Google searches for quality not quantity

[Dialectic]

I've been doing a bunch of reading on Google, including bits of their SEC filing (http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1288776/000119312504142742/ds1a.htm), and I honestly love these guys. I'd invest if I could buy more than, oh, ten shares :P

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7328

11:00 01 May 2005
Special Report from New Scientist Print Edition
Barry Fox

GOOGLE has plans that will dramatically improve the results of internet news searches, by ranking them according to quality rather than simply by their date and relevance to search terms.

The ambitious system is revealed by patents filed in the US and around the world (WO 2005/029368) by researchers based at the company's headquarters in Mountain View, California.

At the moment the company's search engine throws up thousands of "hits" in response to simple entries such as "Iraq", which lead to news websites. These are ranked either in order of relevance or by date, so that the most recent or most focused appear at the top of the huge list.

This means that articles carrying more authority, say from CNN or the BBC, can be ousted from the first page of results, simply because they are not as recent or as relevant to the keyword entered in the search line.

Now Google, whose name has become synonymous with internet searching, plans to build a database that will compare the track record and credibility of all news sources around the world, and adjust the ranking of any search results accordingly.

The database will be built by continually monitoring the number of stories from all news sources, along with average story length, number with bylines, and number of the bureaux cited, along with how long they have been in business. Google's database will also keep track of the number of staff a news source employs, the volume of internet traffic to its website and the number of countries accessing the site.

Google will take all these parameters, weight them according to formulae it is constructing, and distil them down to create a single value. This number will then be used to rank the results of any news search.
ìArticles carrying more authority, say from CNN or the BBC, can be ousted from the results, simply because they are not as recentî

The patent also reveals that the same system could be roped in to rank other search results, not simply news. So sales and services could in the future be listed on the basis of price and the reputation of the company involved.

[toml]

Cool stuff.

Yahoo has also recently improved a lot.

But why choose?

Use

http://www.yagoohoogle.com/



.

[ric]

Nice read right here (http://www.fortune.com/fortune/technology/articles/0,15114,1050065,00.html)

also read the side linked articles. Don't forget to read up on how alot of former MS brain trust guys are leaving and jumping ship to work for google.



GOSH WHY didn't I purse CS as a major? :lol: :shock: :x :? :) :roll:

Then again they want guys who have shit load of experience.

Look at their market price
May 2, 11:57am ET

GOOG.......222
MSFT..........25.10

[Dialectic]

Goddammit, last time I checked it was 188! Goddammit!!

Also, Google's will always be higher than Yahoo, MS, etc., at they have vowed to follow the Warren Buffet approach and never split their stock.

[ric]

As of Jun. 1, 2005 01:39 pm ET
LAST TRADE 01:39 pm 290.93
CHANGE 4.93% 13.66


Sorry for info D. I know I'm slapping myself as well. So far GOOG has peaked at $293 today

[Dialectic]

DAMMIT DAMMIT DAMMIT!!!

It doesn't REALLY matter to me 'cause I was never able to buy a significant amount of Google stocks anyway, but I KNEW they were gonna do well! I KNEW it!!! (as did a whole load of other people, admittedly) And I actually believe in the company! DAMMIT!!!

[ric]

DAMMIT DAMMIT DAMMIT!!!

It doesn't REALLY matter to me 'cause I was never able to buy a significant amount of Google stocks anyway, but I KNEW they were gonna do well! I KNEW it!!! (as did a whole load of other people, admittedly) And I actually believe in the company! DAMMIT!!!

I don't know about you and rest of ya, but I checked out their employment section http://www.google.com/jobs/positions.html

Look at their engineering section. Hmmm I guess they want to move into software biz


Oh BTW, YOU should do this:
http://www.google.com/addurl/?continue=/addurl

[ric]

Get ready got GOOG to go up to $350, if there plan goes into action.

( BTW, to tech mods: we should link all Google related stories into one BIG GOOGLE thread, thats much more logical and efficent):lol:


AP Business Writer



SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- Hoping to build upon the power of its Internet leading search engine, Google Inc. is believed to be developing an online payment system that would pose a stiff challenge to online auctioneer eBay Inc.'s industry-dominating PayPal service.

Industry analysts, merchants and investors were digesting reports Monday that the Mountain View-based company is testing a payment system -- codenamed "Google Wallet" -- in hopes of rolling out the service later this year.

Google declined to comment, but the company's silence didn't muffle the buzz about a service that would set up a showdown between two Internet powerhouses.

Investors, meanwhile, appeared to view Google as a formidable threat. Google's shares gained $6.40, or 2.3 percent, Monday to close at $286.70 on the Nasdaq Stock Market, where eBay's shares dropped 81 cents, or 2.1 percent, to finish at $37.24.

"It's definitely going to happen; too many people already know about it and are talking about it," said Chris Winfield, who follows Google's machinations closely as president of 10e20, a search engine marketing firm.

After talking to a variety of industry sources, American Technology Research analyst David Edwards also is convinced Google is developing its own payment system. He believes Google Wallet initially will be tied to Froogle, the search engine's shopping comparison service.

Google conceivably could use a payment service in many other ways. For instance, the service might process the money that's exchanged between the millions of merchants and Web sites participating in its online advertising network.

A payment service also could make it easier for Google to sell content through its search engine.

Google already has indicated it will charge visitors to view certain videos that will be indexed in its search engine. Some analysts also think a payment service would enable Google to charge a fee on behalf of publishers looking to cash in on copyrighted or subscription-only news articles.

"This is probably the biggest threat to PayPal that has come along so far," said Gartner Inc. analyst Avivah Litan.

PayPal spokeswoman Amanda Pires declined to comment Monday. "It's pretty hard to talk about a product that doesn't even exist yet."

The first hint of Google Wallet came in March when the company formed Google Payment Corp., according to documents filed in Delaware. In April, Google incorporated the same company in California.

If the payment-processing service materializes, it would herald a significant expansion for Google, which depends upon online advertising for virtually all of its revenue.

Google's formula has been highly successful so far, generating a $369 million profit on sales of $1.26 billion during the first three months of the year. But the reliance on advertising has raised fears that Google is more vulnerable to a financial downturn than other companies, such as Yahoo Inc., that have developed other revenue channels.

Launching a payment-processing service would help diversify Google because the company would collect a service fee for each transaction it helps complete.

A payment service also might give Google more insights into accountholder buying habits -- an advantage that theoretically could be used to do a better job of delivering relevant ad links that would be more likely to be clicked upon to generate more profits.

Although it ranks among the most potent companies on the Internet, Google's expansion into payment processing wouldn't be easy, largely because PayPal has such a huge head start in the field.

Since starting in 1999 with just 24 users, PayPal has grown to 72 million accountholders. The service processed payments totaling $6.2 billion during the first quarter, with 71 percent of the activity occurring in eBay's online auctions.

The service is becoming an increasingly important source of revenue for San Jose-based eBay, which bought PayPal for $1.3 billion in 2002.

PayPal generated $233.1 million, or 23 percent, of eBay's revenue during the first quarter.

While dueling with PayPal, Google probably would have to spend heavily to combat fraud -- a chronic problem for payment processing systems.

"If they don't do a good job fighting fraud, Google will lose money on this," Gartner's Litan said.

Other companies have tried to branch into online payments with little or no success. Sunnyvale-based Yahoo, for instance, ran a service called PayDirect to handle transactions on its auction site, but shut down that free service last year.

[ric]

HERE (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.08/battelle.html?pg=1&topic=battelle&topic_set)






As Brin and Page continued experimenting, BackRub and its Google implementation were generating buzz, both on the Stanford campus and within the cloistered world of academic Web research.

One person who had heard of Page and Brin's work was Cornell professor Jon Kleinberg, then researching bibliometrics and search technologies at IBM's Almaden center in San Jose. Kleinberg's hubs-and-authorities approach to ranking the Web is perhaps the second-most-famous approach to search after PageRank. In the summer of 1997, Kleinberg visited Page at Stanford to compare notes. Kleinberg had completed an early draft of his seminal paper, "Authoritative Sources," and Page showed him an early working version of Google. Kleinberg encouraged Page to publish an academic paper on PageRank.

Page told Kleinberg that he was wary of publishing. The reason? "He was concerned that someone might steal his ideas, and with PageRank, Page felt like he had the secret formula," Kleinberg told me. (Page and Brin eventually did publish.)

On the other hand, Page and Brin weren't sure they wanted to go through the travails of starting and running a company. During Page's first year at Stanford, his father died, and friends recall that Page viewed finishing his PhD as something of a tribute to him. Given his own academic upbringing, Brin, too, was reluctant to leave the program.

Brin remembers speaking with his adviser, who told him, "Look, if this Google thing pans out, then great. If not, you can return to graduate school and finish your thesis." He chuckles, then adds: "I said, 'Yeah, OK, why not? I'll just give it a try.'"

[ric]

Google: Now 10% More Evil

By Seth Jayson (TMF Bent)
August 8, 2005

I always found it amusing that the world has bestowed such unquestioning reverence on Google (Nasdaq: GOOG). Don't get me wrong. I think Google's products are first-rate, with mapping, mail, and search that are light years better than those offered by competitors like Yahoo! (Nasdaq: YHOO) or InterActiveCorp's (Nasdaq: IACI) Ask Jeeves. Furthermore, the company has done a really impressive job making money.

But that whole line about doing no "evil"? I never understood why anyone would buy it. Who believes that the entities out there in the world that are actually doing ill believe (or even suspect) that they're misbehaving at all? This is an old lesson. In the metaphysical world, as well as the public markets, the road to H-E-double toothpicks is paved with good intentions.

In other words, evil is as evil does -- not as evil thinks it is doing. And although I believe Google is a long way off from meeting any substantial satanic standard, recent events prove beyond a doubt that the firm is not run by a bunch of meek, hand-folding altar boys.

For proof, look no further than CEO Eric Schmidt's Putin-esque blacklist of CNET Networks (Nasdaq: CNET) last week. Upset that the firm would dare publicize (some pretty benign) personal information about him -- reportedly gleaned by using Google's own search engine -- Google informed the CNET news wing that it would be punishing it with a one-year press freeze.

In other words, feel free to use our technology on other people, but don't you dare use it on us. But there's more here than the simple irony of the world's premier data aggregator working hard to present less data to one of the world's premier technology news services.

In another interesting case of corporate hubris, Google recently hired away Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT) exec Kai-Fu Lee and is now trying to weasel its way out of some pretty clear-looking non-compete clauses. In fact, documents reported on by CNET make it obvious that Google anticipated the legal situation, promising Lee a paid leave of absence if the courts kept him from working at his duties -- as they already have.

To be realistic, this kind of thing happens all the time in the corporate world. As companies get large, rich, and powerful, the people running them feel like they're above the restrictions that afflict the rest of us plebs. With enough money, lawyers, and lobbyists, you can pretty much make your own rules.

On the other hand, the public's distaste for this brand of arrogant, no-holds-barred capitalism is exactly the nonconformist vibe that Google has tried to exploit with its famous "do no evil" claim. That's why it's so interesting to see the company flouting the spirit of its law, if not the letter, so soon.

So Google is not so different from the rest of the hard-core corporations out there. That's not necessarily a bad thing. But shareholders need to hope that its trajectory -- coupled with a potential sense of betrayal -- won't carry the company into the sorts of litigious public backlash that have stunted Microsoft for the past half decade.

[ric]

Ze Google, She Scares Me

By Seth Jayson (TMF Bent)
March 28, 2005

Some weird cultural stereotypes defy explanation. What was the deal with Germans and David Hasselhoff? And why, oh why, do the French hate Google (Nasdaq: GOOG) so much?

We've seen that the sale of competing AdWords -- something the courts have found just hunky-dory in the U.S. -- constitutes a big non-non in France.

Last week, Agence France-Presse (AFP), following in the footsteps of its commercial brethren, filed its own lawsuit against Google, looking for a reported $15 million in damages for alleged copyright infringement for the firm's use of AFP material on its news site.

For those of you unfamiliar with Google's news site, it does not, in fact, reprint articles in whole. It provides only headlines and brief summaries, along with thumbnail images and a link to the news site from which the story was gathered. Although AFP's main Web page contained code designed to dissuade Web crawlers from aggregating its stories, Google's software could, and did, pull bits of AFP stories from licensees of AFP.

AFP claims the headlines and summaries are the core of its protected material. I will bet the AFP legal team a case of Beaujolais that any U.S. court will find Google's use to be fair use, and, moreover, will ask what exactly the beef is, now that Google is working to remove all AFP stories from its indexing pages. Oddly enough, by demanding its removal from Google, AFP will probably see that the websites of its licensees are accessed less often, depriving them of traffic and ad revenue.

Of course, Google isn't the only U.S. Web firm that has run afoul of French authorities. Yahoo! (Nasdaq: YHOO) recently asked a federal court for protection after a French court awarded damages (now amounting to some $15 million) because the firm allowed French users to deal in Nazi memorabilia on the U.S. site, something that's against the law in France but not in the United States. As odd as it seems, the French court's decision, if unhindered, would give the French government control of what can appear on American websites.

That may be exactly what the French government wants. Lately I've been seeing plenty of signs that the French media and government are united in their efforts to rebuff what is construed as American techno-corporate imperialism, from use of the catchphrase omnigooglization, to a Chirac-endorsed initiative to digitize French libraries to stave off the threat of Google's well-known project.

Shareholders in Google, Yahoo!, and InterActiveCorp (Nasdaq: IACI) can probably ignore the panicky predictions of sinking ad revenue for now. But they should remain on the lookout. With the amount of overseas revenue at stake -- especially for Google -- a dose of successful foreign jingoism could put a serious cramp in what's already a pretty pricey growth story.

[ric]

French Fry Google

By Seth Jayson (TMF Bent)
February 7, 2005

Hating the French may have become a cliched American pastime by now, but shareholders in Google (Nasdaq: GOOG) have more reason than most of us to ask for the freedom fries.

Today we got word that Google is still considering taking a swing back at the French after a court ordered the firm to pay up $260,000 for infringing on trademarks owned by LVMH Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton (OTC BB: LVMHF). (Note to French: That's no way to name a company.) By infringement, the court means allowing the placement of ads at the top of search pages generated from the luxury firm's famous moniker. Google was also ordered to stop placing the ads.

If this sounds familiar to you, you may remember a couple of other, similar lawsuits that Google is fighting in the land of Brie and Beaujolais. If it sounds kooky to you, well, then you must be an American. Our courts have found that placing ads this way isn't, in fact, a trademark infringement.

The French have a few more "issues" with free enterprise, not to mention free speech -- at least when it offends French businesses. I really wonder if the French would have a problem, say, if a search on McDonald's (NYSE: MCD) or YUM! Brands' (NYSE: YUM) Taco Bell turned up advertisements for non fast-food bistros or Supersize Moi.

Should investors be worried? Well, the $260,000 is a trifle compared to last year's $660 million in free cash flow. But optimistic Google buyers shouldn't stick their heads in the sand, either. As of last September's quarterly report, a full 33% of revenues came from international markets, and management expects this percentage to grow. How many potential lawsuits in strange, foreign cultures? Suppose a more autocratic government decides to put entire revenue-generating words off limits? How might such cases put a dent in the oft-cited "limitless" revenue potential of Google?

It's something to ponder, at the very least, especially when you're holding a firm that trades for 140 times earnings. And it's something that's likely to ripple across the whole search-intensive industry of e-commerce. Yahoo! (Nasdaq: YHOO), Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT), eBay (Nasdaq: EBAY)? Get ready for your date with the French inquisition.

[ric]

The Power of Google

By Seth Jayson (TMF Bent)
April 8, 2005

While everybody else was pondering the ethics of Eliot Spitzer's now-infamous Google (Nasdaq: GOOG) ad buy, I was wondering about the dollar signs. Let me back up for a second. Earlier this week, the story broke that Spitzer's New York gubernatorial campaign had paid Google so that its website came up in the "sponsored links" column any time someone searched on the word "AIG." The aim, of course, was to snare anyone searching on the insurance company -- likely for information on the still-unfolding scandal -- and hustle him off to the great protector's election campaign.

Most of the press seemed to think this represented a wee conflict of interest. Spitzer agreed, blamed the problem on a low-level staffer, and had the ad buy pulled.

Today, when you Google "AIG," the second sponsored link you get is the New York Times' (NYSE: NYT) namesake newspaper. For the record, I'm not sure this is the most savory situation, either. But it does show the incredible power of Google.

Sure, there are other paid-search peddlers out there. You've got your FindWhat.com (Nasdaq: FWHT). And then you've got your... well, let's see, the rest are being snapped up. AskJeeves went to InterActiveCorp (Nasdaq: IACI), Overture to Yahoo! (Nasdaq: YHOO).

So the herd has been culled, and Google's incredible brand presence makes it more and more the only player that matters, sort of like eBay (Nasdaq: EBAY) in online auctions. How much of a stink do you think there would be if Spitzer had purchased his conflicts of interest at any of those also-rans? Would anyone even have noticed? When's the last time you asked Jeeves anything besides, "Isn't it time to get rid of that silly butler cartoon?"

I still think Google the stock looks incredibly pricey, but I also wonder if it can't grow into its big britches, because everything it touches turns to gold. Can we just talk maps for a couple of seconds? Why is it that it we had to wait until Google came around to get a big, legible map right away, without four or five clicks?

In my opinion, Google's not really the innovator that many claim it to be. But it does things right. Every time. And figures out a way to make money off this advantage. Online Search. Online email. Desktop search. Newsgroups. News portal. Click-through ads. Blogging. Image browsers. These are all examples of computerized "stuff" that had been around for a long time before Google invented a better way to do it, or simply bought another company that had already figured it out.

There's incredible opportunity in simplicity, and Google seems to be harvesting it better than anyone else.

[ric]

http://wifi.google.com/faq.html

WTF? Check this out:

Google Secure Access (Beta): Frequently Asked Questions

What is Google Secure Access?

Google Secure Access is a downloadable client application that allows users to establish a more secure WiFi connection.

Why would I want to download and install Google Secure Access?

Google Secure Access allows you to establish a more secure connection while using Google WiFi. By using Google Secure Access, your internet traffic will be encrypted, preventing others from viewing the information you transmit.

Does Google Secure Access connect to a VPN server?

Yes, Google Secure Access connects to Google's VPN ("Virtual Private Network") server provided for this service.

Why did Google develop Google Secure Access?

One of our engineers recognized that secure WiFi was virtually non-existent at most locations. As a result, he used his 20% project time to begin an initiative to offer users more secure WiFi access. Google Secure Access is the result of this endeavor.

What sort of information does Google have access to?

If you choose to use Google Secure Access, your internet traffic will be encrypted and sent through Google's servers to the Internet. The data that is received will then be encrypted and sent back through our servers to your computer. Your privacy is important to us, we strongly encourage you to read our Privacy Policy to be fully informed about how your privacy is protected.

Is there a fee for using Google Secure Access?

No, Google Secure Access is free.

Where can I go to download Google Secure Access?

The program can currently be downloaded at certain Google WiFi locations in the San Francisco Bay Area.

When I install Google Secure Access, why does it ask if I also want to install the Google Toolbar?

We've included the option to install the Google Toolbar because it improves your browsing experience.

Can I uninstall Google Secure Access?

Yes. You can uninstall Google Secure Access by simply running the Uninstall program. This can be found by clicking on Start Menu, Programs, Google Secure Access, and then choosing Uninstall.

How do I make my connection even more secure?

You can make your connection even more secure by using a software firewall. Windows XP users with Service Pack 2 can find it by clicking on Start, Control Panel, and then choosing Windows Firewall.

Will my corporate VPN still work?

Yes. You can connect to your corporate VPN while running Google Secure Access.

I have configured Google Secure Access to connect automatically, but it's not working. What's going on?

Certain wireless LAN management utilities and older wireless LAN adapter drivers prevent Google Secure Access from detecting that you're connected to the Google WiFi network. In this case it will not connect automatically, and you should connect manually to ensure the privacy and security of your network traffic.

Will Google Secure Access work at other locations?

While Google Secure Access should work, we have not tested it at other locations.

Why is Google Secure Access a beta product?

Google Secure Access is a new product that is only available at certain locations in the San Francisco Bay Area. We are constantly working to improve this product.

[ric]

Here (http://news.yahoo.com/s/infoworld/20051006/tc_infoworld/69555;_ylt=At0TE_lZ5G6Cx3TMfFiYHzOor7oF;_ylu=X3oDM TBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl)



News analysis: The Google and Sun buddy movie preview

Eric Knorr Wed Oct 5, 7:31 PM ET

San Francisco (InfoWorld) - What a letdown. When word began circulating that Google and Sun Microsystems were poised to make a joint announcement, speculation abounded that Sun's StarOffice (or its lesser open source sibling, OpenOffice) had been somehow transformed into a Gmail-like suite that Google could deliver as a service. Microsoft, your Office fatware is history! The network computer lives!


The reality, announced at the Computer History Museum, in Mountain View, Calif., Tuesday morning, was barely an announcement at all. Only one concrete item: Sun has agreed to bundle Google's browser toolbar with Sun's Java Runtime Environment (which is downloaded 20 million times per month, according to Sun). The rest was happy talk. "Going forward, there's lots more we can do. They have a lot of smart folks at Google," said Sun CEO Scott McNealy.

Google CEO Eric Schmidt, a Sun exec himself for 14 years until he left to run Novell in 1997, agreed that it was a banner day. "This is a very significant deal," he intoned.

Really? A toolbar distribution deal?

The elephant in the museum was, of course, Star/OpenOffice. Just three days before, Sun COO Jonathan Schwartz had fired up expectations in his blog with this shameless tease: "There's a resurgence of interest in resident software that executes on your desktop, yet connects to network services. Without a browser. Like Skype. Or QNext. Or Google Earth. And Java? OpenOffice and StarOffice?"

But at the event, Schmidt parried the obvious question with, "We will work to make the distribution of [OpenOffice] become broader. We are not announcing specifics."

Some speculated that Schmidt was simply doing a favor for his old pal McNealy, because anticipation of the non-announcement ran higher than that of any Sun revelation in recent memory. In the bargain, the two CEOs must have enjoyed giving Microsoft a mild case of indigestion.

Yet, even if Google puts an OpenOffice download link on its home page, the effect on enterprise computing, at least, will be minimal. For broad business adoption of OpenOffice or StarOffice, compatibility with MS Office must be ironclad (some MS Office macros still wonít run). And in fact, there's little connection between Google's stunning browser-based Gmail, which is all JavaScript plus DHTML, and Star/OpenOffice, which is written in Java. If Google ever comes out with Gword or Gsheet, will it need Sun technology at all?

One thing is clear from last's week's overexcitement: People sense the beginning of the end of the desktop era. And the yearning for high-functioning software as a service that promises escape from endless upgrades, security patches, and exorbitant licensing costs is palpable.

[poisenedrice]

Ric, you are talking to yourself.

[ric]

http://engadget.com/2006/01/03/la-times-predicts-a-google-pc-in-2006/

LA Times predicts a Google PC in 2006?

Posted Jan 3rd 2006 11:22AM by Paul Miller
Filed under: Desktops
The LA Times has a roundup of tech predictions for '06 and they start their list off with a real doozy: Google has cheap PC in the works that features a Google OS and will debut via Wal-Mart and other retailers. Not the first time we've heard rumors that Google is getting ready to make some moves in this direction, but the LA Times seems fairly confident about things this time around, saying that that they've spoken with several industry and analyst sources who claim the boxen would drop for as low as a couple hundred dollars. Not that there aren't plenty of peeps out there who are chomping at the bit for Google to throwdown big time against Microsoft, but until we're blogging from our brand new Google PC we're going to have to treat this report as total speculation. Discuss.