Tim Conneally at Beta news reports that “[…] Google on Thursday introduced an experimental feature which continues its mission to chip away at undesirable search results and information from “content farms”: the ability to block all results from a particular URL.
Now, when search results are returned, there is a button next to each link labeled “Block all [URLNAME] results.” When clicked, that site is sent to a block list, which can be managed in the user’s Google account.
“We’re adding this feature because we believe giving you control over the results you find will provide an even more personalized and enjoyable experience on Google. In addition, while we’re not currently using the domains people block as a signal in ranking, we’ll look at the data and see whether it would be useful as we continue to evaluate and improve our search results in the future,” Google search quality engineers Amay Champaneria and Beverly Yang said today. […]” (full article here).
Jacqui Cheng at Ars technica adds that “[…] The new blacklisting feature is triggered when you perform a Google search, click on a link, and then go backto Google after having decided that link isn’t what you wanted. When you return to Google the second time, a new option appears next to the Cached link that says “Block all [website name] results.” If you’re logged into your Google account (which is required in order to maintain a blacklist), you can then click that link and get a confirmation message that you want to block it.
Google wrote on its blog that you may not see the site disappear right away if you simply refresh your browser with the same search, but running a new search should get that domain out of your face for good. “The next time you’re searching and a blocked page would have appeared, you’ll see a message telling you results have been blocked, making it easy to manage your personal list of blocked sites,” Google Search quality engineers Amay Champaneria and Beverly Yang wrote. “This message will appear at the top or bottom of the results page depending on the relevance of the blocked pages. […]” (full article here)
I don’t believe this will give in full control to the user (come on, results mean completeness of search and more practically money), but I appreciate the effort mad by Google to allow users to customize they’re searches.
This post as a comment also at Betanews and at Ars Technica
Matt Hartley at Lockergnome wites an article informing us that “[…]Bing now allows mobile users to use mobile search with their voices, much like you might see in Google[…]” (full article at http://www.lockergnome.com/web/2009/10/06/microsoft-brings-voice-bing/).
In my opinion Microsoft is “closing” to strictly on Google. The sense is that I think that is trying to copy or anticipate every move, in order to achieve market quotas.
It’s not a faulty situation at all, but is not what is needed to cause a radical re-advantage on big G: I think that if Micrososft doesn’ find a way to get a technological or a commercial break through, Bing will be an incomplete contender to Google.
This post as a comment also at http://www.lockergnome.com/web/2009/10/06/microsoft-brings-voice-bing/#comment-157819
Matt Hartley at Lockergnome writes an aricle on possible scenarios of Microsoft and Yahoo integration (full article at http://www.lockergnome.com/web/2009/08/24/doj-says-no-to-yahoosoft/).
Seems to me that an integration between the two companies will be more a financial and opportuinistic make up than a real “industrial” integration.
Microsoft will benefits achieving a search engine (which Yahoo has been and is, despite its CEO opinion) with some market and financial problems.
Yahoo will benefit by getting fresh new cash.
That will be drained by Microsoft.
And that’s why in my opinion, Dow Jones is scared.
This comment also as a post at http://www.lockergnome.com/web/2009/08/24/doj-says-no-to-yahoosoft/#comment-154037
Emil Protalinski (http://arstechnica.com/authors/emil-protalinski/) at Ars techinca reports of a survey that, based on US data only, states that Google users do more searches and are more loyal than the others (full article at http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/08/google-users-more-loyal-than-bing-and-yahoo-users.ars).
This doesn’t surprise me, because of how much is Google pervasive: when you start using the features available, is like working on a sort of integrated desktop, and so it’s easy to:
1. be scared of loosing all those integrated features and start using separated providers (that could be better taken one by one but cannot offer a unique service suite)
2. Start “Googling” around and so make some “unuseful” searches.
This commeent also as a post at http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/08/google-users-more-loyal-than-bing-and-yahoo-users.ars?comments=1&comment_id=372009201041
Matt Hartley at Lockergnome asks the question if Google should be scared by Bing (full article at http://www.lockergnome.com/web/2009/08/13/bing-should-google-be-worried/).
In my opinion the answer tho this dilemma is no. Though I agree Google isn’t responding too quicky (or not responding at all), remains by far the most used search engine, with a market share quite similar to a monopoly.
The world is changing and is changing fast, but no more than a month ago we were discussing on Google monopoly and now we are discussing if Bing could represent a threat.
Bing is an opportunity (on consumer side) an investment (on Microsoft side) and a phenomena to watch in order to understand where market is going (on Google side).
But I won’t be surprised if Google won’t move for a while and then make a sudden disruptive move (remember Android…).
This post as a comment also at http://www.lockergnome.com/web/2009/08/13/bing-should-google-be-worried/#comment-153136
Matt Hartely at Lockergnome expresses an opinion on real time search engines like FriendFeed (full article at http://www.lockergnome.com/web/2009/07/06/real-time-search-is-not-a-search-engine-cure.
Matt says “Still, at the end of the day. Real time search is NOT here the way we might like to think it is. While it is cool to watch topics of discussion develop right before our eyes, I have yet to see it solving any relevancy issues whatsoever. And for Joe Casual, that is what matters most about search. Not shiny Ajaxy boxes with real time results.”
When you search, you need a result.
And if this result is not correct or relevant is unusefull.
And this is not related to a real time search, which I consider as a nice to see but not so usefull add on for the average user.
This post as a comment at http://www.lockergnome.com/web/2009/07/06/real-time-search-is-not-a-search-engine-cure/#comment-151088
Matt Hartley (http://www.lockergnome.com/web/author/matt-hartley/) at Lockergnome makes some considerations on Google as a company and possible monopoly implications (full article at http://www.lockergnome.com/web/2009/06/29/is-google-too-big-for-its-britches).
I agree on the fact that Google as a company is big but not to huge.
I agree on the fact that Google has a tremendous market share.
But this position makes Google position “privileged”, avoiding de facto any other player entering the market, despite enormous investments in advertisement and technology development.
Maybe the only one who can attack part of this market share is Microsoft with Bing, but also redmond’s giant will face big problems, because Google is so pervasive in our digital lives that switching to another provider (or maybe more specialized providers) could be really hard for the average user we are not.
This post also at http://www.lockergnome.com/web/2009/06/29/is-google-too-big-for-its-britches/#comment-150365
Matt Hartley at Lockergnome makes some comments on the fact that Google won’t face real threats from supposed competitors within predictable time (full article at http://www.lockergnome.com/web/2009/06/18/search-has-winners-and-losers).
What follows is my comment:
“Google has become so pervasive and so stable in our lives that no real big threat is coming, I think in next periods.
What could be more likely to happen is that some contenders turn in niche players (like I think will happen for Wolphram Alpha) and get some little specific market shares from Google”.
This comment also at http://www.lockergnome.com/web/2009/06/18/search-has-winners-and-losers/#comment-149719
Nate Anderson (http://arstechnica.com/authors/nate-anderson/) at Ars Technica, writes about a new tool called Plagium, that claims to be able to detect and monitor text copyright violations on the net (full article at http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/05/can-web-based-plagiarism-detection-beat-a-google-search.ars).
The intent of the tool is of course positive and interesting because copyright protection is really a mess in this times.
What really makes me think are some things:
- Everyone owns his own thoughts (and that’s right), but when you publish them, in my opinion, you accept the fact that they can be cited, under the conditions that:
– meaning is not changed
– proper context informations are maintained
– credits are given
– publishing is partial (so no full article posting)
If all these four conditions, I don’t see anything strange in citing others, because, in my opinion is a way of spreading content over the internet.
- on the other side, we are talking of something very border line, because sometimes, also professional writers use others words without giving credits.
- Fortunately we are plenty of search engines that ensure us to have a direct and on demand access to informations over the net
- We are talking of web plagiarizm, not academic one (that really deserves more protection even formal)
So which is the value added by a service like Plagium? Especially for web copying market?
I don’t see too much value inside it, a part from appealing graphs and infos.
And I also add that seems to me a little bit paranoic to know everytime something from my blog or my web site is used.
And, in my opinion, another litlle bit of bandwdith wasted in niche services that have little effectiveness.
This article also as a comment at http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/05/can-web-based-plagiarism-detection-beat-a-google-search.ars