Google Knol is Evil • Hacker News Board

Re: Google Knol is Evil

#41

Post by alex_c » Tue, Jul 29, 2008, 8:29 PM UTC

aditya wrote: post #40

nickb wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You're getting the two mixed up.

The concern with Microsoft wasn't that they used their OS monopoly to unfairly compete with other operating systems, it was that they used their OS monopoly to unfairly compete with other applications (eg. IE vs. Netscape).

The concern with Google isn't that they might be using their search near-monopoly to unfairly compete with other search engines, it is that they might be using their search near-monopoly to unfairly compete with other websites (eg. Knol vs. Wikipedia).

Re: Google Knol is Evil

#42

Post by benl » Tue, Jul 29, 2008, 8:49 PM UTC

Give me a break. This post, and an number of the other Knol-is-bad commentary pieces floating around, boil down to not much more than "Google owes me/my friends a living".

This quote is priceless: "The company whose mission is to 'organize the world's information' is straying into 'monetizing the world's information'"

And how, precisely, is Google supposed to organize the world's information without monetizing it?

Some people need to calm down. If it's true that Google are inflating the PageRank of Knol pages, then they're damaging their most valuable product -- high quality search results. And it is well within their rights to do that if they choose.

Re: Google Knol is Evil

#43

Post by bigbang » Tue, Jul 29, 2008, 9:35 PM UTC

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.…

I dont think Yahoo has packed its bags. It outsourced only its sponsored search(not in full). This could make them understand which queries competition is doing better. If they were not serious, they could have outsourced web search. They could save tons of cash on development and servers.

The whole outsourcing thing is to make MS want them more, just inorder to prevent Yahoo from sleeping with Google

Re: Google Knol is Evil

#44

Post by sethg » Wed, Jul 30, 2008, 2:05 AM UTC

FWIW, when I searched for "search engine" on Google, the first[] results were Dogpile, AltaVista (?!), and Ask.com. When I did the same search on Yahoo, the first result was Yahoo, and Google was second. When I did it on Ask.com, the first result was for Ask.com and Google wasn't even on the first page (except for a "Narrow Your Search" link in the sidebar referring to "Google UK Search Engine"). Go figure.

[]excluding the "related searches", news articles, sponsored links, and other effluvia that gets put at the top of the page

Re: Google Knol is Evil

#45

Post by tss » Wed, Jul 30, 2008, 3:26 AM UTC

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…

This is certainly much less significant then giving preferential page rank. Google controls what over two thirds of people see through search. If it doesn't appear on the first 3 pages of a Google search, exposure is very limited.

It's a shame that my original comment got voted down (didn't even know you could do that). I'd rather people share their opinions rather then voting down; the topic is worthy of discussion.

I really don't mind bundled software either. In fact, I don't mind preferential treatment being given to Knol. What I do mind is Google opening itself up to a lawsuit. A significant lawsuit against Google would have large negative effects in my opinion. I'd just like Google to show a little bit more discretion.

Re: Google Knol is Evil

#46

Post by agotterer » Wed, Jul 30, 2008, 5:00 AM UTC

bprater wrote: post #15

Is it possible that Knol ranks high because its lives in the Google domain? And that no one touched the algorithm? I can't imagine Google not understanding that this could happen. Hopefully, they'll speak up soon.

Do they really need to explain themselves? I'm on board with the knol has been linked from every major site with a high PR and most likely helped increase the page rank. But even if google gave it an extra push or piggy backed on the google.com domain, isn't that within their right? Its THEIR site, they can do whatever they want. I don't want to defend them and empower them to manipulate results at a cost of control. But what it comes down to is, if it pisses enough people off they will take their search somewhere else (cuil did just launch, HAH!). Also want to throw out that a search for "site:knol.google.com" brings back 1,500 results. I don't know if thats a major concern yet.

Re: Google Knol is Evil

#47

Post by agotterer » Wed, Jul 30, 2008, 5:01 AM UTC

neilc wrote: post #20

nickb wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's Microsoft's operating system, if they want to pre-install certain apps, why not? There's nothing fundamentally wrong with Microsoft pre-installing apps, just like there is nothing wrong with Apple pre-installing apps on OSX, or Sun on Solaris.

but it is wrong that Apple forces safari downloads on windows! grrr!

Re: Google Knol is Evil

#48

Post by agotterer » Wed, Jul 30, 2008, 5:05 AM UTC

nickb wrote: post #10

tss wrote: post #4

If they don't get the issue of Knol pagerank sorted out soon, they are going to be hit with a massive anti trust lawsuit. And they are going to lose. I'm curious as to why everyone is so surprised that this is happening though. It already worked like this with blogs hosted through Blogspot and websites hosted through Google Pages.

Problem is that Google's not artificially proppingp those blogs and they're not hosting ads by default and collecting revenue from them. Also, when you create a blog, you own the content.. not so with Knol.

That's incorrect... Terms of service states...

5.1. No Google Ownership of User Content. Google claims no ownership or control over any content submitted, posted or displayed by you on or through the Service. You or a third party licensor, as appropriate, retain all patent, trademark and copyright to any content you submit, post or display on or through the Service and you are responsible for protecting those rights, as appropriate.

Re: Google Knol is Evil

#49

Post by nailer » Wed, Jul 30, 2008, 7:05 AM UTC

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…

You mean it's a microcosm of the internet that's smaller but better structured?

Like Facebook, Wikipedia, or Second Life?

Clearly it's doomed.