Slashdot Mirror
Google Counters AOL Deal Speculation
arrrrg writes "Google has responded to speculation of biased search results and flashy banner ads arriving in the wake of their recent $1 Billion deal with AOL. On their official blog, they deny that users will see any negative changes. In particular they maintain that search results will remain unbiased and the site will remain free of banner ads." From the post: "Indexing more of AOL's content. Our goal is to organize all of the world's information. When we say 'all the world's information,' this includes AOL's. We're going to work with the webmasters at AOL -- just as we work with webmasters all over the world -- to help them understand how the Google crawler works (with regard to robots.txt, how to use redirects, non-html content, etc.) so we don't inadvertently overlook their content."
We're going to work with the webmasters at AOL -- just as we work with webmasters all over the world -- to help them understand how the Google crawler works (with regard to robots.txt, how to use redirects, non-html content, etc.) so we don't inadvertently overlook their content."
No need to pay 1B for that, eh?
Can we atlease overlook all of the AOL popup ads? I can't believe that people actually paid for AOL. As far as I'm concerned all they did was pay for popup ads and under par internet service. If it was for the instant messenger, you could get that for free.
Man, you'd have to PAY me a billion dollars to work with AOL "webmasters". A lot of these people still thing AOL=The Internet.
- There will be no banner ads on the Google homepage or web search results pages. There will not be crazy, flashy, graphical doodads flying and popping up all over the Google site. Ever.
Will the same be true for all the hundreds of thousands of sites in Google's ad display network?
Google achieved much through its innovation in text advertising. It proved that relevance is way more effective than blinking and moving graphics.
But now my local Google rep tells me Google accepts graphical banner content including Macromedia Flash format.
They're making some sort of guarantees about their own Google web site in TFA, but what about all their affiliate relays? Will Google allow customers to flood those with annoying graphical ads?
...when they say they "want to organize the world's data, including AOL's." Doesn't Google already crawl and catalog sites on AOL or created by AOL subscribers? Or are they talking about things like multimedia content that is only available to AOL users? I was under the impression that internet content served by AOL worked just like any other site on the internet. Does AOL currently block Google from cataloging/caching all content served by AOL via robots.txt or other methods? I am not an AOL subscriber so if someone out there could share with the rest of the class, it would be appreciated.
I hope they do indeed not change anything. They will however see any change as a good thing, like they first took away the good interface from dejanews and now turned of quoting by default in google groups and thus raping everybody that is NOT using google for Usenet to read and/or post.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
I read that (and I might be wrong) that Google makes $400 Million in ad revenue from AOL subscribers (who, presumably, arrive at google from AOL). If microsoft had bought this steak in AOL, and cut Google out of AOL, then Google would be out $400Million a year.
I see this purchase as Google protecting the traffic it gets from AOL. In a little over 2 years they will have made their $1 billion back.
Remember when Ballmer said "I'm going to kill google?". Google just spent some of its HUGE cash pile on protection against MS. Fair play to them.
But of course, it is Google...they could not possibly be lying, can they? I am really concerned about this. Not the fact that they have all this power, but more the fact that nobody seems to see any problem with it. "Because they do no evil". They still are a company, a big one, and companies (espacially big ones) are more or less meant to be evil. Why would Google be an exception? They did, after all, buy a big chunk of stock in a comonly known as evil one...!
Even if it is $400Million in revenue per year, that is not profit. GOOG spent a billion in CASH, who knows how many years it will take to recoup that.
It sounds dumb to me, but hopefully GOOG's executive staff has run the numbers. MSFT isn't "bad", and GOOG isn't "good" - they both only care about the money.
You may be forgetting a human element in this.
Someone on the edge of the relationship, either on the AOL side or the Google side, may have their success very tied in with how this partnership will result. For example, I pushed this deal to buy the $1b stake. It would be good for me to show that the stake is worth something, so I push for AOL to show in a bunch of places.
This would usefully be from the business persons side, rather than a programmers side. Google has grown a lot in a short time, and corporate culture can be tricky to maintain.
This does happen. Let's say some programmer focused on the users said, look, AOL's content is garbage, we should reduce their ranking everywhere, block them from onebox. The guy who pitched a $1b deal is not going to like that and it simply would not be permitted to happen.
And AOL clearly has an incentive to influence Google, and with a $1b partnership, you can bet they will now have a team working to do so.
These things can be surprisingly powerful, I've always been amazed at how after time elapses these types of setups can affect things.
The pure play to keep AdWords at AOL (which arguablly was the point of this deal) would be to increase the share AOL got of the revenue. That would be the marketplace approach. Take the $1b you paid them now, and instead just adjust payments on adwords so over 5 years they get the $1b. This keeps google focused on the user.
It sounds to me that they're going to make darn sure AOL's content is properly indexed. That will have to change the results of a search from what it is today; helping AOL get better placement isn't bias?
Yes, they also work with other webmasters. And I suppose they do have to protect themselves from getting hit with a chair...
first of, it goes without saying misrosoft is pure evil.
Personal bias aside:
Microsoft is going to go out of buisness.
Google is poised to take over the desktop market
(if not globaly, then domesticly at least).
Think about it, nobody wants a computer, they want a web browser and an office suite.
If google can put OpenOffice online, then suddenly all people need is a thin client that can handle PPPoE/DHCP have a USB port for a memory key
and an embedded web browser. If you have access to that 2 Gig of gmail space from the online office, you can drop the mem key. And there are embedded systems booting of 64Meg flash drives that run linux and firefox today! I feel we are on the virge of a descktop revolution, poised to regress to the client/server model of times gone. Sure hackers, gear heads and gamers will keep their power systems, but your average CPA and her 12yo son will be happy with a thin client that takes up no more room than a LCD monitor, and a playstation 2.
If you resist reading what you disagree with, how will you ever acquire deeper insights into your own beliefs?