<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Thoughts On Google Press Day</title>
	<atom:link href="http://battellemedia.com/archives/2006/05/thoughts_on_google_press_day.php/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://battellemedia.com/archives/2006/05/thoughts_on_google_press_day.php?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=thoughts_on_google_press_day</link>
	<description>Thoughts on the intersection of search, media, technology, and more.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 May 2013 04:38:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: JG</title>
		<link>http://battellemedia.com/archives/2006/05/thoughts_on_google_press_day.php#comment-16043</link>
		<dc:creator>JG</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 May 2006 22:29:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://battellemedia.com/archives/2006/05/thoughts_on_google_press_day.php#comment-16043</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;SE Web wrote: &lt;i&gt;He disapproves of their SEO tactics - but what alternatives are there? To eternally buy ADWORDS for the rest of their company&#039;a existence?&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;I&#039;ve been saying something very similar for years.  Google likes to talk about how the organic and the paid listings are &quot;independent&quot;.  However, this just ain&#039;t true.  While they might not mix any actual links, the one side exerts  not-to-subtle pressure on the other side, and vice versa.  What happens on one side definitely affects what happens on the other.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Andrew Orlowski has a great piece, aptly entitled &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/05/10/google_microsoft_redux/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The worse Google gets, the more money it makes?&lt;/a&gt;  (See page 2 for the meat of the argument.)  You could see this coming from the day Google sold its first ad.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>SE Web wrote: <i>He disapproves of their SEO tactics &#8211; but what alternatives are there? To eternally buy ADWORDS for the rest of their company&#8217;a existence?</i></p>
<p>I&#8217;ve been saying something very similar for years.  Google likes to talk about how the organic and the paid listings are &#8220;independent&#8221;.  However, this just ain&#8217;t true.  While they might not mix any actual links, the one side exerts  not-to-subtle pressure on the other side, and vice versa.  What happens on one side definitely affects what happens on the other.</p>
<p>Andrew Orlowski has a great piece, aptly entitled <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/05/10/google_microsoft_redux/" rel="nofollow">The worse Google gets, the more money it makes?</a>  (See page 2 for the meat of the argument.)  You could see this coming from the day Google sold its first ad.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: bob</title>
		<link>http://battellemedia.com/archives/2006/05/thoughts_on_google_press_day.php#comment-16042</link>
		<dc:creator>bob</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 May 2006 21:38:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://battellemedia.com/archives/2006/05/thoughts_on_google_press_day.php#comment-16042</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;&quot;An expansion of what search means. With Trends, Google is finally starting to mine the Database of Intentions for the obvious value it contains. With Co-Op, it&#039;s starting to mine intentional clickstream. These two signals are critical to advances in search.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;What exactly does all this jargon mean? &lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;An expansion of what search means. With Trends, Google is finally starting to mine the Database of Intentions for the obvious value it contains. With Co-Op, it&#8217;s starting to mine intentional clickstream. These two signals are critical to advances in search.&#8221;</p>
<p>What exactly does all this jargon mean? </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Hooman Radfar</title>
		<link>http://battellemedia.com/archives/2006/05/thoughts_on_google_press_day.php#comment-16041</link>
		<dc:creator>Hooman Radfar</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 May 2006 15:36:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://battellemedia.com/archives/2006/05/thoughts_on_google_press_day.php#comment-16041</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;John, just started reading your book - interesting compilation of thoughts and research.  Given Google&#039;s public announcements and your knowledge of the &quot;search&quot; market, what do you think Google&#039;s top 3 goals are over the course of the next year? &lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>John, just started reading your book &#8211; interesting compilation of thoughts and research.  Given Google&#8217;s public announcements and your knowledge of the &#8220;search&#8221; market, what do you think Google&#8217;s top 3 goals are over the course of the next year? </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Leonid</title>
		<link>http://battellemedia.com/archives/2006/05/thoughts_on_google_press_day.php#comment-16040</link>
		<dc:creator>Leonid</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 May 2006 13:51:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://battellemedia.com/archives/2006/05/thoughts_on_google_press_day.php#comment-16040</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;I think that more then 50% of all Web pages are duplicates!&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think that more then 50% of all Web pages are duplicates!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Fergus Macdonald</title>
		<link>http://battellemedia.com/archives/2006/05/thoughts_on_google_press_day.php#comment-16039</link>
		<dc:creator>Fergus Macdonald</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 May 2006 05:02:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://battellemedia.com/archives/2006/05/thoughts_on_google_press_day.php#comment-16039</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Nice round up. I have just completed an analysis on Google for my class on Internet Business Models, and our conclusion was that Google seemed to be diversifying too much and not focussing on a single area for sustained competitive advantage. Their recent announcements seem to show that they are in fact strategically aligned, and not just a bunch of guys roaming around inventing whatever they think is fun - an image they like to project to make them seem less corporate and less dangerous to competitors.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Their moves into social networking are also a sound move, they need to have a grasp on where that area of the internet is moving. I would imagine in coming months we will see a rival to Flickr - one of the main areas they still don&#039;t compete in.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nice round up. I have just completed an analysis on Google for my class on Internet Business Models, and our conclusion was that Google seemed to be diversifying too much and not focussing on a single area for sustained competitive advantage. Their recent announcements seem to show that they are in fact strategically aligned, and not just a bunch of guys roaming around inventing whatever they think is fun &#8211; an image they like to project to make them seem less corporate and less dangerous to competitors.</p>
<p>Their moves into social networking are also a sound move, they need to have a grasp on where that area of the internet is moving. I would imagine in coming months we will see a rival to Flickr &#8211; one of the main areas they still don&#8217;t compete in.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Search Engines WEB</title>
		<link>http://battellemedia.com/archives/2006/05/thoughts_on_google_press_day.php#comment-16038</link>
		<dc:creator>Search Engines WEB</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 May 2006 04:58:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://battellemedia.com/archives/2006/05/thoughts_on_google_press_day.php#comment-16038</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;&gt; Tt is very hard to believe that 50% of all Web pages are duplicates...&lt;br /&gt;
Alan Eustace, appears to have little empathy or understanding of the conflicts faced by Small Commercial sites in getting respectable organic rankings in Google.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;If sites resort to Link buying or establishing their link netorks, it is because of the pervasive inherent problems that are only getting worse.  &lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;He disapproves of their SEO tactics - but what alternatives are there?  To eternally buy ADWORDS for the rest of their company&#039;a existence? &lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;One analogy he gave was the presumption that when seachers search for VIAGRA - they  looking for infomational sites not sales sites, and when they were searching for CREDIT CARDS - they were seeking Master or VISA or AMEX - not a directory of card business.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;What is wrong with his argument, is that he is making an extreme generalization about CASUAL searchers. Searchers who use a one word of simple search terms, can NOT be generalized like that. They are potentially as varied as any consumer could possibly be. Only personalization could indicate what direction they might be leaning towards.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The ultimate irony is that a site that  markets itself very aggressively for  a keyword -  is in fact illustrating that it is VALID for that keyword.  It is expensive and time consuming to market, would any reasonable firm do it for non valid terms.  &lt;br /&gt;
Webmasters are doing that because they have NO OTHER CHOICE. If a small commercial site waited around until a quality site volunterily added a one way link to them....well....&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;The problem with the Google decision makers is that they are too removed from everyday harsh realities - and probably surrond themselves by others would would not want to stir the pot with controversy.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
What percentage would it be to be an advocate for the commercial nobody trying to get rankings ....&lt;i&gt;LET THEM  BUY ADWORDS!!!!!&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;=====================================&lt;br /&gt;
It is intereting to compare the Video portion of the interview of Google&#039;s CEO with the just release Video of Yahoo&#039; CEO - so similar in many ways&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
newyorker.com/videos/060511onvi_video_semel&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>> Tt is very hard to believe that 50% of all Web pages are duplicates&#8230;<br />
Alan Eustace, appears to have little empathy or understanding of the conflicts faced by Small Commercial sites in getting respectable organic rankings in Google.</p>
<p>If sites resort to Link buying or establishing their link netorks, it is because of the pervasive inherent problems that are only getting worse.  </p>
<p>He disapproves of their SEO tactics &#8211; but what alternatives are there?  To eternally buy ADWORDS for the rest of their company&#8217;a existence? </p>
<p>One analogy he gave was the presumption that when seachers search for VIAGRA &#8211; they  looking for infomational sites not sales sites, and when they were searching for CREDIT CARDS &#8211; they were seeking Master or VISA or AMEX &#8211; not a directory of card business.</p>
</p>
<p>What is wrong with his argument, is that he is making an extreme generalization about CASUAL searchers. Searchers who use a one word of simple search terms, can NOT be generalized like that. They are potentially as varied as any consumer could possibly be. Only personalization could indicate what direction they might be leaning towards.</p>
<p>
The ultimate irony is that a site that  markets itself very aggressively for  a keyword &#8211;  is in fact illustrating that it is VALID for that keyword.  It is expensive and time consuming to market, would any reasonable firm do it for non valid terms.  <br />
Webmasters are doing that because they have NO OTHER CHOICE. If a small commercial site waited around until a quality site volunterily added a one way link to them&#8230;.well&#8230;.</p>
<p>The problem with the Google decision makers is that they are too removed from everyday harsh realities &#8211; and probably surrond themselves by others would would not want to stir the pot with controversy.</p>
<p>
What percentage would it be to be an advocate for the commercial nobody trying to get rankings &#8230;.<i>LET THEM  BUY ADWORDS!!!!!</i></p>
</p>
<p>=====================================<br />
It is intereting to compare the Video portion of the interview of Google&#8217;s CEO with the just release Video of Yahoo&#8217; CEO &#8211; so similar in many ways</p>
<p>
newyorker.com/videos/060511onvi_video_semel</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: King Troll</title>
		<link>http://battellemedia.com/archives/2006/05/thoughts_on_google_press_day.php#comment-16037</link>
		<dc:creator>King Troll</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 May 2006 03:29:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://battellemedia.com/archives/2006/05/thoughts_on_google_press_day.php#comment-16037</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;First Again! Why delete my post bro?&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>First Again! Why delete my post bro?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
