Slashdot Mirror
Search Engines Leech Value from Web Sites
bigenchilada writes "Jakob Nielsen, former Sun Distinguished Engineer and now usability guru, proposes "that search engines are sucking out too much of the Web's value, acting as leeches on companies that create the very source materials the search engines index."
He says that the value provided by search engines may be tilting too much in favor of the search engines. The web sites that create content are now simply fodder for the search engines' revenue stream."
This is likely why Google and Yahoo are offering monetization options for content publishers (and creators). Plus, if you don't like search engines "leeching" from you, just set up robots.txt and say no to everything -- they'll go away.
I find that search engines account for nearly 70% of my visitors overall, and account for nearly 60% of my return visitors. I don't believe I can rely on my websites to generate income for me (even if I start selling more products on some sites). As I don't copyright any of my text (I am anti-copyright and put all my creations into the public domain immediately), I use my writings to try to increase my income in my regular life -- speaking engagements, one-on-one consulting, and professional advice to companies and individuals in the markets that I'm valuable in.
Nielsen is nuts if he thinks that the web should scoff at search engines. Search engines are (to me) the biggest reason for the web's overall explosion. Bookmarks help, links from other sites are great, but Google, MSN and Yahoo are the big reasons people can find what we want when we want. If they can't index our sites, how can they send us traffic? Sure, he acknowledges this in his article, but he says that web sites are going from information stores to answer engines. This is completely true, and we all fall victim to our own stupidity when it comes to creating content in an "answer" fashion. I've been working over the past few months to try to create extended interest in my most popular pages (found via search engines) by offering crosslinks to other articles. The longer I can keep the people interested, the more likely I am to see them come back again and again. If you make old "answer" pages, offer links out of those pages that give people MORE information, or give them more questions to find answers to.
Content is worthless without distribution. I prefer face-to-face distribution for profit by using more generic information to "catch" the customer who will hire me. Yet without the search engines, how will I get the word out? Hire a publicist?
Slightly off-topic here:
I think its crazy to put quality profitable information on a website (or even in a book, on a CD or in a movie) that you don't want used by others. Copyright may "protect" you from someone knocking it off in high quantity, but that isn't always where information is the most valuable. Using information in an expert situation is how you can turn quality profitable information into that quality profit -- by selling your advice on a person-to-person level (I call it a performance).
... then learn to use robots.txt. Simple really.
__Laugh daily funny adult videos
The question, then, is how much will the growth of Wikipedia negativly effect Google? I know I've started doing Wikipedia searches for things I would have Googled for before.
I read this article when it went high on the del.icio.us/popular list. Long story short: this guy is complaining about *advertising* links in a search engine. Then he goes and compares a bunch of apples to oranges and concludes the sky is falling (yes, I meant to mix metaphors, as this is what this guy does in his complaint).
If you look at his analysis, he is coming from this from a perspective that most of the Internet can't really related to: a business to business commerce site that uses no advertising revenue and pays a high "click-through" cost for each visitor from a search engine.
After all of those constraints are in place, he further comes up with the idea that by making $4 per visitor (after COGS and conversion rates) "the site can pay $3.99 per click". Well, I guess if you really are hellbent on giving your profits away you could...
He tries to justify this by saying that "if you don't pay this, other sites can outbid you". He justifies this by saying that others will use his sites methods to improve conversion rates and therefore they will outbid you with the increased revenue. Well, maybe, or maybe they will keep some of the profit.
This commentary is not applicable to those with advertising supported models, nor those who are willing to differentiate themselves by more than hyper-competition in search engine optimization. Which means pretty much most web sites are *not* going to see the results that are predicted here. The ones that *will* see this are those that don't have a differentiator and live and die by the converted sale. I think I will cry now... [sniff]... poor toner refill sites.
His solution: #1, spam the user. #2, notification spam. #4, multi level marketing.
Sig under construction since 1998.
The problem is that copying stuff from my website is too easy. We need stronger copyright laws.
No, wait -- we need *weaker* copyright laws because then I can use anything I find on my site.
Er, no, wait -- we need *stronger* copyright laws because big-money search engines are destroying the value of the little guys.
No, no, no, wait -- we need *weaker* copyright laws because then I can download movies legally.
Ah. I've got it. We need *weak* or *zero* copyright laws for me, and *strong* copyright laws for everybody besides me.
The author's point is, in a nutshell, that web business are reducible to the cost of their traffic and the revenue it can generate.
His example is something like this: 100 users with a 1% conversion rate for a $4 net profit means you pay $3.99 to the Search Engine for traffic to make 1 cent. Since the search engines are effectively a traffic auction, you always pay exactly as much as your competitors are willing to pay plus a small amount...
I find fault with this argument, because search engines are not a traffic auction, exactly. Google sells adwords but it primarily gives users what they ask for, not what others pay for. Still this is the reality and the mindset of many online businesses, if there are 10,000 other companies like yours, you can only be seen by buying traffic.
His concern is that the search engines' position is too strong - they're the bottleneck, and they price like it. They've created a market where they take most of the profits from any online enterprise. If web businesses find a way to increase margins then it instantly translates into increased search engine fees rather than increased profits, and google earns it by sitting back and "doing nothing."
Of course, they do something, but just like Sony and Tower records, their indispensability may have been converted into a disproportionate amount of the profits of global enterprise.
From 20,000 feet, thinking in a way we seldom do anymore, we could consider alternate regulatory regimes that might tinker with the market. For instance, if you accept that this state of affairs may not be optimal (a few megagiants and millions of small businesses beholden to them), you could flatten it by reinterpreting things like copyright, so that the search engine is not entitled to list anything without splitting a cut of the profits of that enterprise with the content creators.
I'm not actually suggesting this, just trying to seed discussion. One thing that this vaguely reminds me of is the Neal Stephenson concept of the free-market encyclopedia, where anyone can write anything and upload it into the system, and then you get paid, more or less directly, for traffic... presumably by redistribution of fees paid into the system to view content. It's appealing in the way it incentivizes creation of content, especially in such an egalitarian way.
We've got an all-you-can eat model where you pay for access and others pay to publish and writers can pay the rent with advertising or subscriptions... and of course, we have a free market for search services... I like it well enough, but I do sympathize with content creators, who still seem to struggle to realize the value of their intellectual works.
Tired of Political Trolls? Opt Out!
A book author typically makes less than five grand for a GOOD selling book, which can take months or even years to produce and get published. Copyright law helps to insure that he makes royalties above and beyond his advance(sometimes), and makes money from resale rights. You business model would see him lose a lot of that money, and spend valuable writing time touring the country signing books in exchange for his pittance. (Which writers rarely get paid for at all right now, beyond expenses...it is normally part of their contract that the publisher has the discretion to request them for special appearances while promoting their book.)
Most bands working the clubs make a few hundred dollars a night, which is split among the members and their crew and rarely adds up to much. Big name acts make millions, but booking their huge venues is not cheap, either, and a LOT of people get their fingers in the pie. They often make less than you would think.
Commerical artists get paid very little for their work, unless they are (once again) among the top tier of a very competitive industry. Stock art and photography have put increasing pressure on their revenue sources, as most publishers look for low cost solutions to their graphic needs. Art has, and always will, take time to produce, and a single sale rarely justifies the time invested in a work of art. Copyright law enables the artist to offer different rights packages to different clients (first North American serial rights, reprint rights, exclusive rights for s particular sales medium, etc), which can help offset what would otherwise be a clear loss.
It's that, or the galleries.
All of these professions exist because copyright law makes them workable.
Copyright law could stand to be loosened (specifically, it's duration needs to be shortened, and it needs to be less retrictive regarding derivative works), but abolishing it altogether is not such a good idea from the standpoint of most of the truly creative people in this country. It's hard enough to make a living as an artist, musician or writer now. We'd have to put them on welfare if we abolished copyright law altogether.
Everyone here seems to asume that copyright law is just the lapdog of large corporations and overpaid celebrities. In some ways, it is. But for every band of thugs like the RIAA, there are dozens of little guys ekeing out a bit of money from the arts who really need that protection...mainly from parasites like the RIAA. (Most people are too decent to rip you off, but corporations will rob you blind in a heartbeat.)
What you propose is intellectual socialism. I think we've all seen just how well things work out when "the people" collectively own all the property.
No thanks.
You really should consider patenting the idea, or else someone will steal it.