Publishing 2.0 - Latest Comments in How Google Stole Control Over Content Distribution By Stealing Links

Re: How Google Stole Control Over Content Distribution By Stealing Links

Roel — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 12:57:15 -0000

It's true, imo Google '' owns '' the internet pretty much. They aren't at Monopoly stage but they are surely at 80% if not 90%. But what are you gonna do as a small entrepreneur, like myself I have to promote through Google cause it's the mainstream search engine, no search results, no sales. simple as that.

Cheers!

Re: How Google Stole Control Over Content Distribution By Stealing Links

ExploreMyBlog — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 08:36:25 -0000

I agree that google is stealing contents but on the other hand Google is providing an extraordinary to World users on just few clicks and which is not providing by any other search engine. Google Page Rank is one of the example.

Now a days all search engies, directories and Link Buiilding webs are taking Google page rank is one of the primary thing to rank any website.

So what you think if google is stealing contents on the other hand google is sharing every thing with users.

Re: How Google Stole Control Over Content Distribution By Stealing Links

jjray — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 21:39:11 -0000

If google news is the main source of your complaint, I really don't get it. Google makes nothing when someone clicks on a link to a news organization at google news. Zero. Nada. Zilch. Further, I don't see any ads on google news. So google does not even make money when people browse the news link they have collected. Google is a fact of life for us all. Best to learn how to deal with it.

Re: How Google Stole Control Over Content Distribution By Stealing Links

Hedged In — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 21:09:28 -0000

Scott, this is smart but wrong.

The source of the problem is that newspapers are commodity providers, where they once had a monopoly. If they had unique content, they would generate their own distribution on the 'net, and Google would be their friend. But because they all publish the same stories, the market power shifts to Google.

More depth here: http://seekingalpha.com/ins...

Re: How Google Stole Control Over Content Distribution By Stealing Links

Blah — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 09:10:43 -0000

I only read the first part and quickly came across two datapoints indicating that the author didn't think this through:

a) just because the amount of content increases does not mean that the average quality or interestingness of the content remains constant.

b) most people who claim to know search engines by now have grasped that page rank is one of many, many, many signals used for ranking and its importance is steadily decreasing. letting relevance be dominated by page rank creates a scenario that is too easy to exploit.

No need to read the rest since it is likely to be more of the same.

Re: How Google Stole Control Over Content Distribution By Stealing Links

Alec Kinnear — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 17:42:54 -0000

All these Google defenders should wake up and realize it's a different company now. With Eric Schmidt in command they are playing for total control of the web.

It's Microsoft back in the eighties.

A wolf in sheep's clothing.

And publishers should do everything they can to pull the covers back in their own direction.

Re: How Google Stole Control Over Content Distribution By Stealing Links

John Deck — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 12:46:17 -0000

Great piece. I have been struggling for a couple of years; first to understand; then how to explain it to others.

Everyone says content is king. Yet what we are are seeing is content being commoditized. This and loss of advertising revenue has killed the newspapers.

As content has less and less value, Google continues because its hold on distribution and ranking.

John Deck

Re: How Google Stole Control Over Content Distribution By Stealing Links

Vineet Menon — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 07:03:10 -0000

One question that pops to mind is, rather than relying on hindsight what is it that the media companies (newspapers for e.g.) doing to counter this so called "menace"? Maybe, just maybe nothing. Not because they are too lazy or thick headed but because they aren't loosing much, ever heard of a win win situation. No rule ever said that if someone makes money the other guy has to lose money by default.

Re: How Google Stole Control Over Content Distribution By Stealing Links

David Iwanow — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 04:03:25 -0000

yes its mostly true, but what is the interet without google, we have become so dependant on it that most business is sunk without its support.

The issue around the digg bar is more of a self-interest issue for digg, its making its own link building campaign using your content, would be like all your news stories being hosted on google.com and not linked directly to your website.

Re: How Google Stole Control Over Content Distribution By Stealing Links

Neil — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 17:57:48 -0000

Somebody has to pay for the web and try to earn a buck to make it worth the effort producing good content.

At the moment advertising is the only ball game. So, you could more correctly say that advertising stole the web. Google just happens to be the 10 ton gorilla in the advertising room at the moment.

But that could change in a flash if another universally-appliable, frictionless model for making money on the web appeared.

I'd bet on that happening sooner rather than later. All those content providers are trying everything they can think of.

Google are simply the current anchor tenant of the web.

Re: How Google Stole Control Over Content Distribution By Stealing Links

andrej — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 16:26:48 -0000

Google is giving a lot back: it's giving you the ability to find information. Image the internet without being able to find information. Quite useless...

Furthermore, you can't all blame this on google. The internet itself has changed a lot.

The newspaper business has changed a lot, even without google. The barriers to entry have completely disappeared for this market: you don't need journalist or writers, just buy some news, put it on a website, and you can call yourself a newspaper.

And there's a lot more competition now: you can read newspapers from all over the world.

So, easy entry into market, little investment needed, lots of competition: this is not a market where you can earn a lot.

You actually see this in print too. In the Netherlands we have a number of free print newspapers (metro, de pers, etc). These newspapers basically just reprint canned news. And they understand nobody will pay for this, so they completely rely on ads for income.

The newspaper business just isn't a business anymore where customers will pay for the services delivered.

Re: How Google Stole Control Over Content Distribution By Stealing Links

Simon — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 15:05:00 -0000

""Whether we like it or not, “Google” is almost synonymous with “Internet”. Would it be the Internet possible without Google?""

Yes of course. Google wasn't even the first company in its class and the internet predates them by many years. They just got a lot right that their competitors didn't and have built on their success. They are not some impossible elder god at heart of the interwaves.

Re: How Google Stole Control Over Content Distribution By Stealing Links

Lihsa — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 13:03:19 -0000

This is exactly why Twitter is so valuable and threatening to Google: individuals vet and promote links. FOR FREE.

I would more rely on my friend @Glambert's recommendation than Google's because I never would have searched for this.

But b/c I value @Glambert's opinion, I believe his endorsement.

This is the beauty of Twitter and the threat to Google.

Re: How Google Stole Control Over Content Distribution By Stealing Links

ODWGOOG — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 11:00:56 -0000

Whether we like it or not, “Google” is almost synonymous with “Internet”. Would it be the Internet possible without Google?

Re: How Google Stole Control Over Content Distribution By Stealing Links

Simon — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 10:15:34 -0000

Quite, but I still think there is that sense of enemy about it.

The point is that search engines are inevitable because of the internet's structure. Google's search engine is best for now, but there is much to say that it won't always be. Google, for example, is not good at real time search in the way that Twitter or Friendfeed are becoming.

Publishing companies really are wasting their efforts having a go at search engines.

Re: How Google Stole Control Over Content Distribution By Stealing Links

Scott Karp — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 10:00:57 -0000

@Stephen and others, see update above:

Just to clarify, the use of “steal” and “stole’ is in the sense of “stole the game.” The point of this post is to explain how Google won, and not at all to suggest that they didn’t deserve to win. Google’s success is a direct reflection of how much value they create, i.e. A LOT — they solved a problem in the market that nobody else figure out how to solve or even recognized as the huge opportunity in the market. This post is also intended to help media companies understand better how Google works so that they can better compete in the web content marketplace, not to justify any feelings of “sour grapes.”

Re: How Google Stole Control Over Content Distribution By Stealing Links

Simon — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 09:51:17 -0000

I'm sorry but this article is nothing but Publishing 1.0's pangs all over again. "Stealing", "Control" etc. You just don't understand what Google is.

Google doesn't control anything. Control is the wrong word entirely to describe them. They don't steal either. What Google does, and does highly efficiently, is index and expose the open web. They make money the same way, by providing relevant messages alongside indexing.

Your problem is not Google. Your problem is that the open web makes all sites flat, all equally available, and hence permits a wall of content. The entire publishing industry is built in a series of gates and distribution pyramids (which thus funnel advertising) but the web's base structure is completely flat.

It is simply the reality of how the IP-based internet works. The data, links and information are all there for the crawling and indexing. It is no good to place fault with one company or another for being an effective index system. Taking a pot-shot at Google (or Yahoo or probably Twitter in a while -- are you even ready for the real time web?) is like bemoaning power companies for inventing electricity.

This whole article reeks of a sense of lost entitlement. You think you deserve an income rather than finding a way to earn one. You think that somehow your writing is better than some blog or other site, and so you should be paid.

Unfortunately for you, the internet's readership disagrees. There are blogs and publications out there making money on the internet and they do it by really understanding how the web works and working toward it. This may well mean that there is less room for writers and publishers, less entitlement than before.

Tough. That's the way it goes. Innovate and evolve and actually become publishing 2.0 rather than pretending you can grasp whatever strands of the old world remain, rather than finding enemies or demons to falsely blame.

Re: How Google Stole Control Over Content Distribution By Stealing Links

Stephen Downes — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 09:36:08 -0000

All very well. But in what sense is this "stealing"?

Re: How Google Stole Control Over Content Distribution By Stealing Links

ahoving — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 08:52:06 -0000

So many good points made by Scott and the commenters: Yes, the publishers were too slow to focus on online; yes, Google is the only entity that currently monetizes the traffic efficiently; yes, publishers "gave it away for free" and now they're going to have to figure out how to start charging for it. But they can't solve that problem individually. They don't have the resources or the expertise for that - they can't compete with Google and its army of engineers. So there's going to have to be a solution that is offered by a trusted neutral party, one that shares the revenue in an equitable way that enables publishers, bloggers, journalists and other content providers to survive and be profitable. See my proposed solution at http://www.PayCheckr.com

Re: How Google Stole Control Over Content Distribution By Stealing Links

ray — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 08:24:01 -0000

mmm sour grapes? industry hacks waving the white market failure flags, already? Schumpeter would be spinning in his grave right now.

c'mon, show some guts

Re: How Google Stole Control Over Content Distribution By Stealing Links

RickWaghorn — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 07:56:59 -0000

Walter...

How about seeing local news as a mobile phone app...

http://outwithabang.rickwag...

Directly connects the user with the local news content that they require... and then in-build local advertisers into that app; takes out Google as the AdSense middleman...

Re: How Google Stole Control Over Content Distribution By Stealing Links

simonhb — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 06:05:33 -0000

You're fundamentally wrong.

We don't "give our links to Google for free". We link because that's how the internet works, that's what makes it useful. Without links, the internet would just be a filing system without navigation.

Google do something interesting with those links, and make their money by selling a service based on that. In return, we get something of value, a search engine that works tolerably well at indexing the billions of pages of content available to us.

It annoys me that media groups who weren't engaging with the net very well back at the start of the century are coming online now and moaning about Google. I guess if you never had to exist in the world where someone would have to spend a couple of hours uploading details of each page launch to a constellation of search engines, few of which would ever deliver any traffic, you might just take having decent search for granted.

Still, if you think you can do better, you're more than welcome - nobody is going to stop you from harvesting those links to build a better search engine, and the world will surely beat a path to your door.

Google isn't perfect, and it's far from evil. But what many of the moaners miss is that it's popular not because it's big; it's big because it's popular. And it's popular because it works.

Re: How Google Stole Control Over Content Distribution By Stealing Links

Chris Salzberg — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 05:17:32 -0000

A related tidbit of info: in Japan there was a movement for a while, among some people (mostly not very tech-literate, I suppose), to ban others from *linking* to another person's content without permission. Links of this kind are referred to as "mudan rinku" (?????).

Here's the wikipedia page in Japanese, no English:
http://ja.wikipedia.org/wik...

Re: How Google Stole Control Over Content Distribution By Stealing Links

Curtis — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 03:53:58 -0000

So ... change your robots.txt file and don't let Google index you. I think you'll see immediately how "little" value google provides.

Re: How Google Stole Control Over Content Distribution By Stealing Links

John — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 03:29:57 -0000

Whoever draws the biggest crowds makes the most money. Google draws more viewers than any content producer and without Google the producer would have even less viewers. This apocalyptic scenario where no one can make any money from investigative journalism will just result in Google buying something like the wall st journal and providing free content to its Adsense pubishers to feed the "echo chamber".