This is a great second article too last weeks "Google Knol - Googles Play To Aggregate Knowledge Pages". Danny Sullivan includes how the search engine results would look with a modified SERP.
4 Comments
4 Comments
4 Comments
Search Engine Land produces SMX, the Search Marketing Expo conference series. SMX events deliver the most comprehensive educational and networking experiences - whether you're just starting in search marketing or you're a seasoned expert.
Join us at an upcoming SMX event:
Learn more about search marketing with our free online webcasts and webinars from our sister site, Search Marketing Now. Upcoming online events include:
Comments
Ive said it before and Ill say it again...it looks like a scary combination of Q&A site (aka funadvice.com) with user-defined encyclopedia (aka wikipedia). I wonder if the Internet even needs a site like this...
I certainly understand Dannys concern about Aggregators "pushing out from the top search results the independent, original content sources that they depend on." But what about when an aggregator like Answers.com (where I work) establishes paid relationships with top content creators like Oxford University Press and exclusively displays their content? On Answers.coms Insomnia page, for example, theres great exclusive content on Causes, Symptoms, Treatments, Diagnosis, etc., plus great exclusive content from Oxfords Food & Fitness Guide, Oxfords Sports Medicine Guide, in addition to non-exclusive sources like Wikipedia, Britannica, and Columbia). But good luck finding this page on Google. BTW, removing the Wikipedia entry doesnt help, the page is still appears to be banned as an aggregate source. Aggregator has become a dirty word, sort of like Marketer or Distributor -- its perceived that theyre (were) big bad middle men standing in the way of the natural harmony of users and owners direct relationships. In Answers.coms case, it has meant that instead of us licensing more great content and serving more Googlers (and Yahoos), our providers high quality and useful content is sitting unseen. The search industrys dislike of Aggregators is hurting the search engines, their users, the content providers, and us middle men.
<i>Disclosure: Im HubPagess marketing manager.</i>I tend to agree with Seth, and HubPages is actually more similar to what Google is proposing with Knol than Squidoo is (focusing on the content itself, rather than a directory of links). It does validate the space and will underscore to the leagues of bloggers out there that there is value in writing evergreen, broadly useful topic areas. YouTube has been able to demonstrate that:(1) there are ways to sift out bad quality from the good(2) incentivizing writers through revenue share can yield high-quality content(3) you can create a new stable of content producers when a decent platform for it exists.HubPages already enjoys 5 million monthly unique visitors and over 50,000 published Hubs (our term for an article), so as long as Google plays fair in ranking Hubs, knols and other similar pages, were happy with Googles announcement.
great post! i thought it had good information and i liked reading the views from other people in the same niche. im a little nervous about having another news aggregator out there... especially if its google... im a little afraid that people will start pushing this now over natural search. but i guess well see how it goes. "Make a special unit at the top of the page for a single Wikipedia link and then use some type of sitelinks style display to point to other aggregator sites such as Knol, Mahalo, Squidoo, or whatever."i really like that idea though what if it was more like the sponsored search box... a little area in green or something dedicated to nothing but wikipedia, squidoo, answers.com, knol, mahalo, whatever... and leave it at that all compacted in one place instead of strewn into natural search results.