Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 18.104.22.168
Forum Moderators: open
What will be the next tab? I think a search 'Local' would be nice! (zipcode/address analysis so Google can show only local sites)
Googleguy. I really appreciate that you are indexing some of the independent and original news sources. Is this via RSS?
I did a search on news and found one of our recent items from our news service.
A thousand thankyou's I get bored of reading the same old rehashes of AP and Reuters rewritten by tired hacks. It makes for a very colorful service.
Now how do we make sure our news keeps in the index? Keep on updating as much as possible and keep up the quality?
This is my first (and possibly only!) news page from now on. And it's not just because we are in it! I hope it catches on and people see a international news coverage that goes beyond the establishment press.
Hugs and kisses.
[edited by: chiyo at 10:13 am (utc) on Sep. 23, 2002]
Sliced bread? Otto Frederick Rohwedder might disagree. After all, sliced bread was news worthy, at least in 1912.
I can still pick up more feeds faster with an RSS app than I can by clicking a tab and sorting through what yet another search engine deems most relevant to me in terms of news. To make the news search even vaguely interesting to me it has to be configurable, and that's another step toward Google becoming a portal. No thanks. I've seen this progression before, next it will be horoscope and local weather tabs followed by a "check your email" tab. ;)
I sure use these things, but that is because is becuase we have RSS feeds of our own. And for sure, I get great news headlines from things like AmphetaDesk, Newzcrawler, news-is-free etc and our own custom built pages using RSS on our own sites.
But now, I can get a far broader range of news (mainly using their news Search - the default page is quite US oriented and has too many categories of no interest to me) WITHOUT firing up an external application
Google is providing news to the average surfer, not to people like us. Google's understanding of the average surfer is a great part of it's brand. Most importantly, this is the first time a mainstream web property is indexing alternative news, and web only news sites of suitable quality. The list of sources may not be perfect or as inclusive as some would want, but heck, its a major step forward compared to the existing competitors in the Web based news market, including, with respect Brett, rocketnews...
To me it is a legitimate brand extension. The brand integrity is maintained or even reinforced. Google provides information with less commercial influence than other providers. Same for search. Same for news.
i dont believe Google would move to being a portal. There brand is "search". and searching current news can be part of it quite comfortably.
* Over 4000 English Language Sources. This is a MAJOR Increase to the List of Crawled Sources. Previously at about 100.
* Database Refreshed Every 15 Minutes.
* Tab to Google News Listed With the Other Google Tools (Web, Images, Groups, Directory)
* Layout Of Google News Home Page
* Clustering of Headlines on Similar Topic From Various Sources
* Ability to Sort Results by Relevance or Date
What's Not Available?
* Advanced Interface
* Non-English Language Content
*Ability to Limit from a Specific Source
Other Things To Know
*You Can Limit To Terms in the Title or Headline by Using the Syntax intitle:
*Material Archived for One Week, Then Purged From News Database
When I was young and ignorant doing my duty and serving my country in the military, I was blessed with the ability to listen to just about anything transmitted over the air waves. I had my favorite frequencies I would listen to late at night, like the BBC, to intertain myself during slow times. The one thing I learned at that time was that different countries and different organizations would give you different information. I learned that CNN headlines will give you the hype, but the guy transmitting straight from the trenches of Tel Aviv will give you THE real story.
I want to search for my own news sources, please give that back to me. Don't follow the others, you had it right the first time! I won't use what you have now.
Please bring back the ability to browse to a publication of MY choice...
My 2 cents: Quick, easy and comprehensive,
Looks like a derivative work of copyrighted material to me. It deprives the original sites of their advertising by using their copyrighted material for a meta portal that's much more compelling.
We should have organized to stop the cache copies back when we all first started complaining about it. The only good news with this latest news format is that we may now be able to get some big web players to see our "little-guy webmaster" point of view.
At the bottom of the current page is a link to "News Resources", I think that leads to the original interface with all the international news links. At least that is close to what I remember it being like.
I must say I do like the new news site too. It might replace my.Yahoo as my default start page. Nicely done.
What's still needed:
Other languages, and news by region (area,country,state/province)
Sub-clustering: when an issue is linked to "and 1602 related" articles, they should be clustered within the cluster. Also, the sections "Business, Sci/Tech, Sports, Entertainment, Health " should have subdivisions.
Group search results by source.
Group search resutls by source region.
Each cluster should have an associtated image gallery (similar to NewsBlaster at Columbia U)
In the further future:
Auto-timelines of events?
Just some thoughts.
Google must also have some kind of copyright waiver on these images.
These are thumbnail images. The Ninth Circuit decided in Kelly v. Arriba (Feb. 6, 2002) that the lower resolution of thumbnail images constituted fair use.
I think the real issue with this news meta-portal will come into focus after the Beta, when Google starts showing ads. Already Yahoo is getting a little nervous about this new portal, according to a piece in today's New York Times.
Yahoo, which doesn't do any crawling, built up their news portal by negotiating permissions with news outlets -- at least that's the way it looks to me. Google crawls news sites that fail to disallow their crawling with robots.txt. This is the difference between the "express consent" required by copyright law, and the "opt out" required by Google. That same Ninth Circuit decision wasn't an invitation for theft, however. It's illegal to frame someone else's original-size image in your own context. The legal issues are murky for the totality of what Google is doing, but the thumbnail issue itself has already been decided by the Ninth Circuit.
What it amounts to is that Google can do a better job than Yahoo (many more links, much broader coverage) by crawling on an opt-out basis, than Yahoo can by following the law. Google thinks Yahoo should use Google technology, but Yahoo may well decide that it's preferable to sue Google over the "express consent" issue.
I can't see Yahoo going with Google when their contract expires at the end of this month. If I'm wrong, I think any new contract would be very short-term. I think that Google knows that Yahoo is planning to bail on them. If Google and Yahoo were still in negotiations, then the timing of this news Beta becomes rather curious.
Google is not stealing anyone's content and presenting it to the users. They are extracting images and headlines only. The actual content is still on the site of the news publisher's site.
It's just another form of Google finding good content and driving traffic to where surfers can find this content. These publishers can place ads on their sites and monetize their hard work. What's the harm in all this?
These are thumbnail images. The Ninth Circuit decided in Kelly v. Arriba (Feb. 6, 2002) that the lower resolution of thumbnail images constituted fair use
Interesting Everyman, I am not sure that will hold if they go international and use thumbnails from European news sites and show them to Europeans.
I would not be suprised if Google just asked many of these sites if they were alloud to show their photos.
Linking would not qualify as a derivative work. Linking with a snippet might qualify, but it would be exempted under fair use. A thumbnail with lower resolution that points to the original thumbnail on the original site may be derivative, but the Ninth Circuit considers it fair use too.
Using lead paragraphs as the bricks and mortar of a full-blown portal site would probably be considered a derivative work. Doing it without express consent might be considered fair use. But fair use involves the quantity of the use, as well as the criterion of whether it is done for purposes of making a profit. Google's quantity is massive, and they are making a profit as a company. If they were to start carrying ads on the portal, this would probably tip the scales against fair use.
The point that a news site would make is that all news sites have to frame their home pages as portals in any event, because there is only so much real estate on a home page. Even in print editions, you have jump cuts to inside pages. The front page "portal" format is an essential element of the news medium in print and the Internet. Now we have Google stealing one item from A's front page, and another from B's front page, and putting up their own portal. Behind this Google portal are hundreds of links for further information. Who can compete with this? Why would I even want to visit the New York Times or Washington Post when I can visit Google?
The problem is how to stop Google. Most news sites that know how Google works and have objections will simply disallow Google, and then they no longer have legal standing. Even if you find sites with standing to sue, Google can simply stop crawling them, and that leaves 3,995 news sites that they continue to crawl. It would be very difficult to prove any damages from a Google crawl. You can pursue a legal ruling to clarify copyright law without expecting a finding of damages, but the motivation to pursue the case is minimal -- lawyers like to get paid. (It might even be easier to show damages from not allowing Google to crawl, and then argue that one's failure to disallow would necessarily be under duress!) A class action suit is perhaps the only legal remedy that would have any chance of success. There's no one inclined to put together a class action that I can see.
As far as the thumbnails not cutting it outside of U.S. law, it seems to me that Google's image search has been doing fine outside of the U.S. for well over a year now. And their cache copy too, for several years. The problem isn't that U.S. law is weaker than other laws. Instead, it's more of a situation where the Internet in general, and Google's technology in particular, is skating at the edge of copyright laws everywhere. Such laws take time to evolve.
The problem is how to stop Google. Most news sites that know how Google works and have objections will simply disallow Google, and then they no longer have legal standing
This article has a nice cover on the implications for (paid or subscription) newsproviders.
editor and publisher [mediainfo.com]
...News sites that insist on employing a user-registration scheme could get hurt by Google News..
...Google News already has made arrangements with some leading news sites that use registration schemes -- such as The New York Times...
...For Google's part, company spokesmen say they're considering schemes for dealing with paid content at news sites, but aren't ready to discuss them publicly yet....