Forum Moderators: goodroi
Time Warner Inc. is negotiating exclusively with Google Inc. to broaden a lucrative advertising partnership with Time Warner's America Online unit, abruptly ending negotiations early Friday with Microsoft Corp., officials close to the negotiations said.
Someone bought air.
No one can say with certainty what percentage of Time Warner is AOL.
Google, which prides itself on the purity of its search results, agreed to give favored placement to content from AOL throughout its site, something it has never done before.
Yes you read it right Lorenzinho... and I'm simply amazed this is not the centerpiece of the discussion here. The implication is HUGE and NEGATIVE. MSN refused this part of the deal.
This quote is from a NYT story which clarified it to say they'd not change the algo but would provide tech support to help rise in ranks, but that's effectively the same as stacking the serps.
If the story is true, Google agreed to do insider SEO for AOL pages. Incredible.
You are wrong about MSN's apparent lack of focus. On the contrary, Bill Gates has stated that the purpose of the X-Box is to tie hardware, software and search together into one centralized location in the home - as in an entertainment center.
And as far as business goes, don't forget that a whole lot of people search from MSN while at the office, and that will only increase with the new operating system.
[nytimes.com...]
So what does that mean? AOL gets top ranking?
My solution is to heavily delink and add to my content.
Maybe Mamma.com or Gigablast will go nuts. No fair spray painting muy white garage.
Maybe my gorgeous old French girlfriend will rise from the dead.
It is a well kown fact: 3 minutes before Xmas, trees Are sold for 25 cents per sucker.
Show up aat the very last minute.
Tell he Samoan that 'Larry' sent you.
Offer him/her a cocoanut, or maybe some
iron nails or whatever. Do not endanger
the trading vessel itself.
Best wishes
- Larry Hatch
tto night.
Maybe Google will get back some small fraction of its B-B-B-Billions of bucks.
Maybe all these cigarettes I smoke are dope. -Larry Hatch
One B-B-Bi;lion United States Dollars or just a slice of AOL?
What is even more amazing to me is the millions of people that choose AOL as their internet provider.
What was the famous saying attributed to P.T. Barnum?
Yes you read it right Lorenzinho... and I'm simply amazed this is not the centerpiece of the discussion here. The implication is HUGE and NEGATIVE. MSN refused this part of the deal.This quote is from a NYT story which clarified it to say they'd not change the algo but would provide tech support to help rise in ranks, but that's effectively the same as stacking the serps.
If the story is true, Google agreed to do insider SEO for AOL pages. Incredible.
I agree and also can't believe this isn't the centerpiece of discussion.
there has got to more to it.
cause that is just straightup incredible.
An executive involved in the talks said Time Warner asked Microsoft to give AOL similar preferred placement in advertising and in its Web index and that Microsoft refused, calling the request unethical.
I'm quoting this from John Battelle's blog who quoted the NYT Update 2 article.
If a user searches on Google for a topic for which AOL has content - like information about Madonna - there will be a special section on the bottom right corner of the search results page with links to AOL.com....Google will also provide technical assistance so AOL can create Web pages that will appear more prominently in the search results list.
NYT [nytimes.com]
Ouch - not good at all, especially considering AOL's general reputation. Will be interesting to see if the general public pick up on this and what their reaction will be if so.
If this is true, bad PR will be all over google like a cheap suit.
to the person who said that AOL has most of its content like messageboards, chats, etc internally.....not anymore...AOL has pushed all of that stuff to the public and now anyone can access it.
That was me, and I didn't realize that. I wonder if it's spiderable, or will be. It's been a looooooong time since I've seen an aol msg board.
They've sold their soul on this one. The fact that there is an admission to skewing is huge.
I'm taking bets right now that G will place ads on the front page - just a matter of time.
If the story is true, Google agreed to do insider SEO for AOL pages. Incredible. >>
Agreed. This is outrageous. I thought we weren't suppose to try and "game" the serps goog. Whatever happened to "build it for the user" yada yada yada...
And now they're going to use insiders with access to the algo to SEO AOL? Unbelievable.............
What's next, pop-up ads?
For 1/3 of a billion a year? Who wouldn't?
Google gave up ethics and any form of morals over a year ago.
If anyone was wondering what it would take to start a major shift in market share for search - this is it. The thing is, all of the other shady stuff that Google has been doing hasn't affected its PR too adversely because it hasn't been covered by mainstream media.
This deal WILL make mainstream media, and the public will be keen to the fact that Microsoft backed out of the deal because it REALLY IS UNETHICAL to provide insider information (if that is their intention) to AOL users so that they can rank higher than others... Geee GOOG - why don't we give them some extra weight as well.... and while you're at it - throw your weight around to get all AOL content a DMOZ listing - after all that is owned by AOL already.
Also... Google just sent a message to ALL Spammers - it reads:
Dear Spammer/MFA ExtrodinareWe want to show you how to rank higher in our Search Engine - please inquire
I must be sinister... because I am now sitting here grinning at the fact that Google has finally faultered.
Their stock is way over valued and they are taking advantage of this fact. Just as AOL did when it acquired TW in the first place. The sorry part here is they are using inflated dollars to buy inflated product (AOL).
It's really quite a shame, they are throwing money away at this point. They are completely diluting themselves with second rate investments. It's almost like their strategists are saying "this might work, so let's throw some money over there."
While there is no doubt some kind of loyalty with AOL users, I think those that have left (as I did years ago) did so for a reason. If Google thinks they can force feed its fans AOL content, they are making a big mistake. Perhaps the real deal is to provide the AOL network with AOL preferred content. To me this is the only way this deal makes sense.
You gotta beleive that the folks over at Microsoft felt this was a bad deal. Remember, they don't have the money to waste like Google does right now. They need to be more efficient in their dealings with others.
Microsoft has to be careful on how they spend money? MSFT adds at least $10 Billion a year to its stash [google.com...] and they love to spend it to crush competitors, so I'm puzzled as to why they didn't jump in this. Something else must have been the deal breaker.
It may have been just an "advisory", not a requirement, but I think in any case tweaking the serps for money is just a fancy name for advertising. If google really agreed to do that, I predict they'll be forced to back out by bad press.
This quote is from a NYT story which clarified it to say they'd not change the algo but would provide tech support to help rise in ranks, but that's effectively the same as stacking the serps.
They've been doing that all along at:
[google.com...]
Of course, many site owners and SEOs (including members of this forum) have chosen to ignore Google's free advice.
JKWilson 78-
You are wrong about MSN's apparent lack of focus. On the contrary, Bill Gates has stated that the purpose of the X-Box is to tie hardware, software and search together into one centralized location in the home - as in an entertainment center.
This is a good point but I'm not sure I believe too much in the one box does everything dream anymore. It may well happen one day but the Xbox has been branded as a game machine. All the mania around the xbox 360 has my non gamer friends and family thinking how rediculous and silly it is to get excided over "just another game machine" but those graphics sure are sweet.
In regards to MSN, when I worked as a sys admin I always saw people using Yahoo more than MSN. Who knows :-)
I have to think Google didn't get to where they are by making stupid business decisions and probably have a longer term strategy for this move.
All specualtion at this point.
Funny how Microsoft is being defended. Goes to show no matter what you do if you get too big for people's tastes you are "evil" and make "dumb" decisions.
This will be fascinating to watch unfold.
The point is, they're "insiders" giving advice. A little different, don't you think?
Goog is just another prime example of a great idea brought on by two young kids who went public, sold out and let the corporate entities run it into the ground because they never understood what made it great in the first place.
I give 'em two years........tops.
The point is, they're "insiders" giving advice. A little different, don't you think?
Is it any worse than attending search conferences (such as Brett's) and giving advice to site owners and SEOs who can afford to attend? They've been doing that for quite a while, and I don't see any Webmaster World members complaining.
From Google's point of view, AOL's message boards (or whatever qualifies as "content" on AOL) may be an untapped mine of information that's potentially valuable to users. As long as Google merely helps AOL make its content more crawlable (as opposed to giving a boost to AOL content in organic search results), what's the big deal? And if Google wants to place clearly differentiated AOL content links on its SERPS (along with AdWords), so what? Doing so won't breach any "Chinese wall" between editorial content and advertising.
In any case, it's too early to know that the AOL deal means. The Chicken Little types who cluck over NY TIMES stories need to remember that the mainstream news media hade a poor record of accuracy in writing about search (or the Web in general), and that quotes from Google's competitors are likely to be carefully planted misinformation. (After all, badmouthing one's competitors is a longstanding tradition, especially in the U.S. where business behavior tends to be modeled more on football or hockey than on a Montessori kindgergarten.)
