I’ll be taking this coming week off, spending it with family for our kids’ winter break. I plan to stay online, but not post very much. Happy searching.
If you haven’t heard about this, it’s a cool idea. Scoble has created a seedbed for testing speed and comprehensiveness in blog search tools, and along the way, has found out other interesting things about search in general. From the post:
Damn, brrrreeeport is the top search on Technorati and there are 420 posts there. Wacky.
What’s an even better deal is that Google says there are now about 14,000 results. What the f___? I HATE the lies that are going on on search engines. Quick: click through and tell me how many entries there really are. Hint: it isn’t 14,000. Funny that Google’s blog search can only find 382.
MSN says there are 1,369 results. Yahoo says there are 1,010 results.
I don’t get it. Why not do what we thought they’d do? I wasn’t really paying attention, and you probably all know this, but turns out MSFT Office Live is, well, NOT Microsoft Office Live (tcrunch). It’s just hosting and email services by another name. What the f?
Besides blacklisting Iran, China, and Vietnam (hey, that war really worked out, didn’t it?!), the legislation would declare:
- U.S. firms which create, provide or host Internet search engines would be forbidden to locate their search engines within designated Internet-restricting countries.
- U.S. firms would be forbidden to alter the search engines in response to requests from Internet-restricting countries or make changes that produced search engine results within restricting countries that differ from results elsewhere.
- U.S. search engine providers must transparently share with the U.S. Office of Global Internet freedom details of terms or parameters submitted by Internet-restricting countries.
- U.S. businesses maintaining Internet content hosting services can personally identify users only for cases of legitimate law enforcement purposes as determined by the U.S. Department of Justice.
OK, so where the hell is *our* right to know? Will all this information, all this back and forth, will it be public?
I love reading Xooglers. But this post, well, I don’t buy it.
The post explains how, because Googlers are generally an exceptional lot, praise was hard to find, and when it did come, it came in a very understated fashion. OK, amongst the ranks, I can buy that. Golden geeks tend to shy from overt idolatry. But they are also human beings. And human beings tend to manage up, period. I’d love to believe that folks spend all *not* telling Marissa, Larry, Sergey, and the other members of the founding class that they are brilliant, but…I don’t buy it.
Women.com: It’s a vertical search thing. (paidcontent)
Prefound.com: It’s in Kentucky (land of Fark and Bourbon), so I already like it. Has a model that pays “Featured Finders.”
Want to know how much content on an engine is sponsored v. organic? So did this academic.
The Amazon Music Player. (NYT)
Homemade kitty exhaust fan (just to see if you’re paying attention) (Make)
Matt M. groks Megite.
Searchblog is my passion. It’s also one hell of a lot of work. And as much as I’d like to claim that I’m doing the best job in the world, I’m clearly not – there’s so much more I’d like to do.
Thanks to FM, which is selling the ads on my site (yeah, OK, I started the company, and it’s the reason I’m so busy, how’s *that* for recursive), I now have money coming in that amounts to more than just a beer budget. So, I’m spending it, on getting help.
In other words, I’m looking for a special someone who wants to be a Searchblog assistant editor. And, to help make this happen, I’m open to making it a full time position, by combining it with a role at FM helping our authors. Here’s a link to the job posting. If you know anyone who might fit this bill, especially folks who are into search, internet companies, the works – why please let me know.
MSN offers free prizes for searching.
Google launches a Google China Blog. It’s Chinese to me. But they do give me link love, which is quite nice. Barry posts on SEW that the first posts seem to be about Valentine’s Day. Not exactly topical.
Another trademark suit a la American Blinds and Geico, Check N Go. (via Cnet)
AOL wants in on the “American Chinese” market. Timing, anyone?
Many folks have noticed that Google is testing click to call.
Very interesting question, Dirson: WILL GOOGLE BAN MOHAMMED CARTOONS FROM THEIR RESULTS?
BIll Gates (BG):….Now in some ways, the digital world is superior. The ability to have anonymity is actually better when you want it. There’s no such thing as going to a soapbox and saying the government’s corrupt and not having the intelligence service see your face. In the digital world, that can be done.
FT: Unless you’re in China.
BG: No, in fact, it can even be done in China. Now China may not like that. ….There are websites that any government wants to block. The truth about the internet is that it’s extremely hard to block anything – extremely hard. You’ll never get perfect blocking. It is an interesting thing that the tools of technology are creating a level of openness that is good in some ways. But there are these things where – like child pornography – it’s harder to block or track than it would have been in the physical world.
FT: Do you keep information on servers inside China?
BG: Our servers are all outside China. This whole thing of inside versus outside China, I never understand that, it somehow comes up in the Google discussion. I don’t get that at all. This is not about where the servers are. We don’t have servers inside China, we just don’t. It may be that for responsiveness at some point we’ll do that, but that’s not the way we work today.
FT: Should the US government establish guidelines to regulate how internet companies deal with censorship in countries like China?
BG: I think something like the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act has been a resounding success in terms of very clearly outlining what companies can’t do and other rich countries largely went along with that. That’s a great thing. I think – [it] may be that idea [will] come along. I hope the people who make those things are sophisticated and not over-simplistic…..
…Clearly people like ourselves are glad to go along with whatever reasonable things gets laid down. That’s why its part of the dialogue.
The internet overwhelmingly makes information available. It is not possible to block information, it is just not. You can make it so that the average person who just clicks on popular websites, with no extra effort, certain things don’t show up there. But in terms of actually blocking information… it’s bad news if you like to block libelous websites, or child pornography, or various things, copyright stealing. It’s very hard to do blocking. You can only take the very direct paths. And particularly if you put something up that says, we took this thing down, think of the time period between when you put it up and when it comes down and how people can cache that. It’s hard to block information. It’s so night and day versus when newspaper publishers and TV owners were small chokepoints that controlled the distribution of information.