Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 23rd Nov 2009 14:58 UTC
In the News It is no secret that Microsoft is doing whatever it can to eat away at Google's immense market share of the search market, with Bing being its most ambitious effort yet. Well, it seems the battle just got a whole lot dirtier, as The Financial Times has uncovered news that Microsoft has approached several news content providers, offering them money if they "de-index" their sites from Google.
Thread beginning with comment 395959
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Rubbish
by kragil on Mon 23rd Nov 2009 15:29 UTC
kragil
Member since:
2006-01-04

Murdock has no clue. A simple robots.txt will delist his crap websites from Google. He could have done that ages ago. Legal action .. pfft.

And Murdock is an old fart with even less clues about how people search for information. They don't search for his stupid sites, they search for information and Google is still be best place to get information. Delisting all big commercial news publishers won't hurt Google one bit.

It will help more credible publically funded/user generated news sites.

It really is a win-win.

Reply Score: 11

RE: Rubbish
by Mark Williamson on Mon 23rd Nov 2009 15:53 in reply to "Rubbish"
Mark Williamson Member since:
2005-07-06

Murdock has no clue. A simple robots.txt will delist his crap websites from Google. He could have done that ages ago. Legal action .. pfft.


I don't know, I *wish* it were the case that Murdoch didn't know what was going on. But I worry about this - he's not stupid as a businessman or a lobbyist AFAIK. Specifically, various people are suggesting he's busy making a case to mislead / give an excuse to politicians to "regulate the internet" in some moronic way.

I'm less worried that he'll be directly "successful" in creating paywalls and more worried that he's just building a facade of "Help, the evil internet is killing the news!" so that politicians will introduce various kinds of damaging legislation to help prop up him and people like him. With my super-cynical hat on, given a Murdoch endorsement can tip an election, it's not really in the interests of any governing party to cross him.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: Rubbish
by tomcat on Tue 24th Nov 2009 01:03 in reply to "RE: Rubbish"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

I'm less worried that he'll be directly "successful" in creating paywalls and more worried that he's just building a facade of "Help, the evil internet is killing the news!" so that politicians will introduce various kinds of damaging legislation to help prop up him and people like him. With my super-cynical hat on, given a Murdoch endorsement can tip an election, it's not really in the interests of any governing party to cross him.


The most probable outcome from all of this is that premimum news content provided by NewsCorp will be licensed by both Microsoft *and* Google from now on; furthermore, there will be advertising revenue-sharing. Google will have to be dragged kicking and screaming to do it, but it will eventually have no choice, because it doesn't want to give Microsoft the title "king of Internet news search".

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Rubbish
by Vargol on Mon 23rd Nov 2009 17:35 in reply to "Rubbish"
Vargol Member since:
2006-02-28

News Corp. knows how to use robot.txt.

They want Google to index their websites, but they want them to pay for the privilege of showing the results.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: Rubbish
by Boldie on Mon 23rd Nov 2009 19:53 in reply to "RE: Rubbish"
Boldie Member since:
2007-03-26

What I don't get is HOW they could stop google even if they wanted to? At least not without demanding that their users log in. I mean robots.txt is just a display of "will".

And isn't the internet a public place? How can indexing and showing snippets of a text being in violation of... anything? Is this the beginning of the end of net neutrality?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Rubbish
by tomcat on Tue 24th Nov 2009 00:44 in reply to "RE: Rubbish"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

News Corp. knows how to use robot.txt. They want Google to index their websites, but they want them to pay for the privilege of showing the results.


Bingo! You nailed it.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Rubbish
by tomcat on Tue 24th Nov 2009 00:43 in reply to "Rubbish"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

Delisting all big commercial news publishers won't hurt Google one bit.


What are you smoking? Of course it will hurt Google. It means Google has lower-quality indexed news content, relative to its competitors. It means that many people will start using more than one search engine -- one for news and the other for anything else -- which will inevitably hurt Google.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Rubbish!
by kragil on Tue 24th Nov 2009 01:33 in reply to "RE: Rubbish"
kragil Member since:
2006-01-04

Nope, the internet is full with copies of the same "news". When all the commerical vendors go to Google, nobody will care because the information is still out there and indexed by Google.

There are a lot of public news organisations that aren't allowed to delist google, then there are sites like Huffington Post that will never delist Google.

And paying for indexing in general will not happen, even MS isn't that stupid. Then the genie would be out of the bottle.
The basis of search is that you can index for free. Their whole business model would be dead if they start to pay for indexing.

Indexing premium content from behind the paywall maybe.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Rubbish
by lemur2 on Tue 24th Nov 2009 01:40 in reply to "RE: Rubbish"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Of course it will hurt Google. It means Google has lower-quality indexed news content, relative to its competitors.


That depends entirely on what you might mean by "quality".

Many people would turn the definition around on you ... in their minds "quality" content might well be defined as "the easiest readable story able to be found on Google".

It means that many people will start using more than one search engine -- one for news and the other for anything else -- which will inevitably hurt Google.


This also depends. It may well actually mean that some sites which have severely overestimated their own importance in the public's mind could effectively disappear from public view, never to be heard from again.

kragill:
Nope, the internet is full with copies of the same "news".


Precisely. Many people will just read whichever version of the story which is the first hit on Google.

Edited 2009-11-24 01:44 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2