Comments on: Sunday Reading

By: replica rolex watches

replica rolex watches — Fri, 10 Feb 2006 18:39:21 +0000

watches

By: Zachery Coelius

Zachery Coelius — Tue, 01 Nov 2005 01:49:52 +0000

The one thing I find humorous is that the NYT has finally decided that its safe to put an internet company on the front page and claim that they are going to change the world. I don’t think that we are hitting another bubble (at least not in the same way) but it does look like people are drinking the kool-aid again. I feel like it is going to be another crazy ride.

By: Chris Phenner

Chris Phenner — Mon, 31 Oct 2005 23:59:00 +0000

No comment about the FULL PAGE AD in the same section of the NYT (print) three pages later?

That article was a love letter, with ONE quote from Wendy Millard at Yahoo in "reponse," a total lightweight piece...surprised it received the "worth a read" nod, given your scrutiny of the firm.

By: Markus

Markus — Mon, 31 Oct 2005 20:39:48 +0000

The less people know about your system the less they can game it. I face nearly the same problem google has, and its really the only way to run a successful businss.

By: Dimitar Vesselinov

Dimitar Vesselinov — Mon, 31 Oct 2005 20:12:02 +0000

Sergey Brin: Web 2.0 2005
http://www.itconversations.com/shows/detail795.html

By: Joe

Joe — Mon, 31 Oct 2005 18:33:52 +0000

Its hard to tell who does what anymore and the truth is as different types of media converge companies that where partners become competitors.

Look at Comcast statement John highlighted last week about becoming "the Google of cable companies". Well that’s a problem if Google would like to be the Google of cable companies.

NY Times serves Google ads and uses Google's search box. Did you notice the quote by Jarvis saying he "can't trust Google". I would argue that much of The Times feels the same, or at least they are watching there backs.

The love hate relationship between Google and traditional media, referenced by the article will quickly become one way if the margins start to drop on creative and brand advertising.

And my personal favorite is the article's reference to Yahoo as once being a significant supporter of Google but now one of its fiercest competitors. We all knew it but to put it next to all these other examples of companies loving Google and now concerned is poetry.

Where is equilibrium in this market? There are only so many levels on which you can compete and still partner with a company. John, I disagree that this article was a valentine. I believe it was written in a manner to get the approval of Google (they got some real heavy hitters over there on record for it), but that under the surface it was a warning flare from the New York Times to other media and advertising firms.

By: Craig Plunkett

Craig Plunkett — Mon, 31 Oct 2005 14:06:04 +0000

What will fully realize the dream for them, is when live sports and other content are delivered over IP tv to your choice of device where you can track who is watching from what device via their team/package subscription and they are capable of tailoring TV ads to individuals watching in real time. RFID integrated into the set-top box anybody?

By: Michael Parekh

Michael Parekh — Mon, 31 Oct 2005 13:49:39 +0000

P.S. I’ve highlighted your piece in a post on my site, and tried to trackback, but the trackback feature is not working…not sure if it’s Typepad on my end or something on the Searchblog site…fyi.

By: Michael Parekh

Michael Parekh — Mon, 31 Oct 2005 13:44:25 +0000

Good post, John…it’s interesting to see how watching the pennies became such an important part of the Google success story.

By: Search Engines Web

Search Engines Web — Mon, 31 Oct 2005 00:30:25 +0000

{{{{ In a fraction of a second, it can evaluate millions of variables about its users and advertisers, correlate them with its potential database of billions of ads and deliver the message to which each user is most likely to respond..
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

:LOL The REAL irony of all this is that the Organic SERPs should effectively enough as to eliminate the need for any user to resort to the Sponsor Links.

If these users are in fact clicking on the Sponsor Links, are they doing so because of non-relevant SERPs?

Or their eyes just instintively/ intuitively drawn to the Three Sponsor Links with Pastel Backgrounds that are AT THE TOP of the Natural lisings on the SERPs, first.

http://blog.eyetools.net/eyetools_research/2005/03/eyetracking_goo.html

Are some casual users even aware that they are sponsor links – and just normally click on the first link that appears. If so, it has less to do with their complex technology!

If users are disatified with the Page One of the Organic SERPs, and just find it easier to use the Sponsor Links than to navigate to Page Two….

well then say “Hello” to the future Google version of Yahoo’s famous Directory :GRIN