27 replies to this topic

[pc4media]

I posted this on a non-seo board:

google used to power yahoo's search. they've been experimenting with non-google results and they switched last night.    yahoo's search results are different from googles now. yahoo used to represent almost half of google's traffic.

and someone responded that they thought this was good for google and i went on a rant. I don't think i'll get much of a response there, so i am reposting it. its mostly about what I think is next in search. What do you all think?

How is it good for google?  They lost their largest customer for reselling algorithmic search solutions as well as paid placement revenue. This is a huge loss for google's revenue.

Both Microsoft and Yahoo are gunning for google, as well as some innovative startups and other sites integrating search into their sites. Search engines have the lowest switching costs. The inktomi powered yahoo search has equally relevant results when compared to google's.

Google's main value is the size of their index. However, there is only incremental value in increasing the size of the index further. They are suffering from the classic case highlighted in Clayton Christensen's, Innovator's Dilemma. They have an innovative culture, but suffer from their lack of need to introduce and commercialize the innovations: they are too successful.  They've conquered, algorithmic search based on a ranking of links, and they've conquered ppc search advertising.

The next step is to increase relevancy and that can only be done by improvement in semantic indexing, watching user behavior, personalization, automatic discovery and integration into the desktop (searching from and searching of). They are working on the first (semantic), but their culture and competitive disadvantage precludes them from exploring the others. Yahoo (monitoring user interests and personalization) and MSN (integration into the desktop, automatic discovery) are better positioned to exploit these innovations, and in so doing, will surpass them in usability and relevancy.

[OldWelshGuy]

I really can not see MS building in direct (no need for browser) search into longhorn, as they will face an anti trust writ that will make their last one look like a walk in the park.

The bulk of revenue for G will be from adwords, and search technology IMO.

There can be nothing positive for anyone with regard the changes at Yahink & MS, all it means is more money to be spent, chasing the same audience.

[The Fish Lake Flash]

Hi OldWelsh,

I disagree. Competition is good for everyone. I think that all the trials many websites went through over the last few months demonstrates this. It's not good to be locked into one search property or another. I've already seen good changes today as Yahoo directed traffic increases. It really opens up a whole new market for me and my company. There are people who wouldn't have found us otherwise. Our numbers are increasing without spending more money. It's time to celebrate the free market, pour the wine and cut the cheese!

The Fish Lake Flash

[OldWelshGuy]

How can competition be a good thing? I TRULY agree with free market competition being good for the consumer as prices become more competitive etc, but what has google been doing that was so wrong that having competition is going to improve?

What will happen, IMO is that we will go from an almost monoploy in the case of Google (80% search) to a 'cartel' between Yahink, ms, Google. The Google model is free inclusion, pay for your position via adwords. The other two major players attitude is you don't pay, you don't play.

OK so INK was not like that fully, its spider was mighty busy scouring the web for sites, but the ethos is still $$$ for inclusion. I for one will be mighty suprised if we do not see a heavy bias in the serps toward sites that have paid for inclusion in the Yahoo directory.

Lets not lose sight of the fact that these companies are fighting for marketshare, this is not a battle for quality of results delivered to the enduser, as (apart from their dalliance into the unknown in the last month or two) Google has had truly superb results.

Maybe I am off base here, But then again, I am someone who sees that apart from releasing half completed products, Microsoft has done no wrong

I just see it as the search world becoming fragmented, which IMO is a retrograde step, not a forward action, money that could have been spent on developing the next generation of search, and fighting spamming, will now be spent on a battle for market share to deliver the same qaulity of result.

[websage]

OWG, have you considered the name WiseWelshGuy?

I completely agree with all your comments. I particularly agree with the notion that Google will continue favoring informational sites for its free SERP and will gently suggest that commercial sites should use AdWords as the only predictable way to claim top rankings.

[pc4media]

Lets not lose sight of the fact that these companies are fighting for marketshare, this is not a battle for quality of results delivered to the enduser, as (apart from their dalliance into the unknown in the last month or two) Google has had truly superb results.

Maybe I am off base here, But then again, I am someone who sees that apart from releasing half completed products, Microsoft has done no wrong 

I just see it as the search world becoming fragmented, which IMO is a retrograde step, not a forward action, money that could have been spent on developing the next generation of search, and fighting spamming, will now be spent on a battle for market share to deliver the same qaulity of result.

Do you really think that these 3 companies will carve out their 33% and then stop innovating?

Of course, google has the best results, but there has to be other ways to improve relevancy.... Do none of these technologies/techniques excite you?:

increase relevancy by...
semantic indexing,
watching user behavior, personalization,
automatic discovery and
integration into the desktop (searching from and searching of).
IBM webfountain and the discovery of trends and intelligence.

[The Fish Lake Flash]

Hi OldWelsh,

I respect your opinions on a lot of things, but I think you're really wrong here. It's better because the free market forces companies to do better or cease to be relevant or profitable. How can you talk of oligarchy? Don't you think things are 100% better than yesterday? Think about it, yesterday we had a search property with 56-60% market share. Today, it is less, but the searchers aren't different they're just using another search entity whether they know it or not. I would guess most don't even know. This isn't about paying for inclusion or per click. It's about delivering relevant results by the search companies and us who own websites and manage them. Increased competition always raises the bar on service, product innovation in a timely manner. Google is arrogant and has made the typical mistake that successful companies do. They think they're the ONLY ones who can do it right. Remember the biggest lie a business can tell themselves is: "We are the best".

By the way, to celebrate this myself, I'm going to buy some Yahoo stock.

[OldWelshGuy]

Do you really think that these 3 companies will carve out their 33% and then stop innovating?

Do none of these technologies/techniques excite you?:

You have just hit the nail on the head, we both agree.

They are going to more focused on carving out market share, than doing what you state in your second question, that was the basis of my not wanting it to happen now. With all the new moving forward technology we have coming online, the last thing we needed was a turf war to slow down bringing it online.

In answer to your second question though Damn right they excite me

[OldWelshGuy]

Fish Lake that's what makes business great, people who disagree, and follow their own business ideas with passion and commitment. It is waht sets the free world apart from the rest.

Time will tell, and when it does, neither of us will say I told you so , as we will have forgotten what or when anything was said, we will have more important fish to fry

BTW

By the way, to celebrate this myself, I'm going to buy some Yahoo stock.

is there any available then?

[eCommando]

How does Inktomi rank sites? What criterias does it use?

ex. google uses link popularity. How does Inktomi knows which site is more relevant?

[rzehr]

For what it's worth, re. Yahoo favoring its paid directory listings, I can cite a strong counter-example, where 13 of the first twenty results (11 of them mine, heh, heh, heh) consists of commercial sites that don't appear in the Yahoo directory....

[Randy]

I'll have to politely disagree with you on this one OWG, though your points are well taken.

Regarding the new competition in the search industry, I personally think that is a good thing. I also don't think it will be a detriment to the rollout of new and better features whatsoever. Instead of the development sector of one dominant player being able to take their good old time coming up with the next "killer" innovation, now they'll be forced to throw development into high gear to make sure theirs gets released and gets all of the press before the others guys do.

These search companies all make plenty of money, guesstimates on Google's yearly income range from $750 million to $1 billion. Yahoo's is higher, but part of that is because of their Portal nature. MS is loaded to begin with...no concern there. So there is no shortage of funding on the near horizon that I can see.

There has however been a shortage of Impetus for a long while now to spur rapid development. I don't blame Google for that one iota either, there was no need for a faster rollout of anything new and exciting since they were the undisputed King for years and years.

Marketshare: The first fight over marketshare will be a huge one, but it won't have a thing to do with each of the Big 3 capturing their own new users. That fight will be expensive for the winner and the loser --if Google in fact loses them-- and very profitable for AOL. I've said it before and I'll say it again, whoever ends up with AOL's millions of users takes the early lead because they then hold a marketshare advantage. And can advertise that fact to the world.

The current Google/AOL contract was signed in May 2002 and the only length information released about it that I've ever seen simply stated that it was a "multi-year" agreement. Does that mean 2 years, as in May 2004? Or 3 years? Is there any out in the agreement for either side? Only the two of them know for sure to my knowledge. However I do admit that the timing of the MSN and Yahink rollouts are a curiosity to me, especially how it fits into the big picture if the contract expires May 2004.

The second part of the marketshare war will be one more focused on creating Customer Loyalty than anything else in my mind. Sure they'll all be trying to get somebody else's customers, but they'll also want to make sure they can keep the ones they already have.

I think Yahoo! currently has the best bet of keeping their user-base. Most of their users are already registered, either directly through Yahoo! itself or because of one of the partnerships Y! has with the various ISP's. So there's already something of an investment from the users perspective. MSN is a little better off than Google currently, but not much.

As regards Longhorn and Microsoft's desire to incorporate search into everything on the OS, you can count on it happening. Initially MS will say that it's a new local computer search technology and is so integrated into the OS that it can't be removed. (Sound familiar?) There will be an anti-trust suit filed, and it will likely end up with MS saying to the other search engines, "Fine, if you want users to be able to use your search capabilities for Internet searches, open your API to us and we'll give user an option of choosing which they want to use."

Which of course still comes with MSN search as the Default search engine used. But which satisfies the courts because the others aren't being locked out.

(Can ya tell I've thought about all of this too much? LOL)

Lastly, I think the competition is a good thing for searchers. I think it's a great thing for SEO's and Web Marketers. Brings more value to what you do for clients and keeps those who sell on the web from being so dependent on a single source for their livelihood.

Remember the old adage that has always applied to SEO's? Adapt or die?

It's been too long since this applied to Search Engines because there was no competition with deep enough pockets to rival Google and it's wonderful algorithm. Most new kids on the block which had promise were bought out before they could become a threat.

The phrase applies once again to the Search Engines. Adapt, do it better than anybody else, or you lose. Which is only right IMHO.

Edited by Randy, 18 February 2004 - 06:19 PM.

[gstark]

There has however been a shortage of Impetus for a long while now to spur rapid development. I don't blame Google for that one iota either, there was no need for a faster rollout of anything new and exciting since they were the undisputed King for years and years.

I swear, I'm turning into a grumpy old fart.

Can you hear how crazy 'years and years' sounds on a tech this young?

I swear, I think I am beginning to hate the Internet.

Unless I am mistaken, Google will be 5 in 6 months!

Not that I fault your statement. it makes sense in this crazy culture.

Gary

[Scottie]

LOL- let's get semantical... "years" would be more than 1- so at least 2. Years and years would have to be at least 4... so it still works.

Just picking on you, Gary.

[Dragon]

I also think competition is a good thing - in any industry. A dog that is spoilt gets fat ;-) !!

Competition makes you either gear up or give up. Google can do with a good shake up - it will only do them better in the long run. The entire world "googles" it more than it "msn"'s it or "Yahoo/yahink"'s it. From the current Keep the Faith When the [url=http://searchengineland.com/070621-145956.php]Keep the Faith When the Algo Changes[/url] (since November) it is clear that they are searching to improve the relevance of their results, and once they dust themselves off & establish an improvement as the web's most relevant SE....who knows - that is the excitement of this industry !

I do however hear what you say PC4Media, but just because the *MS SE will be integrated into a Windows OS does not mean that it would necessarily be used more by the industry* and

OWG I agree with your statement "...money that could have been spent on developing the next generation of search, and fighting spamming, will now be spent on a battle for market share to deliver the same qaulity of result..."
Would it not be great if in 2 years all concerned realise this concept & start working together for one unified SE - total world domination in equality - hmmm i could spend a week thinking of what might happen !