When have monopolies ever been good?
I am extremely hesitant to join the choir on this..
Best case scenerio is that competition comes back to the search engines(teoma? )..at LEAST one more engine to keep Google from becoming pushy and arragant as most companies that have a lopsided control of their market..
Of course Goolge is great..just want it to stay that why...just seems that to much control always ends up going bad..
|Lord Acton, in a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton, 1887. 'Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely |
The horde of Google sycophants will echo each triumph, much the same way the Microsoft sycophants did. Will everyone still have this same Googly feeling the next time sites are hit by something like PR0, and it affects even more of the user base?
I've seen too many discussions here where people were wondering if Google had too much influence before this coup, and now the bandwagon is full of Go Googleites. Personally, I prefer a more diverse menu.
I don't know I'm part of the pro-Google chorus here. Yes, I think it's good that AOLers will finally get a decent search engine.
I would much prefer, however, that Inktomi (and AV, and WiseNut) get their acts together and dramatically improve their systems to become more competitive. Does anyone see them doing that? I don't.
It's laughable and pathetic; the people who run those businesses appear to be asleep.
Maybe all of us ought to join forces and line up financing to buy AV or Inktomi, fix the thing and return it to glory. Comments?
I find it funny how people are worried about Google going to a pay per spidering scheme like Inktomi. Google needs to spider a majority of the web to be relevant. If they went to a pay per spider approach, PR becomes irrelevant, thus the search results do too.
Unless those pay per spidering companies change their business model to mimic Googles, they'll become extinct in a year or two.
>full of Go Googleites
For alot of people, it's the lesser of two...
Google is the last standing fully free search engine on the internet. Although the game weights heavily in favor of the large sites, there is still the potential for smaller quality sites to be successful through Google. You can not say that about any other search engine remaining on the internet. Atleast until the Google IPO [webmasterworld.com]
Inktomi did it's self in. Google is a spidering search engine, inktomi is a miss managed pay-for-inclusion engine that got too greedy. They let their db rot, and are reaping the results of their neglect.
For me it isn't really about Google's increase in market share, but about inktomi's implosion.
Right on target. That's how competent companies like Google get market share!
Choosing the lesser of two evils still puts you in bed with a potential devil.
The dichotomy still exists. This move by Google and AOL is good for the wallet, but bad for the web. As the competition erodes so does the impetus for Google to continue to strive for perfection.
|Google is the last standing fully free search engine on the internet |
That makes my argument. When you're in a class by yourself, you're only number one by default.
Isn't it miraculous how one small privately held company - small compared to the really big players - has in just a few years gained such a massive influence on the distribution of information on the world wide web?
This surely can not be in the interest of the media giants. As long as they don't own this small company, that is.
Basically all broadcasters are in the same boat: nobody will be comfortable with being totally dependant on one distribution channel.
Google has gained a position of enormous power, which in no way corresponds to their economic standing.
Right now Google seem invincible. If Yahoo should drop them - so what? If AOL should drop them - so what?
>I prefer a more diverse menu
Most people doing SEO will echo this. A more diverse menu requires a better Chef and more cooks to chop veggies and stirr the pots.
But what the rest of SE where leading SEO cuisine to? - Ad broking - just like flipping burgers at McDonald's.
Google getting more market share means more "chasing for links like a dog in heat" Toolman ©. Not a better experience than flipping burgers in my cook book. But will get more clicks for our clients budget on the middle term. And this is good news for the industry.
We need more diversity.
So are there any investment bankers on WebmasterWorld?
Certainly there is enough talent hereabouts to fix either Inktomi or AltaVista and run either of them profitably.
Let's buy one of them.
This is good for me. My traffic will increase.
>We need more diversity.
Yes. But this too will pass. The incompetent SE's will die off, Google will reign for a time -- maybe a couple of years. As the cost of starting a spidering engine drops new SE's will grow. Google will stumble and some of the new blood will gain market share.
Maybe Google with Google as undisputed leader, topical and regional directories will gain some traction in the market.</OT>
>Let's buy one of them.
I'm still amazed more SEO companies did not start their own SE's, or don't do it now.
Many, many people in this industry and beyond are happy to see Google go from strength to strength because it's been the straightest, cleanest major search index. But...
> ...credible rumors I've heard about not-available-to-the-public data feed deals already taking place...
The prospect of this type of thing is quite terrifying.
> ...There is now only one basket.
Exactly. I remain a Google fan, but I feel disconcerted.
ummmmm...am I missing something? The change is just that Google's "pay per click" results will show instead of Overtures.
Inktomi is still providing the search results.
The search results won't be there 'til the summer. Adwords are supposed to be there now, but I don't see them - even when going thru AOL directly.
This is BIG.
sorry...was in the middle of my weekly lobotomy :)
I had not read Google's press release. The news wires were only discussing Overture.
I understand, but not sure why all this outcry about "google all the time".
Yes I understand, but why is there not the same level of concern over yahoo for the past 5 over years who have always dominated search engine results and still, according to the admmiteedly skewed sample of Webside story still provides 36% of results compared to Googles 31%? Why not the outcry about "Yahoo all the time" for the last 5 years? Is it becuase we just meekly paid up and accepted that "Power is Right?". Or just accepted that you couldnt do much SEO for a yahoo listing but pay up?
Im not disagreeing with the concern but interested why this seeming contradiction. If you think about it deeper you might get the answer!
I think it's because there was always alternatives. Yes it hurt if you flubbed Yahoo and lost a listing but there were other traffic venues. Over the last couple years the search engine alternatives has shrunk considerably. If we get down to only one search engine database and you miss an index your DEAD until the next one.
It looks like AOL will provide Google SERPS starting in August:
"In the case of Inktomi, the company will lose about $2.5 million a quarter in revenue from AOL starting in August"
Why AOL switched:
"because devotion to Google is so strong. AOL fears users could bypass it if Google isn't available"
Who will have this fear next?
| This 49 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 49 ( 1  ) |