civgroup
msg:4046945 | 2:26 pm on Dec 21, 2009 (gmt 0) |
So they'll pay for a tweet but they don't want to pay for copyrighted books. Nice.
|
httpwebwitch
msg:4046947 | 2:31 pm on Dec 21, 2009 (gmt 0) |
touché, civgroup.
|
StoutFiles
msg:4046952 | 2:32 pm on Dec 21, 2009 (gmt 0) |
They're paying millions, not to mention opening the door for every other major website to request payment for indexing, and for what? A bunch of useless nonsense? Please don't stick this crap in the serps. I can only assume they're doing this for up to the minute news. When Google thought they were being "google-bombed" with Michael Jackson requests but in reality he had just died...I guess with Twitter information they could see that M.J. was a popular topic at the time.
|
wheel
msg:4046959 | 2:38 pm on Dec 21, 2009 (gmt 0) |
Great news! Great news for twitter of course to make the money, but the pay-for-index is great news for the rest of us as well.
|
encyclo
msg:4046978 | 3:10 pm on Dec 21, 2009 (gmt 0) |
Rupert Murdoch will be breaking out the champagne. :)
|
atadams
msg:4046981 | 3:13 pm on Dec 21, 2009 (gmt 0) |
So is this Twitter's revenue model?
|
httpwebwitch
msg:4046994 | 3:27 pm on Dec 21, 2009 (gmt 0) |
>> So is this Twitter's revenue model? it's a good move... better to charge big corps for wholesale indexing than to charge membership fees. I'd rather Twitter earns their cash this way than corrupting feeds with injected advertising.
|
httpwebwitch
msg:4046998 | 3:31 pm on Dec 21, 2009 (gmt 0) |
>> and make SEO harder yet in other ways SEO may get easier. The google algo has matured such that it's hard to shove your way to the top of a well-established PageRank gridlock. But the twitter feeds are largely unfiltered and easy to influence if you get people tweeting and retweeting your message. "Tweetbait" will be an SEO buzzword in 2010
|
Angelis
msg:4047012 | 3:56 pm on Dec 21, 2009 (gmt 0) |
I think the point is being missed here, Google likely pays for an API feed or something similar to provide its updates, that would come at a cost to Twitter and so the so called paying is likely a partnership deal, nothing more...
|
httpwebwitch
msg:4047013 | 3:56 pm on Dec 21, 2009 (gmt 0) |
I don't expect any calls from Brin this afternoon with financial offers to index my sites. This feels weird. The web ecosystem is changing, and this is one of the first signs: foragers are starting to hunt.
|
Gmorgan
msg:4047014 | 4:00 pm on Dec 21, 2009 (gmt 0) |
Is this an annual payment? I doubt that $25m will cover costs at Twitter for any more than 12 months the way the site is growing. Unless they can get more of this money coming in then it still isn't a profitable business. Google will of course benefit from people spending less time on Twitter and more time within the Google SERPS, opposite their Adwords ads.
|
wheel
msg:4047047 | 4:42 pm on Dec 21, 2009 (gmt 0) |
I don't expect any calls from Brin this afternoon with financial offers to index my sites. This feels weird. The web ecosystem is changing, and this is one of the first signs: foragers are starting to hunt. |
|
We live in interesting times my friend. Opportunity abounds. The internet isn't even close to being mature. We're still very much in the wild wild west here. Wait another 10 years, it's going to be a different landscape again.
|
seocracy
msg:4047059 | 5:01 pm on Dec 21, 2009 (gmt 0) |
First time I've ever posted here....but I read alot.... anyways, my two cents... GOOG/MSFT arent paying to index the site...they're paying for access to the firehose of tweets. Content moves at such an extreme pace on twitter that it would be truly impossible to crawl and index all tweets in real time without crashing twitters HTTP front-end......so they've arranged a deal to have access to the backend firehose without having to actually crawl them. This is not some change in the web's 'ecosystem', and this isn't an example of SE's paying to index a site.... It's just a content sharing deal...and these deals happen all the time (perhaps on much smaller scale)
|
ChanandlerBong
msg:4047060 | 5:02 pm on Dec 21, 2009 (gmt 0) |
the indexing of my site is up for grabs at the stately price of $17.40 you know where you can reach me. :)
|
Brett_Tabke
msg:4047079 | 5:38 pm on Dec 21, 2009 (gmt 0) |
The pace of info is irrelavant. Dozens upon dozens of websites produce content at an astonding rate (eg: facebook, aol, msn, etc) and there is no way google can index it all in a timely fashion. No matter of how the content is being indexed, or how fast it is being indexed, ALL (eg: 100%) of what Google/MS are indexing is available from the web. This absolutely is Google and Microsoft paying to index web based content. There is no other way to look at it realistically. <edit: clarity) [edited by: Brett_Tabke at 6:52 pm (utc) on Dec. 21, 2009]
|
seocracy
msg:4047088 | 5:53 pm on Dec 21, 2009 (gmt 0) |
I have to respectfully disagree on that one Brett :) Sorry. The pace of the info is entirely relevant....it is impossible to completely index all tweets in real time just by hitting the public stream over and over again...tweets are happening too fast...the only way to truly index every tweet happening on twitter would be to have access to the firehose, and thats what they're paying for....
|
fashezee
msg:4047089 | 5:54 pm on Dec 21, 2009 (gmt 0) |
Why would they pay? Whats the benefit for the SEs?
|
nickreynolds
msg:4047096 | 6:05 pm on Dec 21, 2009 (gmt 0) |
Brett - "Iregardless" - is that the opposite of regardless?
I don't get it - why would MS and Goog pay? Mind you I don't get Twitter either!
|
Hugene
msg:4047108 | 6:30 pm on Dec 21, 2009 (gmt 0) |
I now understood Twitter's business model: get the a "community" to generate tons of textual garbage, and then get paid by SE for indexing this garbage. I am thinking of creating bots that generate lots of short sentencase, get some media hype, and then sell the feed to G. Now out to program the bots.
|
abilitydesigns
msg:4047117 | 6:43 pm on Dec 21, 2009 (gmt 0) |
If this is indeed true, then it could have far reaching implications imho. How long till we see all the news / media channels ganging up and moving their content behind paid wall till Google coughs up $$$ to access superior content ? Oh, Mark Zuckerberg must be having ideas now..;) -AD
|
Brett_Tabke
msg:4047123 | 6:55 pm on Dec 21, 2009 (gmt 0) |
nickreynolds, sorry I edited and clarified that. > Rupert Murdoch That is exactly who I thought of at first too. He clearly has a case to be made now. This is almost preferential treatment. > Mark Zuckerberg I would not doubt that Google and MS have ALREADY paid Facebook for content. This is what po'd murdoch in the first place.
|
skipfactor
msg:4047139 | 7:09 pm on Dec 21, 2009 (gmt 0) |
>>I would not doubt that Google and MS have ALREADY paid Facebook for content. The new FB 'privacy' settings & Zuckerberg's teddy bear photo in the index would lead one to believe that.
|
abilitydesigns
msg:4047200 | 8:46 pm on Dec 21, 2009 (gmt 0) |
Facebook’s Upcoming Redesign In The Wild, With A New Emphasis On Search Techcruch: [techcrunch.com...]
|
Brett_Tabke
msg:4047208 | 8:55 pm on Dec 21, 2009 (gmt 0) |
Well, I think something like that actually happened when Microsoft did the deal with Facebook and FB let Google in deeper
|
walkman
msg:4047212 | 8:59 pm on Dec 21, 2009 (gmt 0) |
Brett, it's more complicated than that. The tweets are public but Google wants them ASAP and without crashing the Tw servers, so it isn't content alone they're paying for. Either way, 10-15 million is chicken feed for both MSFT and Google and they will pay to keep an advantage /prevent the other from having it. [edited by: walkman at 9:04 pm (utc) on Dec. 21, 2009]
|
Silvery
msg:4047216 | 9:01 pm on Dec 21, 2009 (gmt 0) |
I wonder if Twitter will give Google and Bing better service than the public? It would be funny if they paid $25 million, only to get the Fail Whale indexed in millions of SERPs.
|
Brett_Tabke
msg:4047218 | 9:04 pm on Dec 21, 2009 (gmt 0) |
> so it isn't content alone they're paying for. This is about content - period. > The tweets are public but Google wants them
> ASAP and without crashing the Tw servers The 'firehose' is not as big as you think it is. I doubt Twitter is in the top 10 data size wise. I bet it is still a fraction of a full usenet feed. This is purely about content and content alone. There is no other reason for MS and Goog to be interested in it.
|
Frank_Rizzo
msg:4047221 | 9:14 pm on Dec 21, 2009 (gmt 0) |
What use is the content? Twitter is not a themed site; only some users pages are themed - most is fluff. --- Maybe they see this as an early notification of what will be big news. Thousands of tweets on a particular subject will allow them to tweak their contents and ads to be at the front, first. Tweeters sing about Elvis spotted piloting a Cardasian vehicle around Mars. Google serps now start showing results / ads for 50's records, Trekkie memorabilia and chocolate bars.
|
OddDog
msg:4047222 | 9:15 pm on Dec 21, 2009 (gmt 0) |
I did a search on friday on james cameron (director of avatar...) Google, came up with a nice little twitter snippet inserted below the 4th serp postion. It was a box, and all the twitter accounts that I follow that were talking about james cameroon was being scrolled through that inserted box. I liked it, it gave a freshness to the results that normally are not there. I I think thats EXACTLY what there after.
|
| This 51 message thread spans 2 pages: 51 ( [1] 2 ) > > |
|
|
