Forum

This 67 message thread spans 3 pages: < < 67 ( 1 [2] 3 > >     
Google Base Live
vitaplease




msg:749587
 6:09 am on Nov 16, 2005 (gmt 0)

[base.google.com...]

[nytimes.com...]

During an interview at Google headquarters last week, Salar Kamangar, Google's vice president for product management, said the new service was experimental and cautioned against viewing it as a imminent assault on the classified advertising business because it could be used in far broader ways.

Still, several industry executives and analysts said they believed that Google Base was an aggressive first step in a series of maneuvers that would position the company as a powerful player in the $100 billion annual market for classified advertising

seems like items have been uploaded since oct 28?

hell of a job to keep this clean..

 

CodeJockey




msg:749617
 4:32 pm on Nov 16, 2005 (gmt 0)

I have some slight knowledge of recipes and copyright. Most single recipes cannot be copyrighted because they're a 'formula', but there exceptions to this, and so on.

With that in mind, I looked at the recipes section. There are advantages to putting your 'recipe' into the base. "If it is used the way that it is intended to be used" I can see a number of advantages.

You can specify up to 13 different pieces of information that your recipe can be found on, plus there's a huge area to put in the recipe and any description that you may choose to add. On the surface, it seems to be great for newbies adding a site, or sandboxed people, etc.

If you don't want to sit there and add your recipe, you can create a link right to your own website (with all of it's advertising and Adsense, etc.), still making it look like Google is hosting the recipe. I believe you can also upload a file to add information, which is a big help.

Personally, I found that it was a great idea. I can think of at least seven or eight different ways that I can spam the s*** out of it, throw in tons of scraped links and well, you name it.

I didn't line up to add Gram's Apple pie recipe. I'll wait for the other three hundred people who have the same recipe to do it. Organized crap is still crap.

ferfer




msg:749618
 6:44 pm on Nov 16, 2005 (gmt 0)

A Blog allowed people without webpage editing and website managment skills to publish easily in the internet.

The basic format of the blog is: Personal articles organized by date.

Google Base is a more flexible approach than blogs to web publishing without website editing skills.

Now, my father with a small company without page can publish a classified in a free jobs site and post the URL with the details. He would not create a blog for that.

The same for a Course published by a person on a newspapper, with the URL base.google.com/winecourse , no website editing skills needed.

Same for product catalogs from my hippie sister, now it is easy for her, plus it is searchable (like well done websites)

bd4rr




msg:749619
 8:07 pm on Nov 16, 2005 (gmt 0)

A quick search (a random product name come up in my mind) on Google Base turned out many pages of affiliate links. I think very soon the whole Base will be filled up with these links.

Haven't we got enough affiliate links yet?

Giacomo




msg:749620
 9:14 pm on Nov 16, 2005 (gmt 0)

The whole thing looks very Beta to me...

Atticus




msg:749621
 10:13 pm on Nov 16, 2005 (gmt 0)

This is very exciting. Google Base appears to be far from an E-bay clone. Looks like a whole new search engine where posters get to define certain attributes. Accepts "all types of online and offline information and images."

My evening's work is cut out for me. Will be refreshing this thread often.

Atticus




msg:749622
 4:32 am on Nov 17, 2005 (gmt 0)

Sudden lack of interest or are we all busy adding our pages?

Kimkia




msg:749623
 4:57 am on Nov 17, 2005 (gmt 0)

Well, isnt' this just peachy?

I look at the first page of Google Base recipes, and the fifth item down has stolen and published an image of mine. This image is of a recipe in a jar that I invented, photographed, and feature on my site.

The search words that accompany this stolen image are my keywords for a main section of my site.

And when you visit the link, there is nothing on the site that matches those keywords.

Just wonderful. Yet another place that I have to police for stolen content.

balam




msg:749624
 6:14 am on Nov 17, 2005 (gmt 0)

Does anyone know/care to hazard a guess as to the meaning of the (January 18, 2038) item expiration date one sees when reporting a bad item? A click on "Report bad item" in the BERPS (Pardon me!) will show what I mean...

<added>
Hmmm, that "clear" link that appears in various places seems very useful. Click it and it clears everything off the page. Just like if you search for " "...
</added>

ronburk




msg:749625
 8:11 am on Nov 17, 2005 (gmt 0)

Google Base is released with considerable... fuzziness about what exactly the point is. However:

If your item is highly relevant, it may also appear in Google searches

Interesting. OK, I am now motivated to perform the following experiment. Pick a few articles I've written, and make Google Base entries that point to them. Then watch to see if my item was "highly relevant" enough to show up in the Google SERPs.

If Google Base turns out to have no other functionality than to give me an opportunity to control precisely what my Google SERP listing looks like for certain keyword/URL pairs, then I will find it worthwhile.

What if (among other fuzzy goals) Google is actually saying: instead of inventing a new HTML standard for specifying meta information about your web resources, we'll just invent a non-HTML standard of our own -- and by the way, you have to store your meta information on our servers 'cause we're sick and tired of crawling you bastards day and night trying to find out exactly what's changed.

Hmmmm....

Clark




msg:749626
 8:19 am on Nov 17, 2005 (gmt 0)

Base.Google.Com

IOW

Geocities.Google.Com/for/geeks

Clark




msg:749627
 8:46 am on Nov 17, 2005 (gmt 0)

Did you read these testimonials?

[#*$!.blogspot.com...]

The thing is live for one day and in beta and looking like cr@p and we're supposed to believe that Google base has had a positive IMPACT on these guys.

I'm not into blogging but this is a perfect example of how NOT to blog.

Clark




msg:749628
 8:47 am on Nov 17, 2005 (gmt 0)

The link got screwed up above but it's to Google official blog page. Can a mod fix that please? Thanks.

zCat




msg:749629
 9:11 am on Nov 17, 2005 (gmt 0)

Hmm, one day on and among the links on the front page there's one to the chicken recipie ("Chicken Tikka Masala") I came across yesterday, which is evidently being redistributed by Google against the terms of the text's GFDL license (it comes from Wikipedia; the source URL is noted, but the license is not).

Now, I've learnt in the meantime that recipies themselves are not inherently copyrightable, and this is a terribly trivial "violation", but I can only hope Google releases an API soon so I can automate patrolling for any stuff of mine... It's bound to happen.

On an unrelated note: current entries for the keyword "Hoodia": 3.

financialhost




msg:749630
 4:34 pm on Nov 17, 2005 (gmt 0)

Anyone know what is wrong with this format (RSS 2.0)?

<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel xmlns:j="http://www.oursite.com/ns/1.0">
<title>Oursite</title>
<link>http://www.oursite.com/</link>
<description>The Job Marketplace for Accounting and Financial Professionals</description>

<item>
<title><![CDATA[ 7 People Wanted to Work at Home Online]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[ Our description here]]></description>
<link><![CDATA[ [oursite.com...]
<j:id><![CDATA[ 224163]]></j:id>
<j:expiration_date>
<![CDATA[ 12-16-2005 ]]></j:expiration_date>
<j:label>finance jobs</j:label>
<j:label>financial jobs</j:label>
<j:label><![CDATA[ 7 People Wanted to Work at Home Online]]> </j:label>
<j:label><![CDATA[ 7 People Wanted to Work at Home Online job]]> <![CDATA[ Orlando ]]><![CDATA[ FL ]]> <![CDATA[ US ]]> </j:label>
<j:label>recruitment</j:label>
<j:label><![CDATA[ Accounting job]]></j:label>
<j:label><![CDATA[ Accounting jobs]]> </j:label>
<j:label> <![CDATA[ General job ]]> </j:label>
<j:label> <![CDATA[ General jobs ]]> </j:label>
<j:job_industry> <![CDATA[ Accounting: General ]]> </j:job_industry>
<j:employer> <![CDATA[ Online Business Associates, Inc. ]]> </j:employer>
<j:job_function> <![CDATA[ 7 People Wanted to Work at Home Online ]]> </j:job_function>
<j:job_type> <![CDATA[ Full Time ]]> </j:job_type>
<j:education> <![CDATA[ Entry Level ]]></j:education>
<j:location><![CDATA[ Orlando]]> , <![CDATA[ FL ]]> , <![CDATA[ US ]]> </j:location>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
</xml>

Google is giving the following errors,
Attribute was incorrectly specified
Unrecognized header
Attribute was incorrectly specified - <?xml version="1.0"?>

We are really confused... any help greatly appreciated

Gruntled




msg:749631
 5:26 pm on Nov 17, 2005 (gmt 0)

An interesting story on NPR (that's National Public Radio for our non-US friends) this morning, in which the reporter suggested that Google Base may cut out the middle man.

For example, jobs.com feeds its job listings into Google Base. Eventually, why would employers pay jobs.com to find employees for them? Why not just go straight to Google Base and leave jobs.com out of the picture entirely? I wonder if there are similar potentialities for other content providers or publishers?

Clark




msg:749632
 5:48 pm on Nov 17, 2005 (gmt 0)

Oh absolutely. Something that people are consciously and unconsciously troubled about Google is that they won the trust of the webmaster community by being about search and only search. That's how they differentiated themselves from AltaVista with their portal attempt. We loved the traffic they sent us. We don't want Google as a competitor using our content.

financialhost




msg:749633
 6:02 pm on Nov 17, 2005 (gmt 0)

An interesting story on NPR (that's National Public Radio for our non-US friends) this morning, in which the reporter suggested that Google Base may cut out the middle man.

For example, jobs.com feeds its job listings into Google Base. Eventually, why would employers pay jobs.com to find employees for them? Why not just go straight to Google Base and leave jobs.com out of the picture entirely? I wonder if there are similar potentialities for other content providers or publishers?

If a job board allows employers to know the contact details of job seekers without signing up... whos fault is it?

weeks




msg:749634
 7:43 pm on Nov 17, 2005 (gmt 0)

It's "yet another challenge to the hegemony of newspaper publishers in the classified market," Peter Appert, an analyst at Goldman Sachs told E&P.

Appert does not expect Google Base to impact the industry in the next 12 months but says "If Google eventually charges for listings, or if advertisers find they get adequate results posting directly on Google and can bypass paid listing services aggregated by Google, the economic implications will be dramatic."

To drive home the point, the Appert mentions that the San Francisco Chronicle as a likely harbinger of things to come. The newspaper is estimated to be unprofitable in part because of the loss of classifieds to the popular and free Craigslist.

--
I say: Nah, I don't think so.

linkjack




msg:749635
 8:39 pm on Nov 17, 2005 (gmt 0)

Google base is even more useful than airbags for scooters.

Keep it up Google! Alright GoogleGuy! This is awesome!

sparticus




msg:749636
 10:22 pm on Nov 17, 2005 (gmt 0)

Does it just look this way from where I'm sitting, or is Google trying to put everyone else making money from the Internet out of business?

Coming soon: Google AntiVirus, Google AntiSpam, Google Web Browser and Google Office.

Google porn anyone?

bcolflesh




msg:749637
 10:26 pm on Nov 17, 2005 (gmt 0)

Google porn anyone?

They already have this:

images.google.com

[SafeSearch is off]

Ankhenaton




msg:749638
 1:27 am on Nov 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

I think this thing is

1.) a commercial Wikipedia .. access and sell for all people who want to publish and sell but can't do a homepage thingy and don't like ebay do some casual editing ...

2.) Will do to commercial sites what WP has done to many evergreen content sites .. wordspammed their pages out of the index.

3.) Unlike Wikipedia content it ain't free to copy so no clones and forks to at least try to level the competition.. a bit. Well Google has nuked all clones out of the index besides Answers.com ... hypocracy ...

Clever for Google, less clever for all content webmasters of the world ...

So in the future all evergreen content is hovered up into WP and all commercial content into Google Base ..

At least it will save the SE ... as you can bet your ... those two sites will be on top of everything in the future..

Human scraping is definitely the future..

[edited by: Ankhenaton at 1:33 am (utc) on Nov. 18, 2005]

Ankhenaton




msg:749639
 1:29 am on Nov 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

Does it just look this way from where I'm sitting, or is Google trying to put everyone else making money from the Internet out of business?

Simple answer: Yes.

They might not plan it that way consciously but this is what they are effectively doing ..

Maybe my opinion of G is still to positive .. but I think they sit there IPO behind them trying to think of all kinda new ideas churn them out as if there is no tomorrow just to beat yahoo or MS and kinda don't realise that their power is gonna nuke many many of us into oblivion ... Maybe I am too naive .. Maybe Dr No is sitting there planning all this .. maybe there is guy with a hairy cat too and Sean Connery is nowhere to be seen ..

StreetSurfer




msg:749640
 3:33 am on Nov 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

GBase appears to be a way of simply aggregating content - yes like a wiki... and then pushing that wiki content to people looking for it... with the help of a dynamicly created keyword sorting / relational system...

It's the concept of a global public / commercial wiki that that has the ability to affect a certain class of publishers / business models.

at the moment this is just an experimental approach to web publishing and information sorting and it could take off - regardless we are all going to learn from it... and will be interesting to see how they add new features and evolve the system...

new concepts and approaches are sometimes "disruptive technologies" - but those have always been around. Whether Gbase will be disruptive at all remains to be seen.

sparticus




msg:749641
 5:22 am on Nov 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

How far away are they from Google OS then?

financialhost




msg:749642
 2:19 pm on Nov 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

Is anyone else having FTP problems?

I can't seem to connect to the directory, timing out at listing.

?

BradleyT




msg:749643
 3:12 pm on Nov 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

Using your own meta data to describe your items is unbelievably awesome.

I can't believe so many people don't get it.

Ameriman




msg:749644
 4:27 pm on Nov 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

The name "Base" is interesting... could they be gathering data (which is their mission) for further determining relevance for the search engine too? They limit the keywords you can use... so if you "list" your site, you've just told them the top ten search phrases?

So anyone else see them using "Base" for better defining relevancy?

Clark




msg:749645
 7:27 pm on Nov 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

Bradley, I agree that the idea of describing your metadata has potential. But if they don't come up with a way to control the spam, it's going nowhere.

I think charging for the service would be one way to improve it.

But hey, it's beta, maybe it will look better later on.

financialhost




msg:749646
 6:12 pm on Nov 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

Anyone having any problems with Base?

We uploaded lots of items to login today and find most of them gone...

Anyone had this kind of problem?

G_Smitty




msg:749647
 8:07 pm on Nov 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

Since Google Base went live I have noticed a 20% loss in traffic coming from Google. I have a popular classifieds web site and feel that my site will lose quite a bit of revenue from G Base. Has anyone else noticed a drop in traffic?

This 67 message thread spans 3 pages: < < 67 ( 1 [2] 3 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved