You can all thank twitter for that. They only give access to their feed to a few selected buddy companies.
It was just a matter of time until other sites follow and try to cash out on this!
Bing considers paying sites to delist themselves from Google
31–40 of 42 posts
Re: Bing considers paying sites to delist themselves from Google
#32It looks to me like a PUBLISHER was quoted as saying "puts enormous value on content if search engines are prepared to pay us to index with them." This means publishers appear to be using some leverage with search engines, forcing them into the position of possibly having to purchase the right to index their content. This is kind-of what Twitter is doing with bing, right? Imagine if WebMD started doing this, followed…
[This means publishers appear to be using some leverage with search engines, forcing them into the position of possibly having to purchase the right to index their content.]
Yes, that's correct, I think. They (or at least Murdoch) wants to do that. Most of the folks here seems to defend Google, and some of their points are valid, but let's try to look at the issue from the publishers point of view. As it is now, Google just index their content, make a good money out of it, and then give back only a link to that content. And when publisher wants money for the indexing right, Google just says to them: "Shut up, be happy that you've got a free link from us." But... why should the publisher agree with that? They have a full right to ask money for indexing their content.
Now, I think this will be interesting. So far, Internet users have a perception that "there is everything in Google", and it's also Google's core mission, to index all of the worlds information. But it seems everyone just supposed Google should have a right to index everything for free, so now everyone seems surprised that it's not so.
But, it is not Murdoch who drilled a hole to Google's strategy, it was Twitter. Google admitted they are willing to pay for indexing rights, so Murdoch demands the same. I am really curious to see what Google will do about it.
Re: Bing considers paying sites to delist themselves from Google
#33Let's say News Corp and Microsoft did this. Let's also assume that News Corp did other things to monetize their data, such as putting it behind a paywall, preventing bloggers from quoting large sections of articles, if the Tories win the British election getting them to shut down the BBC's news website, etc.
I think this could be an enormous opportunity for Google. They could create their own news service (or maybe buy one). They could integrate it with Google Ads, Reader, allow commenting social bookmarking, etc done in an open way to get as much external take-up of the information as possible, and maybe integrate it with Google Maps so that people could have a personalised local news service.
The cost of this? BBC News has an annual budget of £350 million, so something in that area.
If a lot of Google's competitors are voluntarily de-listing themseves from the open internet, everyone would flock to Google's option.
Re: Bing considers paying sites to delist themselves from Google
#34"I'll pay you not to use the competitor that possibly brings you more than half of your discoveries, new customers, and revenue." Sounds like a sound business model to me. On a more serious note, I'm actually afraid of the collective ignorance of most computer users today that Microsoft could win out with manipulative business practices like this - most internet users are layman and don't understand the integrity iss…
"I'm actually afraid of the collective ignorance of most computer users today that Microsoft could win out with manipulative business practices like this - most internet users are layman and don't understand the integrity issues of whats going on here." OK, so let's assume this will work, for this reason, and game it out. I don't hold up the following analysis as Truth, just some thoughts. In the short term, even for…
Did the Xbox break even? This seems a surprisingly hard question to get a straight answer for.
There's regularly stories about it being "profitable" but they generally mean that they stopped making a yearly loss. Seldom, if ever, do they ask if and when the cumulative yearly profits gave a suitable Return on Investment.
Re: Bing considers paying sites to delist themselves from Google
#35How much money are we even talking about? And I don't mean the offering to Fox, I mean how much money is Google making for searches for Fox news? My guess is that it would be very little money. What searches (besides porn) are the bulk of internet searches?
I don't think I have ever hit on a Fox web site in a web search, but then I am not living in the US.
Re: Bing considers paying sites to delist themselves from Google
#36It looks to me like a PUBLISHER was quoted as saying "puts enormous value on content if search engines are prepared to pay us to index with them." This means publishers appear to be using some leverage with search engines, forcing them into the position of possibly having to purchase the right to index their content. This is kind-of what Twitter is doing with bing, right? Imagine if WebMD started doing this, followed…
[This means publishers appear to be using some leverage with search engines, forcing them into the position of possibly having to purchase the right to index their content.] Yes, that's correct, I think. They (or at least Murdoch) wants to do that. Most of the folks here seems to defend Google, and some of their points are valid, but let's try to look at the issue from the publishers point of view. As it is now, Goog…
They have a full right to ask money for indexing their content.
Seriously?
A Dewey Decimal catalogue system should pay money for listing a book?
The White Pages should pay me for including my phone number?
People pay to get entries in the Yellow Pages, not the other way around.
Re: Bing considers paying sites to delist themselves from Google
#37I wonder if this strategy is really intended to gain a foothold against Google in search, or if they're trying to do something a bit more clever.
Google is the number one search engine, but grew into that position while the web was growing, during a period when people went "on the internet" to find information, rather than to any specific site, and a substantial proportion of users were new to the internet altogether.
Now that the web has reached a higher level of maturity and become a tool of mainstream, day-to-day life, people have begun to view many sites as destinations in themselves.
Look at sites like Wikipedia, eBay, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube etc. They are very collaborative, and function like platforms, but unlike Google's core business, people visit these sites specifically because of the content they host, rather than as a means to explore the wider internet. Add to that the increasing presence of traditional media content, e.g. Hulu, that have been able to leverage conventional marketing to drive users to their sites.
Most of these sites are likely no longer heavily dependent on search to attract users. These sites may be willing to delist from Google in exchange for a direct revenue stream. If they do, it will diminish the value of not just Google, but of web search in general.
This may be a strategy to fragment search as a primary driver of web traffic, and create an incumbent advantage for content providers and web services with high traditional brand awareness, such as its own, at the expense of startups which continue to rely on search to build their user base.
Re: Bing considers paying sites to delist themselves from Google
#38Google should preemptively stop indexing all News Corp sites.
Re: Bing considers paying sites to delist themselves from Google
#39Let's say News Corp and Microsoft did this. Let's also assume that News Corp did other things to monetize their data, such as putting it behind a paywall, preventing bloggers from quoting large sections of articles, if the Tories win the British election getting them to shut down the BBC's news website, etc. I think this could be an enormous opportunity for Google. They could create their own news service (or maybe b…
Google doesn't even have to build a news research organization. there are enough people who see the opportunity and offer copies of news, and rephrased news, given the ad revenue that would become availble. it just has to make few changes to it's search engines, expose data from their toolbars/queries on popular news articles/subjects , and let the newspapers fight with tons of sites offering their content, or very similar contents for free.
Re: Bing considers paying sites to delist themselves from Google
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you sure that indexing is a copyright violation? You aren't reproducing the text in full and it seems like excerpts would be part of fair use. Do you have a source?
I depends on the country but yes, and yes. http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2005/09/68928 http://cci.edu.au/publications/search-engine-liability-copyr... Parker v Yahoo takes the view that putting content online is implicitly allowing indexing. By the same logic, explicitly blocking an engine would mean the opposite. http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2008/10/search_engine_c...
The first link is about scanning, storing, and making available entire books. The last is about the caching ability.
The second one includes some great information, but if you read about the specific cases (starting on page 6) you can see it is still very much up for debate. Actually it seems that the courts have ruled in Google's favor almost every time, and most of these are for caching and not indexing.