Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google Knol is Evil

seldo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 49 posts

Re: Google Knol is Evil

#31

Post by Maro »

Knol is unnecessary. The single differentiating thing about Wikipedia is that everybody edits the same page about a certain topic. With Knol, everybody creates their own, which is just like... the Internet. As in, I can put up a homepage on my server about anything I like. So basically Google wants to have "the Internet" on their servers, with all the pages displaying their ads.

Also, in terms of quantity and quality, Knol (unlike Wikipedia) is competing with all the rest of the Internet. With Wikipedia, the small fraction of ppl willing to work on it together create pages (that are worthwhile). With Knol, everyone will create their own page, hence there's no difference between them and the rest of the independent Internet.

I think Knol will die off within a year.

Re: Google Knol is Evil

#32

Post by IsaacSchlueter »

aneesh wrote: post #16
azharcs wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If people don't like the result content, they'll go to the competition! Ya we can surely go to the competition, but wait there is no competition now. Yahoo has outsourced its search ads to Google, that means they are not very serious about their search and Microsoft is still trying very hard but they can't compete with "Resistance is Futile Google". Early search engines like Wikia, Powerset and Cuil get slammed by "w…

Yahoo is sending contradictory messages, BOSS is very innovative and forward-thinking, but their Google deal pretty much indicates they've packed their bags. Powerset got their payday and is now part of Live. Live is still fighting hard, though they're not there yet. But if you think about it, Live can't really go down much in usage - the people that still use it have got to be pretty loyal! ;) So it can only go up.…

their Google deal pretty much indicates they've packed their bags.

I don't see how it means that at all. They're making more on the google ads in that location than they were on their own ads. And, of course, there's plenty of rumors out there that the board and Jerry had to come up with a better alternative than MSFT's bid to buy their search product. Sounds like they're doing everything possible to keep their search business and monetize it by any means necessary.

If the bags were packed, they'd've sold.

Re: Google Knol is Evil

#33

Post by aneesh »

IsaacSchlueter wrote: post #32
aneesh wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yahoo is sending contradictory messages, BOSS is very innovative and forward-thinking, but their Google deal pretty much indicates they've packed their bags. Powerset got their payday and is now part of Live. Live is still fighting hard, though they're not there yet. But if you think about it, Live can't really go down much in usage - the people that still use it have got to be pretty loyal! ;) So it can only go up.…

their Google deal pretty much indicates they've packed their bags. I don't see how it means that at all. They're making more on the google ads in that location than they were on their own ads. And, of course, there's plenty of rumors out there that the board and Jerry had to come up with a better alternative than MSFT's bid to buy their search product. Sounds like they're doing everything possible to keep their searc…

> "Sounds like they're doing everything possible to keep their search business"

Search isn't a business without the ads. The Google deal basically lets Google place ads on Yahoo search results, if they can get a higher price. As a result of its market leadership position, Google commands higher rates for ads. Now that they're deploying ads in Yahoo results, they will get even better at selling ads, pushing rates up further. Since Yahoo is selling less ads, they will get more dependent on Google to monetize their search. The eventual case is that Yahoo outsources search advertising to Google, and Google has a virtual monopoly on search ads. Advertisers will hate this.

Re: Google Knol is Evil

#34

Post by axod »

kylec wrote: post #23
tss wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is certainly solid legal ground for arguing that Google giving preferential search results to itself is an anticompetitive practice. It would be different if Google didn't control the vast majority of the search market, but it does. Let's say there is a phone book company that pretty much controls the entire market. Google's actions are akin to the phonebook company only listing businesses that it owns in the m…

Google Maps is also integrated into the Google search. Any time it detects that you've entered a mappable location it provides a Google Maps link. If this feature were removed by, say, a lawsuit by Mapquest I think that Google would become less effective, and everyone would suffer as a result. That's just my personal opinion, however. I had (and still have) no objection to Microsoft bundling a web browser and media p…

Maybe Microsoft would have been let off if their web browser and media player weren't such terrible products.

Re: Google Knol is Evil

#35

Post by eru »

Maro wrote: post #31

Knol is unnecessary. The single differentiating thing about Wikipedia is that everybody edits the same page about a certain topic. With Knol, everybody creates their own, which is just like... the Internet. As in, I can put up a homepage on my server about anything I like. So basically Google wants to have "the Internet" on their servers, with all the pages displaying their ads. Also, in terms of quantity and quality…

Perhaps it will mutate into something else and be saved?

Re: Google Knol is Evil

#36

Post by dhimes »

jon_dahl wrote: post #8
aditya wrote: post #2

I don't understand the argument. It's google's search engine, if they want to rank certain things higher, why not? If people don't like the result content, they'll go to the competition!

The problem is that it's anti-competitive. If Google owns the search business (and they do, more or less), they can drive other companies out of business by tweaking their listings - even companies that have nothing to do with search. What if your local phone company was owned by Verizon, and they "accidentally" misprinted phone numbers of Sprint customers? Or if the supplier of 70% of the world's cars made it harder…

I use the "beta" stuff in myYahoo quite a bit and I like it. It provides search suggestions as you start typing (I've come to rely on them--instead of finishing what I was going to type, if Yahoo recognizes it in a slightly different phrasing I go with it), map links, etc.

I use it as my start page with rss feeds, etc., so it's kind of my default.

I still have to go to Google for some things, though, when Yahoo can't find it.

Re: Google Knol is Evil

#39

Post by 13ren »

paul wrote: post #14
sh1mmer wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it takes inbound links from non-knol domains to give it page rank. The point is it shouldn't have been able to bootstrap it's page rank like this.

PageRank is computed based on the links in the page graph, not domains. Knol was all over the news, so it has links from a variety of other high-pr sites. It also ranks high in Yahoo search -- do you believe that they are in on the conspiracy too?

Complaining about Knol's ranking contributes to it.

any publicity is good publicity

Re: Google Knol is Evil

#40

Post by aditya »

nickb wrote: post #3
aditya wrote: post #2

I don't understand the argument. It's google's search engine, if they want to rank certain things higher, why not? If people don't like the result content, they'll go to the competition!

I don't understand the argument. It's Microsoft's operating system, if they want to pre-install certain apps, why not? Google's heading in the same direction as MS. They'll probably end up in the same court room in Washington DC few years from now.

That comparison does not work. Microsoft pre-installing their applications, or tweaking their OS such that their applications provide a better experience is anti-competitive because it lets Microsoft utilize their monopoly to prevent competition.

Google is not preventing any other search engines from gaining popularity. People go to google to find the most relevant answer to a particular thing, when the top result is consistently a spam knol, people won't go there to search anymore.

Post reply on HN