Calendar
Network
Feeds
keywords
ah, I see you have a hidden link to it yourself at the end -- didn't get that far before I thought you were not aware of it (it's *all* good ;)...
... but it is more then "nothing" -- my reply to Matt's post:
The way I understand what you're saying is that when we use the browser, Google no longer cares so much about which links we click on. Instead, Google wants to know which terms we type into the URL bar (the "Wisdom of the Language" -- see http://gaggle.info/miscellaneous/articles/wisdom-of-the-language :). Also, Google wants to know which language we think we're speaking.
BTW: how is knowing a URL hash different from knowing the URL itself?
:) nmw
Matt has some information about what information the browser sends to Google, and also what information the browser recieves from the search engine:
http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/google-chrome-communication
(thanks to John Battelle / SearchBlog: http://battellemedia.com/archives/004595.php ;)
I downloaded Firefox 3.0 yesterday and it appears that the developers of Firefox are making a design failure in turning the URL (Location Bar) into a quasi search-engine that attempts to match keywords in the page titles stored in the cache/history. This is very confusing and therefore fails the basic usability test of being non - user-friendly.
If anything at all, they should have created a separate box that users could use to search the page titles stored locally on the user's computer.
The way it works now, if I were to start typing "microsoft" into the location bar all pages with the word "microsoft" in the title field would start showing up -- this is information overload (and it's not really "information", because it's not relevant but rather introduces noise).
Huge failure -- and I would not be at all surprised if Google actually has aspirations to be the company that is responsible for ranking the results in this pseudo-awesome bar.
I may write more about this at http://Gaggle.INFO/News as I become more familiar with this very quirky approach and perhaps figure out more what might have motivated the browser designers to make such a big and blatant mistake
I enjoyed this -- especially because you listed some keyword / vertical properties, which are often among the most reliable sources of information on the Internet (I agree with Esther Dyson that market forces will cause such properties to become quite valuable, and hence valuable content will gravitate toward such sites).
I tested out IT.COM -- I searched for domain/domains. Among the top results was an article about "Consolidating Domains" from a domain named "smart-it-consulting.com" ( see http://www.smart-it-consulting.com/article.htm?node=166&page=129 ). Strangely, this article is authored by "The Google Sitemaps Group" ( http://groups.google.com/group/google-sitemaps/ ). What is especially amusing is that the author(s) advise(s) right at the outset that "Having multiple URLs pointing to the same content is a very bad idea" -- apparently, the author(s) are unaware of the fact that GMail.COM points to the same content as mail.google.com....
At any rate, I commend your work -- and I do expect that smart-it-consulting.com is probably just a quirk. It seems absurd to think that Google might give out advice which is that exact opposite of what Google itself does -- if Google as a search engine were to penalize other sites for doing things Google itself has been doing for many years, then I would expect people would stop using Google as a search engine.
Then again: I hardly use it anymore (I think it's primarily used by newbies and other novice searchers).
Time will tell, I guess....
So now Matt Cutts has confirmed what became obvious to me about 2 years ago:
http://blogs.openforum.com/2008/04/18/linking-search-conversation-and-your-site/#comment-1070
LOL!!
:D nmw
According to the "Wisdom of the Language", Jaiku is a non-starter simply because "jaiku" is meaningless:
8 http://dictionary.com/search?q=twitter
vs.
0 http://dictionary.com/search?q=jaiku
Natural language search is already here -- see e.g. http://www.download.com
:) nmw
I feel that both Yahoo and Microsoft have quite good / substanial keyword domain name portfolios:
http://www.domaintools.com/registrant-search/?&and[]=microsoft&and[]=98052&and[]=redmond&and[]=&not[]=&not[]=
http://www.domaintools.com/registrant-search/?&and[]=yahoo&and[]=94089&and[]=sunnyvale+&and[]=&not[]=&not[]=
I think these are definitely "forces to be reckoned with" (though I do expect that a large portion of each of those portfolios are not really keyword domains but rather simply a matter of protecting trademarks).
It will be interesting to watch how this develops -- and also (in the long run) to see how many such significant / formidable portfolios will continue to be "in the running" as time goes on.
I feel that both Yahoo and Microsoft have quite good / substanial keyword domain name portfolios:
http://www.domaintools.com/registrant-search/?&and[]=microsoft&and[]=98052&and[]=redmond&and[]=&not[]=&not[]=
http://www.domaintools.com/registrant-search/?&and[]=yahoo&and[]=94089&and[]=sunnyvale+&and[]=&not[]=&not[]=
I think these are definitely "forces to be reckoned with" (though I do expect that a large portion of each of those portfolios are not really keyword domains but rather simply a matter of protecting trademarks).
It will be interesting to watch how this develops -- and also (in the long run) to see how many such significant / formidable portfolios will continue to be "in the running" as time goes on.
Back in September of last year I noted that Google outranks Bush for "miserable failure" (based on the number of "word occurences" in the snippets):
http://battellemedia.com/archives/003933.php#comment_123805
;D nmw
You should be more careful when you quote someone -- the correct quote is:
"It was disclosed in court that one partner that Google had was generating as much as $3 million dollars a month from the practice and that was after Google's revenue share."
Google stands to lose ALOT (did you hear that? I said: "alot") more (and my hunch is this is actually significantly contributing to Google shares falling rapidly on the NASDAQ stock market).
However, since Google is not being very clear about what it will actually do, there is very little that can be actually gleaned from this "rumor".
I asked on Jay Westerdal's blog for some further clarification. Here is Jay's response:
---------------------------------------------------
UPDATE BY JAY:
Here is a quote from the Associated Press report on it:
Over the next few weeks, Google will start looking for names that are repeatedly registered and dropped within a five-day grace period for full refunds.
Google's AdSense program would exclude those names so no one can generate advertising revenue from claiming them temporarily, a practice known as domain name tasting - the online equivalent of buying expensive clothes on a charge card only to return them for a full refund after wearing them to a party.
"We believe that this policy will have a positive impact for users and domain purchasers across the Web," Google spokesman Brandon McCormick said.
---------------------------------------------------
URL: http://blog.domaintools.com/2008/01/google-to-kill-domain-tasting/#comment-4499
I agree with Jay: What the Google spokesperson said is that domain tasting would be ruled out. If Danny has been given different information from "word of mouth" sources, can he cite the exact sources of his information?
re http://sphinn.com/story/14865
Ah, OK -- I reposted the comment (I had simply read the news and saw there was no sphinn on it yet; mabe a software glitch or something?).
Anyways: I thought your (Andy's) response was from Danny (now I know better -- as in: take 2.0 ;)
Thanks for the heads up!!
Good points. I've put a page up on http://candidates2008.info that show's "what they currently digg" (direct link: http://digg.candidates2008.info ). I expect that the candidates who don't get into the discussions happening online will not fare well in the upcoming elections.
Thanks for the heads up, Danny! This is a great story: Danny calls for breaking up Google itself:
"Well, you'd better just break up Google then, rather than block the DoubleClick deal. Google probably already tracks on the scale, if not more, about what people do on the web than DoubleClick."
Fascinating!
Also: great analysis of how Google is more like an ad agency than a search engine -- when I said this a couple years ago, people didn't seem to understand what I was talking about.
So in sum: Yet another great analysis by Danny!
The only thing I wonder about is why Danny forces his readers to look at googlesyndication.com in an inline frame....
;D nmw
So which of the following domain names are more likely to get dugg than buried?
- searchengineband.com
- searchenginehand.com
- searchenginemanned.com
- searchenginenanny.com
- searchenginefan.com
- searchenginefanny.com
- searchenginesand.com
- searchenginetanned.com
- searchenginewand.com
- searchenginebland.com
;P nmw
Now that's an idea...
How about .IN ? When I posted recently on radar.oreilly.COM, Mr. O'Reilly was confused by the domain name (registered under .IN) and therefore deleted all of my posts.
Does that reflect badly on me or on the domain name or on Mr. O'Reilly? (I guess everyone needs to decide this for themselves) see also http://www.aboutus.org/Oreilly.com#Additional_Information
I wouldn't rely too much on any single machine -- that might begin to look like AOL (in which Google acquired a 5% stake in Dec 2005).
( BTW: the transparency which Google appears to have lost sight of has not been banned from the Internet -- you should be well aware that everything about all of your domains are easily known to anyone who might care :)
Holy $h1t!
36 X "traffic" -- more than any other word on the page!!!
11 X "your site" -- wow, that's good keyphrase optimization!! ;D
This is the kind of crap that pulls in high ratings from the people who still believe that search engines have any clue WRT relevance.
Any other stuffing left over from thanksgiving?!?
;D nmw
Great minds think alike! ;D Your analysis is great -- I just did pretty much the same thing (albeit for different "target audiences" ;) -- see http://itne.ws (much less exhaustive -- I wish I had Danny's stamina ;D)
:) nmw
what about this is "open"?
since when is Google a social network?
if Google is a social network, what is it that holds the purported network together? perhaps higher CTRs?
this is simply ludicrous... -- a complete joke!
to quote Paul Krugman's most recent editorial (just a little bit out of context ;) : "All of this would be funny if it weren’t so serious."
« previous1 next »
Story: Searching With Google Chrome & Omnibox