Forum Moderators: phranque
[izurl.com...]
In exchange for making short blogs, known as tweets, searchable on Google, Twitter will receive about $15 million, the two people say, adding that the Microsoft partnership is worth about $10 million. "The deals were huge," says one. "With two scoops of the pen, a lot of revenue came in."
The public needs to know that Google and MS are willing to pay websites for indexing (even if it is a one-off at this time). The "we don't pay for content" mantra of Google is now shattered.
Can you think of another time when google has paid to index a site?
In fact, I'm getting scrolling results as they happen. 'latest update, 1 minute ago'.
Useless crap. Google SERPS are starting to look like the car that homer simpson built.
Useless crap. Google SERPS are starting to look like the car that homer simpson built.
Realtime search is just good for building historical data ... and profiling. It's only good for realtime news from other media sources.
Search has been "good enough" for 6 years now, and now it's just starting to be "too good". I try not to post about SE data much any more because I'd probably sound like a nutty privacy advocate if I did.
Twitter will, however, help both engines determine searcher intent through data profiling, which will lead to better personalized results, ad quality, and revenue for the borgs.
User-agent: GoogleBot
Disallow: {$comeBackinaWeek} // since you don't pay me, come back in a week when the content isn't fresh any more //
User-agent: MSNBot
Disallow: // you pay me, so you can index it now //
Personally I don't like tweets as part of the results. But heck, I use the search engine to find quality information articles, not tiny snippets of text with no "meat"...
I'd like to turn off that feature, how do I do that? Oh, that's right I can't personalize *my* search results even though we have "personalized search" ;-)
Then again, I'd be OK if G wanted to pay me to put my content 4th in the results LOL.
Google isn't paying for content. Google is paying to raise the bar, by paying for content they make it harder for a new search engine to startup. A new search engine would have to pay millions to be able to offer the same content as Google offers.
Google pays for content, just so other search engines are expected to pay for content as well. They probably hope that a lot of big websites will start asking some sort of payment for their content, which will make sure a new search engine will always have less content than Google.
We're just being played.
But it shows in a small way, google is still a media follower - rather than a ruler.
This isn't going to lead to a healthier internet, it also makes one wonder if sites in which right to index is purchased will be given preferential treatment as well. THANKFULLY i'm not seeing stupid tweets getting top 10 for much.
And as for Google and MS paying for content, it is interesting and I'd say kudos for Twitter for creating a service that generates so much info that the search engines are willing to fork out for. However it's a bit different to the SE's paying for content from a newspaper or website - they're paying for the technical ability to extract massive amounts of data constantly at high speed. It's a technical integration project - that's all. Google's been spidering Twitter for ages without paying: their money just makes it more efficient, relevant and real time.
So I don't see it as a "moral" or "ethical" debate.
"CAn't find it!"
"oh, go and try on microsoft, it's probably there."
sounds over-dramatic, eh? Not by a long shot.
Personally I don't like tweets as part of the results. But heck, I use the search engine to find quality information articles, not tiny snippets of text with no "meat"...
I thought about what you said there for a while. Had a coffee and all.....
I do not agree with what you just said. (I try not to be so categorical here in WebmasterWorld, basically because there are a lot of clever and very experienced boys and girls here). But I do categorically disagree with what I have quoted you on.
Factors that are important:
type of search.
I searched for James Cameron, and that has to be a trending search these days.
intention of search.
well I was actaully looking into the whole cameron avatar thing a little. And the results from my twitter account were googd. People I know or respect and there views.
My experience was a positive one.
Get this: with the IP's + user agent from where people are updating their tweets Google can cross that data with what you're doing on the share of the WWW they already monitor.
You'll see ads on unrelated sites, matched precisely to your recent twits.
If your twitter content is poor, try clean your follower list.
and
"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."
Certainly...Google will have to filter through the chatter to find theme/topic relevancy and then display the tweets in such a way as to maximize their adwords revenue...etc..
