Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Monday, September 28, 2009
With Google Places, Concerns Rise That Google Just Wants To Link To Its Own Content
One of the original goals of Google has always been to help people find the information they are looking for and get out of the way as fast as possible. It was a point of pride, and in fact a design principle, to get people off the search results page to other places on the Internet. Yahoo was the site that tried to keep you from ever leaving, Google was the opposite.
Well, it was easier to send people away when Google was just a search engine. Now it has apps and Gmail and Google Maps and Google Books, and a lot of other reasons to stick around on Google itself. But there is still a clear demarcation between its content/communication sites and search. At least there was until late last week when it launched Google Places on Google Maps. Google Places is a local search page for restaurants and other local businesses that brings together the address, phone number, Website, maps, description, directions, photos and reviews all on one page.
When you click on a pin for a local business or place of interest on Google Maps a bubble will open up, and if you click “more info” sometimes it will take you to the Google Places page. So far, so good. Google Places is simply making Google Maps better, right?
The concerns arise, however, back on Google’s main search page, where Google is indexing these Places pages. Since Google controls its own search index, it can push Google Places more prominently if it so desires. There isn’t a heck of a lot of evidence that Google is doing this yet, but the mere fact that Google is indexing these Places pages has the SEO world in a tizzy.
And Google is indexing them, despite assurances to the contrary. If you do a search for the Burdick Chocolate Cafe in Boston, for instance, the Google Places page is the sixth result, above results from Yelp, Yahoo Travel, and New York Times Travel. This wouldn’t be so bad if Google wasn’t already linking to itself in the top “one Box” result, which shows a detail from Google Maps. So within the top ten results, two of them link back to Google content.
Your chances of clicking on a Google page for this particular search are pretty high. Google isn’t sending you away anywhere. And if you do go to the Google Places page for Burdick Chocolate, it is made up of rehashed content from other sites: snippet descriptions from InsiderPages, Judy’s Book, a menu link from AllMenus, photos from CityGuide and Yelp, and reviews from Igougo and CitySearch. On the right is a small Google Map and below that are Google search ads.
It’s actually a pretty useful page, and there is certainly value in aggregating all of this information in one place. Google might even license the data, which would mitigate any protests that it is “stealing” the content like we see with Google News. But nobody really cares about that. The real issue is whether or not Google is going to favor its own pages in its index when it comes to local search. SInce Google’s algorithm is a black box, there is no way to know one way or another. But the question is out there.
Maybe the Google Places page for Burdick Chocolate ranks highly only because Google used it as an example in its pre-briefings and a lot of bloggers subsequently linked to it. The point, though, is that these Google Places are getting into Google’s index. (Tartine Bakery is another example). Even if they make it onto the first page of Google search results for legitimate reasons, their very presence goes against the fundamental principle that Google’s main purpose is to link out to the best information on the Web, not to hoard the links for itself.
We know what will happen if it keeps going down this path. It will turn into Yahoo.
Update: It appears that Google is now taking steps to remove Places pages from its organic results. It’s added a “Disallow: /places/” tag to the robots.txt for Google maps. (The robots.txt tells Google’s search engine how to treat the content on a site, and a disallow tag instructs it not to crawl indicated portions of a site).
Update 2: A Google spokesperson came back with the following explanation:
From the time of launch, we did not intend for the Place Pages to be crawled or appear in organic results – we even confirmed that publicly. We did discover that some URLs were still open (the example in question, Burdick, was the one that we heavily promoted in all our blog posts, as Matt [Cutts] pointed out), so we’ve blocked those over the past 24 hours to stay consistent with our original plan for this launch. These should no longer appear in our organic search results.
Also, I know there have been some questions about the URL structure: they were designed to be “friendly” URLs with the specific intention of making them easier to share and link.
Well, it was easier to send people away when Google was just a search engine. Now it has apps and Gmail and Google Maps and Google Books, and a lot of other reasons to stick around on Google itself. But there is still a clear demarcation between its content/communication sites and search. At least there was until late last week when it launched Google Places on Google Maps. Google Places is a local search page for restaurants and other local businesses that brings together the address, phone number, Website, maps, description, directions, photos and reviews all on one page.
When you click on a pin for a local business or place of interest on Google Maps a bubble will open up, and if you click “more info” sometimes it will take you to the Google Places page. So far, so good. Google Places is simply making Google Maps better, right?
The concerns arise, however, back on Google’s main search page, where Google is indexing these Places pages. Since Google controls its own search index, it can push Google Places more prominently if it so desires. There isn’t a heck of a lot of evidence that Google is doing this yet, but the mere fact that Google is indexing these Places pages has the SEO world in a tizzy.
And Google is indexing them, despite assurances to the contrary. If you do a search for the Burdick Chocolate Cafe in Boston, for instance, the Google Places page is the sixth result, above results from Yelp, Yahoo Travel, and New York Times Travel. This wouldn’t be so bad if Google wasn’t already linking to itself in the top “one Box” result, which shows a detail from Google Maps. So within the top ten results, two of them link back to Google content.
Your chances of clicking on a Google page for this particular search are pretty high. Google isn’t sending you away anywhere. And if you do go to the Google Places page for Burdick Chocolate, it is made up of rehashed content from other sites: snippet descriptions from InsiderPages, Judy’s Book, a menu link from AllMenus, photos from CityGuide and Yelp, and reviews from Igougo and CitySearch. On the right is a small Google Map and below that are Google search ads.
It’s actually a pretty useful page, and there is certainly value in aggregating all of this information in one place. Google might even license the data, which would mitigate any protests that it is “stealing” the content like we see with Google News. But nobody really cares about that. The real issue is whether or not Google is going to favor its own pages in its index when it comes to local search. SInce Google’s algorithm is a black box, there is no way to know one way or another. But the question is out there.
Maybe the Google Places page for Burdick Chocolate ranks highly only because Google used it as an example in its pre-briefings and a lot of bloggers subsequently linked to it. The point, though, is that these Google Places are getting into Google’s index. (Tartine Bakery is another example). Even if they make it onto the first page of Google search results for legitimate reasons, their very presence goes against the fundamental principle that Google’s main purpose is to link out to the best information on the Web, not to hoard the links for itself.
We know what will happen if it keeps going down this path. It will turn into Yahoo.
Update: It appears that Google is now taking steps to remove Places pages from its organic results. It’s added a “Disallow: /places/” tag to the robots.txt for Google maps. (The robots.txt tells Google’s search engine how to treat the content on a site, and a disallow tag instructs it not to crawl indicated portions of a site).
Update 2: A Google spokesperson came back with the following explanation:
From the time of launch, we did not intend for the Place Pages to be crawled or appear in organic results – we even confirmed that publicly. We did discover that some URLs were still open (the example in question, Burdick, was the one that we heavily promoted in all our blog posts, as Matt [Cutts] pointed out), so we’ve blocked those over the past 24 hours to stay consistent with our original plan for this launch. These should no longer appear in our organic search results.
Also, I know there have been some questions about the URL structure: they were designed to be “friendly” URLs with the specific intention of making them easier to share and link.
NewNet
There’s a fair amount of confusion in the mainstream media around how the value of the real-time web differs from that of the traditional one, as evidenced by a recent USA Today story, in which the “real-time web” was described as “the latest iteration of the Internet…exemplified by the obsessive use of PCs or cell phones.” Though the “real-time web” is sometimes described as the next evolution of the Internet, it’s more likely to co-exist with and complement, rather than supplant, the Internet we’ve been using so far. We’ll use these two webs in decidedly different ways. Subscribe now or sign in to view this Weekly Update »
Read more: http://pro.gigaom.com/topic/newnet/#ixzz0SONQf8be
There’s a fair amount of confusion in the mainstream media around how the value of the real-time web differs from that of the traditional one, as evidenced by a recent USA Today story, in which the “real-time web” was described as “the latest iteration of the Internet…exemplified by the obsessive use of PCs or cell phones.” Though the “real-time web” is sometimes described as the next evolution of the Internet, it’s more likely to co-exist with and complement, rather than supplant, the Internet we’ve been using so far. We’ll use these two webs in decidedly different ways. Subscribe now or sign in to view this Weekly Update »
Read more: http://pro.gigaom.com/topic/newnet/#ixzz0SONQf8be
There’s a fair amount of confusion in the mainstream media around how the value of the real-time web differs from that of the traditional one, as evidenced by a recent USA Today story, in which the “real-time web” was described as “the latest iteration of the Internet…exemplified by the obsessive use of PCs or cell phones.” Though the “real-time web” is sometimes described as the next evolution of the Internet, it’s more likely to co-exist with and complement, rather than supplant, the Internet we’ve been using so far. We’ll use these two webs in decidedly different ways. Subscribe now or sign in to view this Weekly Update »
Read more: http://pro.gigaom.com/topic/newnet/#ixzz0SONQf8be
Read more: http://pro.gigaom.com/topic/newnet/#ixzz0SONQf8be
There’s a fair amount of confusion in the mainstream media around how the value of the real-time web differs from that of the traditional one, as evidenced by a recent USA Today story, in which the “real-time web” was described as “the latest iteration of the Internet…exemplified by the obsessive use of PCs or cell phones.” Though the “real-time web” is sometimes described as the next evolution of the Internet, it’s more likely to co-exist with and complement, rather than supplant, the Internet we’ve been using so far. We’ll use these two webs in decidedly different ways. Subscribe now or sign in to view this Weekly Update »
Read more: http://pro.gigaom.com/topic/newnet/#ixzz0SONQf8be
There’s a fair amount of confusion in the mainstream media around how the value of the real-time web differs from that of the traditional one, as evidenced by a recent USA Today story, in which the “real-time web” was described as “the latest iteration of the Internet…exemplified by the obsessive use of PCs or cell phones.” Though the “real-time web” is sometimes described as the next evolution of the Internet, it’s more likely to co-exist with and complement, rather than supplant, the Internet we’ve been using so far. We’ll use these two webs in decidedly different ways. Subscribe now or sign in to view this Weekly Update »
Read more: http://pro.gigaom.com/topic/newnet/#ixzz0SONQf8be
Go to Mobile Topic Page
Go to Mobile Topic Page
Research Briefings.Report: How Mobile Cloud Computing Will Change Tech
Read more: http://pro.gigaom.com/2009/09/report-how-mobile-cloud-computing-will-change-tech/?utm_source=gigaom_pro_headlines_block#ixzz0SOMrfKEk
Summary:What happens when you promise end-users a persistent connection to data, applications and services regardless of the device they’re using? Mobile cloud computing aims to deliver just such a promise. Mobile access to popular web-based services such as Facebook and Gmail, combined with next-generation smartphones like the iPhone, Palm Pre and Android devices, is driving broad adoption of mobile data. However, the center of economic gravity is shifting. Historically, access to the mobile network was the service. But as users have expanded the uses for those bits, what the user does in a given session becomes fundamental to how much the service provider can charge the user or a third party (e.g. an advertiser). Thus, it’s likely that the mobile, IT and MCC sectors will continue their current marriage of convenience to attack a rare convergence of both short-term and longer term opportunity. However, in the process of adapting to an Internet that’s becoming more global, mobile and web-based by the day, the mobile and IT industries will be forced into new ways of doing business.
Read more: http://pro.gigaom.com/2009/09/report-how-mobile-cloud-computing-will-change-tech/?utm_source=gigaom_pro_headlines_block#ixzz0SON0LmX2
Research Briefings.Report: How Mobile Cloud Computing Will Change Tech
Read more: http://pro.gigaom.com/2009/09/report-how-mobile-cloud-computing-will-change-tech/?utm_source=gigaom_pro_headlines_block#ixzz0SOMrfKEk
Summary:What happens when you promise end-users a persistent connection to data, applications and services regardless of the device they’re using? Mobile cloud computing aims to deliver just such a promise. Mobile access to popular web-based services such as Facebook and Gmail, combined with next-generation smartphones like the iPhone, Palm Pre and Android devices, is driving broad adoption of mobile data. However, the center of economic gravity is shifting. Historically, access to the mobile network was the service. But as users have expanded the uses for those bits, what the user does in a given session becomes fundamental to how much the service provider can charge the user or a third party (e.g. an advertiser). Thus, it’s likely that the mobile, IT and MCC sectors will continue their current marriage of convenience to attack a rare convergence of both short-term and longer term opportunity. However, in the process of adapting to an Internet that’s becoming more global, mobile and web-based by the day, the mobile and IT industries will be forced into new ways of doing business.
Read more: http://pro.gigaom.com/2009/09/report-how-mobile-cloud-computing-will-change-tech/?utm_source=gigaom_pro_headlines_block#ixzz0SON0LmX2
Why RIM’s App World Is Key to Its Long-term Success
Research In Motion shares took a beating on Friday and several analysts cut their ratings on the stock after the company posted disappoinating sales for its fiscal second quarter and ratcheted down expectations for the current one. But while increasing competition and ever-dwindling price points may make for a rough few months in the smartphone market, RIM’s long-term prospects will hinge on the success of its new app store.
Smartphone manufacturing is becoming a cutthroat business as the space heats up. Verizon Wireless — which has provided a huge boost to BlackBerry sales with its buy-one, get-one offer — is slated to launch several competing devices in the coming months, and the iPhone appears to be making substantial headway into the enterprise. In the meantime, margins are thinning as carriers look to target data-hungry customers with high-tech handsets that sell for less than $100. Those factors don’t bode well for RIM, whose products aside from the Storm are “largely unchanged from a year ago,” Deutsche Bank analyst Brian Modoff wrote in a research note released today:
“We see several dozen new smartphones coming on stream in the next six months. This includes solid offerings from Motorola, Palm, HTC, Samsung and LG. Our checks with carriers indicate that they are looking to drive smartphone prices to subsidized levels below $100. RIM may be able to manage its bill of materials down in this environment, but we think price declines will have an impact on gross margins. And this transition will likely be a painful process.”
The BlackBerry has deftly morphed from a business-focused handset to a more consumer-friendly device, and sales have been impressive even as Apple’s iPhone has taken consumers (and the entire smartphone industry) by storm. The Curve actually outsold the iPhone in the first quarter of the year, and RIM claims that more than 80 percent of its new customers last quarter were non-business users who chose the BlackBerry over devices such as the iPhone, Palm Pre and Android devices. But with a slew of attractive new smartphones coming to market and pricing continue to fall, I think that kind of momentum will be impossible to maintain, and I expect RIM to lose ground over the next few months.
Which is why RIM’s app storefront will be key to the firm’s long-term success. Just as Apple’s App Store and iTunes drive sales of the company’s hardware, App World — which has received generally positive reviews — must be attractive enough to lure users away from all the other smartphones on the market. And while Apple has built its empire largely on the strength of free or cheap gimmicky apps, I think RIM has a real opportunity to market App World as a high-end retail for on-the-go users — allowing the company to polish its image as it creates a lucrative new revenue stream with premium mobile applications.
That won’t be easy in the fiercely competitive space, of course, especially when carriers like Verizon Wireless are trying to elbow it off the app distribution playground (GigaOM Pro, sub required). But if RIM can continue to attract developers and build out an attractive storefront — and if it can churn out sexy, user-friendly handsets — it will fare well in the superphone era.
Smartphone manufacturing is becoming a cutthroat business as the space heats up. Verizon Wireless — which has provided a huge boost to BlackBerry sales with its buy-one, get-one offer — is slated to launch several competing devices in the coming months, and the iPhone appears to be making substantial headway into the enterprise. In the meantime, margins are thinning as carriers look to target data-hungry customers with high-tech handsets that sell for less than $100. Those factors don’t bode well for RIM, whose products aside from the Storm are “largely unchanged from a year ago,” Deutsche Bank analyst Brian Modoff wrote in a research note released today:
“We see several dozen new smartphones coming on stream in the next six months. This includes solid offerings from Motorola, Palm, HTC, Samsung and LG. Our checks with carriers indicate that they are looking to drive smartphone prices to subsidized levels below $100. RIM may be able to manage its bill of materials down in this environment, but we think price declines will have an impact on gross margins. And this transition will likely be a painful process.”
The BlackBerry has deftly morphed from a business-focused handset to a more consumer-friendly device, and sales have been impressive even as Apple’s iPhone has taken consumers (and the entire smartphone industry) by storm. The Curve actually outsold the iPhone in the first quarter of the year, and RIM claims that more than 80 percent of its new customers last quarter were non-business users who chose the BlackBerry over devices such as the iPhone, Palm Pre and Android devices. But with a slew of attractive new smartphones coming to market and pricing continue to fall, I think that kind of momentum will be impossible to maintain, and I expect RIM to lose ground over the next few months.
Which is why RIM’s app storefront will be key to the firm’s long-term success. Just as Apple’s App Store and iTunes drive sales of the company’s hardware, App World — which has received generally positive reviews — must be attractive enough to lure users away from all the other smartphones on the market. And while Apple has built its empire largely on the strength of free or cheap gimmicky apps, I think RIM has a real opportunity to market App World as a high-end retail for on-the-go users — allowing the company to polish its image as it creates a lucrative new revenue stream with premium mobile applications.
That won’t be easy in the fiercely competitive space, of course, especially when carriers like Verizon Wireless are trying to elbow it off the app distribution playground (GigaOM Pro, sub required). But if RIM can continue to attract developers and build out an attractive storefront — and if it can churn out sexy, user-friendly handsets — it will fare well in the superphone era.
It’s agreed to buy specialty shoe e-tailer Zappos for $807 million
Amazon said this afternoon it’s agreed to buy specialty shoe e-tailer Zappos for $807 million in cash and stock. It’s a smart move as it will allow Amazon to become even more synonymous with e-commerce. Funnily enough, it was just a few weeks ago that I was wondering if Amazon would be launching any more specialty stores. Indeed, they are going vertical — though I didn’t expect them to spend so much money to buy Zappos. Under terms of the deal, Zappos employees will get about $40 million in cash and restricted Amazon stock, and the entire Zappos management team will stay on.
Zappos, while in the commodity business of retail, has carved itself a nice (and fast-growing) niche by focusing on shoes. According to the Las Vegas Sun, Zappos’ hometown paper, the company reached its goal of a billion dollars in sales in 2008, 10 years after it was started by Nick Swinmurn. The sale is yet another smash hit for white-shoe Silicon Valley venture fund, Sequoia Capital. Zappos’ customer service reputation reminds me of Nordstrom, the big department store chain.
“We are joining forces with Amazon because there is a huge opportunity to utilize each other’s strengths and move even faster towards our vision of delivering happiness to customers, employees and vendors,” said Tony Hsieh, CEO of Zappos. “We will continue to build the Zappos brand and culture in our own unique way, and we believe Amazon is the best partner to help us do this over the long term.”
I am a big fan of both Jeff Bezos and Tony Hsieh, because they belong to that rare breed of company CEOs who put the needs of the customers (and their happiness) above everything else. Hsieh has been a fixture at various tech industry events but I’ve never met him, I’ve just enjoyed his talks and his posts on the Zappos blog. In an email to his employees today, Hsieh says something that all startup founders — myself included — would be well-advised to remember: “What happens to our culture is up to us…we are in control of our destiny and how our culture evolves.”
Zappos, while in the commodity business of retail, has carved itself a nice (and fast-growing) niche by focusing on shoes. According to the Las Vegas Sun, Zappos’ hometown paper, the company reached its goal of a billion dollars in sales in 2008, 10 years after it was started by Nick Swinmurn. The sale is yet another smash hit for white-shoe Silicon Valley venture fund, Sequoia Capital. Zappos’ customer service reputation reminds me of Nordstrom, the big department store chain.
“We are joining forces with Amazon because there is a huge opportunity to utilize each other’s strengths and move even faster towards our vision of delivering happiness to customers, employees and vendors,” said Tony Hsieh, CEO of Zappos. “We will continue to build the Zappos brand and culture in our own unique way, and we believe Amazon is the best partner to help us do this over the long term.”
I am a big fan of both Jeff Bezos and Tony Hsieh, because they belong to that rare breed of company CEOs who put the needs of the customers (and their happiness) above everything else. Hsieh has been a fixture at various tech industry events but I’ve never met him, I’ve just enjoyed his talks and his posts on the Zappos blog. In an email to his employees today, Hsieh says something that all startup founders — myself included — would be well-advised to remember: “What happens to our culture is up to us…we are in control of our destiny and how our culture evolves.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)