Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google and Yahoo! Working Together On Better Web Indexing

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the my-robots.txt-thanks-you dept.

Karzz1 writes "In an exclusive video interview with WebProNews, Yahoo and Google announced a collaborative site called sitemaps.org. Yahoo!'s Tim Mayer states in the video, 'This is something we are announcing tonight at around 9 PM tonight (Las Vegas) Google and Yahoo have gotten together to provide webmasters and publishers a unified way to send their content... let our search engines know about new and existing content.'"

22 of 94 comments (clear)

  1. What About Microsoft? by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Well, I went to the sitemaps.org site & looked around for the people owning/running/maintaining the page. In the TOS, I found it to start with:
    Terms of service

    This is a contract between you and each of the sponsors of Sitemaps.org: Google, Inc., Yahoo, Inc., and Microsoft Corporation (referred to collectively in this agreement as the "Sponsors," "we," or "us"). By using the Sitemaps.org website (the "Website") you agree to be bound by the following terms and conditions (the "Terms of Service").

    Scope of Terms of Services; License

    These Terms of Service govern your use of the Website. The Sponsors' copyrights in the sitemaps protocol specification, as published on the Website (the "Specification"), are licensed to you under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (version 2.5). Other than the Sponsors' copyrights in this Specification, no intellectual property rights of any kind are granted or may arise under these Terms of Service, whether express, implied or otherwise.
    So as you can see, Microsoft is also involved in a project under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (version 2.5). Which is in and of itself something newsworthy in my opinion--since they're so often played as the bad guy on Slashdot. Frankly, the article states:
    "The quality of your index is predicated by the quality of your sources and Windows Live Search is happy to be working with Google and Yahoo! on Sitemaps to not only help webmasters, but also help consumers by delivering more relevant search results so they can find what they're looking for faster," said Ken Moss, General Manager of Windows Live Search at Microsoft.
    So why is Microsoft omitted from the summary & title of this news? Surely their Windows Live Search is contributing just as much as Yahoo!'s search or Google's search engine.

    I'm confused--when Microsoft does something good, do we just ignore it? You know, I'm all for criticizing their evil plans for world domination in the software market but shouldn't news be subjective not objective even if it is only for nerds?

    Side note, I'll bet this post hits rock bottom like any other post that says something positive about Microsoft.
    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:What About Microsoft? by Kozz · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm confused--when Microsoft does something good, do we just ignore it?

      You must be new here.

      --
      I only post comments when someone on the internet is wrong.
    2. Re:What About Microsoft? by Salvance · · Score: 3, Informative

      What I find interesting is that this article was submitted multiple times last night with Microsoft's name actually included Microsoft in the title (the Firehose is a pretty cool feature of being a subscriber BTW since you can see all submissions, not just accepted ones). Either the wording wasn't as concise/clear (I don't remember), or there was a little bias exhibitted by the editors.

      --
      Crack - Free with every butt and set of boobs
    3. Re:What About Microsoft? by mpcooke3 · · Score: 2, Informative

      To be fair google and yahoo are the big search engine players, MSN search is under 15% of the market compared to say googles at around 45% and yahoo at around 30%.

      Source: http://searchenginewatch.com/showPage.html?page=21 56431

    4. Re:What About Microsoft? by Karzz1 · · Score: 4, Informative

      I was the one who submitted this article and the reason MS was not mentioned is that they were not involved in the video interview that was released. I could have been a bit more specific with regards to the description though, so as not to ignore MS involvement in the project.

      --
      Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
    5. Re:What About Microsoft? by Himring · · Score: 4, Funny

      Its not the fact that we ignore the good things that Microsoft do...its the fact that that Microsoft rarely do a sumthing good that we get distracted by the bad things its doin....

      ...

      ahh, my hed asplode....

      --
      "All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
    6. Re:What About Microsoft? by Coward+the+Anonymous · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I'm confused--when Microsoft does something good, do we just ignore it? You know, I'm all for criticizing their evil plans for world domination in the software market but shouldn't news be subjective not objective even if it is only for nerds?

      You got those backwards. Objective means without bias while the news you are complaining about is subjective, it is biased towards downplaying the good things Microsoft does.

      Semantics, they'll get you everytime.
      --
      -- Jason
    7. Re:What About Microsoft? by joto · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In other words, MSN is bigger in the search market, than firefox is in the browser market.

    8. Re:What About Microsoft? by ScentCone · · Score: 3, Funny

      or there was a little bias exhibitted by the editors

      Is that like being a little pregnant?

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    9. Re:What About Microsoft? by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Side note, I'll bet this post hits rock bottom like any other post that says something positive about Microsoft


      Sometimes I get this petty little feeling that there should be a "-1, Martyr Complex" mod option. But of course, this only feeds said complex. And that's the problem with a lot of moderations - sometimes its more effective responding with why an opinion might be missing something.

      Having said that - responding is also only so effective. The linked example works well to demonstrate it. In the responses this down-modded post got, someone took the time to point out to you that "free" was not an issue of cost. Your entire post was derailed. Now you moan and groan about the injustices visited upon you due to anti-Microsoft sentiment. You're either refusing to listen, are slow on the pick-up, or are intentionally trolling.

      Back on point...

      Sure - there's a fair amount of anti-Microsoft sentiment here. I like it. You'll have to excuse me if I don't gush about Microsoft's latest venture like so much of the rest of the industry. But I will agree that we must be guarded to ensure we don't allow ourselves to get too carried away.

      Next time - have the conviction in your opinion to state it without the cheap mod / martyrdom ploy.
    10. Re:What About Microsoft? by pboulang · · Score: 3, Funny

      That is completely new behavior on the part of the editors. In the past they have always had the utmost journalistic integrity and wrote the book on balanced reporting. Maybe they are being held captive kidnappers and this is their cry for help. You should call the FBI to come in and investigate.

      --

      This comment is guaranteed*

      *not guaranteed

  2. Re:wow by JCOTTON · · Score: 2, Funny

    YAGOO

  3. Re:wow by harrythefish · · Score: 5, Funny

    YaGoo(r)! Surely? Sounds like a Web 2.0 Bukkake party

    --
    I like Apple. They make nice stuff which works most of the time.
  4. Re:The Department Raises a Valid Point by Rob+T+Firefly · · Score: 2, Insightful
    What is the real purpose of this collaboration? To me it looks like an attempt for the search engines to get content providers to make the search engine's job that much easier.
    That makes sense, though. The whole reason for the web is the content provided by content providers, and they need the search engines to know what they have to offer just as badly as the search engines need the content to search for. It's all symbiotic, and it is just logical that one side is willing to help the other do something that ultimately helps both sides.
    --
    Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
  5. Over compilicated!!! by hey · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why not just have a link from your main page to an HTML sitemap that links to all pages on your site.
    Nice and easy. And usable by people and crawlers.

  6. Subjective... by scombs · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Example Code from: http://www.sitemaps.org/protocol.html/
    <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
    <urlset xmlns="http://www.sitemaps.org/schemas/sitemap/0.9 ">
    <url>
    <loc>http://www.example.com/</loc>
    <lastmod>2005-01-01</lastmod>
    <changefreq>monthly</changefreq>
    <priority>0.8</priority>
    </urlset>
    Is it just me, or does the priority tag seem really objective and arbitrary? One webmaster's .5 could be another's .8...
    1. Re:Subjective... by LanMan04 · · Score: 4, Informative

      That's exactly right. The priority tag only applies to pages on your site, and is a relative measure. So (I would assume) that assigning a priority range of 0 to 0.5 would be the same to the search engine as a range of 0.5 to 1.

      In other words, assigning a priority of 1 to all your pages will not affect their ranking vs. *other* sites that appear in the search results, only vs. other pages on your site. And if they're all 1, then you're telling the crawler that they're all equally important, just as if you had assigned them all a value of .5 (or anything else).

      --
      With the first link, the chain is forged.
    2. Re:Subjective... by Pollardito · · Score: 2, Funny

      You see, most blokes, you know, will be marking all their pages at ten. You're on ten here, all the way up, all the way up, all the way up, you're on ten on your priority. Where can you go from there? Where?

      I don't know.

      Nowhere. Exactly. What we do is, if we need that extra push over the cliff, you know what we do?

      Put it up to eleven.

      Eleven. Exactly. One higher.

    3. Re:Subjective... by Jeff+Molby · · Score: 2, Interesting
      In other words, assigning a priority of 1 to all your pages will not affect their ranking vs. *other* sites that appear in the search results

      Are you sure?

      If two pages from different site are determined to be of approximately equal relevance to the search, couldn't a search engine pick a favorite by using the internal priority ranking?

      Wouldn't a page on widgets be more relevant coming from a widget-maker (who would give it a higer internal priority than his gadget pages) than a similar page coming from a gadget-maker (who would give it a lower internal priority than his gadget pages)?

      I'm not saying this is necessarily a bad thing. It would probably yield better search results. But if things do go that way, I bet you'll find that content makers will quickly abandon the use of internal priorities.
  7. Text Browsers by poindextrose · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's too bad that the specification only covers information relevant to search engines.

    How about a <description> tag? I would take great interest in a sitemap specification that gives me enough information to navigate major parts of a site with a viewer plugin (of some sort) in a web browser.

    There's nothing worse than fumbling around navigating page after page when the web server is slow, the pages are image- or ad-heavy, or the navigation on the page just plain sucks.

    --
    Karma: Raspberry Kiwi
  8. Re:The Department Raises a Valid Point by garcia · · Score: 2, Informative

    Is this good or bad for the end users of the internet--will it just increase the incentive for spiders and bots to crawl sites?

    I've been using Google's Sitemaps program for quite some time. I don't want the spiders crawling old and pointless content when there is new and more relevant stuff available for them to display to end users. Why would it increase spidering when they are being specifically told what and how important something is to spider?

    I have noticed a significant decrease in the overall spidering of my site (thank god) but more targeted spidering, especially after Google is notified that I have a new sitemap available.

  9. How do I submit a sitemap to Yahoo/Microsoft? by lanfor · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So how can I submit my sitemap to Yahoo! and Microsoft/search.live.com? FAQ says something about sending a HTTP request to /ping?sitemap=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.y oursite.com%2Fsitemap.xml, but it doesn't say what are searchengine-specific urls to use.

    Lukasz
    Hikipedia - free database of hiking trails

    --
    Lukasz Anforowicz
    Hikipedia - a free database of hi