Disqus - Friends of zigojacko

Re: Fiddling with Results?

Danny Sullivan — Fri, 12 Nov 2004 06:08:44 -0000

Yes, didn't mean to suggest that Google actually rigged the results way back then. In fact, their explanation at that time was the same as they do today when various link bombs go off -- the search is "reflecting the web." It's also not clear if MSN has actually rigged its results or not.

Re: Fiddling with Results?

Danny Sullivan — Fri, 12 Nov 2004 06:08:44 -0000

Re: Fiddling with Results?

Danny Sullivan — Fri, 12 Nov 2004 11:08:44 -0000

Re: Majestic on GOOG: Brother, Can You Share a Dime?

Danny Sullivan — Wed, 08 Dec 2004 14:10:25 -0000

"98 percent of GOOG revs are from paid search."

I highly doubt that. Yep, 98 percent is from ADVERTISING, and that means contextual+search. Contextual is not search -- and if Majestic is not breaking that out, then the idea it's a dime a search is completely wrong.

Haven't seen the data, but I'm guessing Majestic has taken the number of searches that comScore estimates, then Google's ad revenue and divided. Again, without breaking out contextual revs, that means they are counting revenue that never was generated from an actual search.

Re: Majestic on GOOG: Brother, Can You Share a Dime?

Danny Sullivan — Wed, 08 Dec 2004 14:10:25 -0000

"98 percent of GOOG revs are from paid search."

Re: Majestic on GOOG: Brother, Can You Share a Dime?

Danny Sullivan — Wed, 08 Dec 2004 19:10:25 -0000

"98 percent of GOOG revs are from paid search."

Re: Majestic on GOOG: Brother, Can You Share a Dime?

Danny Sullivan — Thu, 09 Dec 2004 11:56:23 -0000

Thanks for the additional information, John. And I will follow up to get in touch. But the key issue remains -- are you breaking out contextual revenues from search revenues when calculating the revenue Google is earning per search?

If yes, great. If not, then it's difficult to predict what's going to happen with Google's domestic paid search growth when contextual is not search. That's because the number of searches on Google will have no impact on Google's contextual placements.

In other words, tomorrow Google signs major deals to distribute contextual ads on a series of new web sites. Assuming these aren't loss making deals, "search" revenue is going up. Only it's not search revenue that got sparked by this deal. It's contextual. More money, yes. How did we get the more money? Not through more searches.

Re: Majestic on GOOG: Brother, Can You Share a Dime?

Danny Sullivan — Thu, 09 Dec 2004 11:56:23 -0000

Re: Majestic on GOOG: Brother, Can You Share a Dime?

Danny Sullivan — Thu, 09 Dec 2004 16:56:23 -0000

Re: Majestic on GOOG: Brother, Can You Share a Dime?

Danny Sullivan — Mon, 13 Dec 2004 05:46:35 -0000

You could ask, but I doubt they'd say :)

They don't break out any of their contextual versus search revenues in any of the filings I've seen so far.

Re: Majestic on GOOG: Brother, Can You Share a Dime?

Danny Sullivan — Mon, 13 Dec 2004 05:46:35 -0000

You could ask, but I doubt they'd say :)

They don't break out any of their contextual versus search revenues in any of the filings I've seen so far.

Re: Majestic on GOOG: Brother, Can You Share a Dime?

Danny Sullivan — Mon, 13 Dec 2004 10:46:35 -0000

You could ask, but I doubt they'd say :)

They don't break out any of their contextual versus search revenues in any of the filings I've seen so far.

Re: No Follow

Danny Sullivan — Wed, 19 Jan 2005 07:31:09 -0000

John, if someone comments, you can (as many bloggers do), reference that comment and link to the person in a future post. So the impact is minimal. With many blog systems doing redirects anyway, this type of impact is already happening. This just gives web authors (bloggers along with a broader audience of publishers) more direct control over how search engines index one of their page elements. Hopefully, we'll have more.

Re: No Follow

Danny Sullivan — Wed, 19 Jan 2005 07:31:09 -0000

Re: No Follow

Danny Sullivan — Wed, 19 Jan 2005 12:31:09 -0000

Re: No Follow

Danny Sullivan — Wed, 19 Jan 2005 13:58:35 -0000

"The big three in silent collusion behind the scenes gives me the jibblies."

Actually, it was more like Google fires off a message to MSN and Yahoo saying we're going to do this, do you want to do it too? Snap decision, sure. Not quite a smoky room trust situation that needs to be destroyed.

There's reason to be concerned when any set of companies work together -- but also reasons to be happy.

I'd far prefer the search engines come up with a way to hand unified page control elements back to site owners rather than come out with three different tags/commands/elements/attributes we need to deal with.

Geez. I remember when it was domain: at one search engine, site: at another and some other obscure command at a third all to get the same thing. Those days sucked.

In the end, this isn't a big deal for ending blog spam. It won't -- other mechanisms are actually better for that. This was a nice PR move by the big three to get bloggers off their backs.

It is a big deal that for the first time since 1995, site owners have managed to get the search engines to give them a little more control on how they interact with their web sites (the last unified move being robots.txt and meta robots blocking).

It will be an even bigger deal if we can now move on to getting other changes that site owners need.

Re: No Follow

Danny Sullivan — Wed, 19 Jan 2005 13:58:35 -0000

"The big three in silent collusion behind the scenes gives me the jibblies."

There's reason to be concerned when any set of companies work together -- but also reasons to be happy.

Geez. I remember when it was domain: at one search engine, site: at another and some other obscure command at a third all to get the same thing. Those days sucked.

In the end, this isn't a big deal for ending blog spam. It won't -- other mechanisms are actually better for that. This was a nice PR move by the big three to get bloggers off their backs.

It will be an even bigger deal if we can now move on to getting other changes that site owners need.

Re: No Follow

Danny Sullivan — Wed, 19 Jan 2005 18:58:35 -0000

"The big three in silent collusion behind the scenes gives me the jibblies."

There's reason to be concerned when any set of companies work together -- but also reasons to be happy.

Geez. I remember when it was domain: at one search engine, site: at another and some other obscure command at a third all to get the same thing. Those days sucked.

In the end, this isn't a big deal for ending blog spam. It won't -- other mechanisms are actually better for that. This was a nice PR move by the big three to get bloggers off their backs.

It will be an even bigger deal if we can now move on to getting other changes that site owners need.

Re: Yahoo's toolbar, Firefox and competing with Google

Danny Sullivan — Fri, 11 Feb 2005 00:17:12 -0000

Yeah, but Google beats the others far more to that type of punch. Index is now 8 billion right when MSN was going to be 5 billion? Google Local just happens to hit the home page when YQ launches? Google Maps goes out right when Ask buys Bloglines? Google's the master of keeping its competitors from having a pure newsday all to themselves. But all in all, it sure makes life covering it all exciting.

Re: eBay & Google learn the China lesson: You gotta be there

Danny Sullivan — Fri, 24 Jun 2005 03:19:11 -0000

What exactly is it that Baidu did so well to make it more popular? You said Google flipped the translation switch. OK, that's worked in plenty of countries. Why is China so special? What did you learn that Baidu was doing "right" and Google was failing at? And in particular, I'm assuming that Baidu is playing by the Chinese government rules and not being subject to having its results blocked, when you try to click on them. That campaign waged by the Chinese government over the past three years continuously perhaps has a small impact on Google's popularity? I mean, make the service unusable and, well, people don't use it. It sound like the way to "tailor" your service to China is to censor it. Is that the main difference? Please post again on what Baidu has done that's supposedly so correct.

Re: News: Google To Launch Online Video Playback This Monday

Danny Sullivan — Tue, 28 Jun 2005 00:34:43 -0000

Eric, Google allows you to report infringement via a "Problem with this video" link at the bottom of the video clip's home page.

They're depending on people telling them about infringement, if they don't catch obvious stuff before the fact.

That's actually more than they do with web search. With web search, there's no scanning for infringement at all. For the US, complaints are all dealt with via the DMCA procedures.

Re: News: Google To Launch Online Video Playback This Monday

Danny Sullivan — Tue, 28 Jun 2005 00:34:43 -0000

Eric, Google allows you to report infringement via a "Problem with this video" link at the bottom of the video clip's home page.

They're depending on people telling them about infringement, if they don't catch obvious stuff before the fact.

That's actually more than they do with web search. With web search, there's no scanning for infringement at all. For the US, complaints are all dealt with via the DMCA procedures.

Re: News: Google To Launch Online Video Playback This Monday

Danny Sullivan — Tue, 28 Jun 2005 04:34:43 -0000

Eric, Google allows you to report infringement via a "Problem with this video" link at the bottom of the video clip's home page.

They're depending on people telling them about infringement, if they don't catch obvious stuff before the fact.

That's actually more than they do with web search. With web search, there's no scanning for infringement at all. For the US, complaints are all dealt with via the DMCA procedures.

Re: Google Released Numrange Search

Danny Sullivan — Tue, 12 Jul 2005 12:07:16 -0000

Not new, Barry -- this came out last year, at the very least. They just seem to be blogging to draw attention to it.

Re: Google Released Numrange Search

Danny Sullivan — Tue, 12 Jul 2005 12:07:16 -0000

Not new, Barry -- this came out last year, at the very least. They just seem to be blogging to draw attention to it.