Google Trend Identifier
January 2, 2009
in 2008, Google rolled out a free trend and key word research tool. If you have not experimented with it, navigate to Insights for Search here. You can enter one or more words and phrases, click search, and see a nifty graphic of the “popularity” of your terms over time. I took a break from my forthcoming study about Google and publishing to run this query: Autonomy IDOL”, “Google Search Appliance”, “SharePoint search”. The data come from Google’s log files. If you are a fan of one of these enterprise search systems, you may protest the data displayed below directly to the GOOG, not me. The result was a shocker to me:
I have snipped only the chart. You will find a number of useful features available, including:
- Data by categories, time, and geography
- News items related to your query
- Identification of terms that are moving up and those that are moving down.
For me, this system is important because it shows that Google can blend several different types of information from various Google subsystems in a homogeneous service. As 2009 gets underway, companies wanting to compete with Googzilla have to match and, if possible, leapfrog its services. Companies selling key word tools or charging big bucks for trend data may have to view Google as an increasingly disruptive force in their market patch.
Stephen Arnold, January 2, 2009
Natural Search: SEO Boffin Changes His Spots
January 2, 2009
The crackle of gun fire echoed through the hollow this morning. I am not sure if my neighbors are celebrating the new year or just getting some squirrel for a mid day burgoo. As I scanned the goodies in my newsreader, I learned about a type of search that had eluded me. I want to capture this notion before it dribbles off my slippery memory. Media Post reported in “Search Insider: The Inside Line on Search Marketing” that 2009 is ripe for “natural search”. The phrase appears in Rob Garner’s “Measuring Natural Search Marketing Success” here. The notion (I think) is that content helps a Web site come up in a results list. I had to sit down and preen my feathers. I was so excited by this insight I was ruffled. For me the most important comment was:
For starters, think of an investment in natural search as a protection for what you are currently getting from natural search engines across the board. Good natural search advice costs are a drop in the bucket compared to returns from natural search, and the risk of doing harm only once can far exceed your costs, and even do irreparable damage. I see clients with returns coming from natural search at over one half-billion to one billion dollars a year or more, and one simple slip could cost millions.
I must admit that I have to interpolate to ferret the meaning from this passage. What I concluded (your mileage may differ) is that if you don’t have content, you may not appear in a Google, Microsoft, or Yahoo results list.
What happened to the phrase “organic search”. I thought it evoked a digital Euell Gibbons moving from Web site to Web site, planting content seeds. “Natural search” has for me a murkier connotation. I think of Tom’s toothpaste, the Natural Products Association, and Mold Cleaner Molderizer.
My hunch is that Google’s tweaks to its PageRank algorithm places a heavy load on the shoulders of the SEO consultants. I have heard that some of the higher profile firms (which I will not name) are charging five figure fees and delivering spotty results. As a result, the SEO mavens are looking for a less risky way to get a Web site to appear in the Google rankings.
Mr. Garner is one of the first in 2009 to suggest that original content offering useful information to a site visitor is an “insurance policy”. I don’t agree. Content is the life support system of a Web site. You buy insurance for you automobile and home.
Stephen Arnold, January 1, 2009
Google Books: Advantage to Whom
January 2, 2009
The Register on December 31, 2008, published Chris Castle’s “Is Google’s culture grab unstoppable?” here. The article is in two parts and does a good job of summarizing Google’s deal to sidestep the copyright issues with Google Books. For me, the most interesting comment in the article was:
Regulators should care who controls the Google Books registry because it can easily reach out to other content. Google is well on its way to dominating all search and advertising, and now maybe a significant share of online content. Google’s ability to accomplish transparent accounting is definitely in doubt.
In my opinion, Google is going to be difficult to manage, channel, or control. And not just in books.
Stephen Arnold, January 2, 2009
Microsoft’s 10 Biggies in 2008
January 1, 2009
Paul Thurrott, an independent analyst and journalist, published his list of Microsoft’s top 10 products in 2008. You can read his story “A Look Back at the Top 10 Microsoft Products of 2008” here. Every few weeks I listen to Mr. Thurrott and Leo LaPorte converse about things Microsoft. Mr. Thurrott strikes me as a person who can point out some weaknesses of the Redmond giant without making the company seem totally inept. I admire this skill. His list surprised me. I don’t want to reproduce his top 10 list and spoil your fun. Read his article. In my opinion, he omitted two really big Microsoft developments in 2008. First, he ignores Microsoft’s two odd search acquisitions: the Fast Search deal and the Powerset buy out. The second omission was even more disturbing to me. The police arrived at Microsoft Fast’s offices in Oslo, Norway, in October 2008. The police seized information about alleged financial wrong doings. The peculiarity of the two acquisitions, the subsequent disappearance of Powerset, and the police action are important in my mind. I think these overshadow the positives like Zune 3.0 that Mr. Thurrott praises. His view of important and mine differ.
Stephen Arnold, January 1, 2008
Microsoft RIF: Conflicting Views
January 1, 2009
Minimsft, a Microsoftie blogger, stated that no layoffs would take place. You can read the December 29, 2008 here. Stealing a few moments from New Year’s Eve festivities, I scanned Fudzilla’s article “Microsoft Getting Ready to Lay Off 17% of Staff” here. Whom does one believe? Minimsft or Lars-Göran Nilsson. Tough call. For me the most interesting comment in Mr. Nilsson’s article was:
…we’re hearing that MSN might be carrying the brunt of the layoffs.
MSN (Microsoft Network) has been a can or two short of a six pack for quite a while. The problem with Mr. Nilsson’s view is that other units may warrant more severe scrutiny; for example, Microsoft’s last three acquisitions. Herd those cattle to the feedlot. Microsoft’s marketing department. Ship those wizards to Yahoo.
We won’t know whether Minimsft is right or if Mr. Nilsson is right for several weeks. Should be exciting.
Stephen Arnold, January 1, 2009
Google 2009 Lego Blocks
January 1, 2009
Do you want to know what the Google will do in 2009? If the answer is yes, you will want to navigate to TechCrunch’s article about the top 10 Google services here. Take a gander at the traffic for each of these. Then click to Simply Google here and review the listing of Google’s products and services. You can find this list here. Now to see the future, pick a high traffic site from the TechCrunch list and pick six Google services as you Lego blocks. How can you combine these six products and services on one of Google’s high traffic sites to create a YAGPOS (Yet Another Google Product or Service)? In 2009, Google will be mixing and matching what exists and deploying these combo services on its high traffic sites, pushing these hybrids into the enterprise via the Google Search Appliance, or converting a plain Jane service like Google Product Search into a procurement manager’s dream system. Oh, no recoding required. Ramp up time? A day, maybe two. Has anyone see a T shirt with this message WWGD?; that is, What Will Google Do? Google will convert companies who don’t compete with the GOOG into competitors in 2009. The change will be sudden and surprising. Google’s Lego block approach to new products and services will be surprising. Proud parents Larry and Sergey will beam with the outputs of their progeny.
Stephen Arnold, January 1, 2009
Zeros and Ones Look Alike Unless There Is Litigation
January 1, 2009
The law works like a giant gravity lens. Information in a legal matter gains a different atomic mass than information printed in an airplane in flight magazine. A good example of this “weight” flux appears in “Among The Clips That Viacom Sued Google Over, About 100 Were Uploaded By Viacom Itself.” The core idea is that Viacom allegedly uploaded videos to YouTube.com. These videos were then included in an exhibit listing Viacom videos on YouTube.com that alleged stepped on the copyright toes of Viacom. For me, the most interesting comment was:
Viacom sued Google over clips it claimed were infringing, that Viacom purposely uploaded to YouTube. That alone should show how ridiculous Viacom’s claims are in this lawsuit. There is simply no way for Google to know if clips are uploaded legitimately or not. Oddly, however, the court has now allowed Viacom to withdraw those clips, but lawyers like Eric Goldman are questioning how this isn’t a Rule 11 violation for frivolous or improper litigation.
Legal eagles are going to have a field day with this alleged action. As I have said before, the uploading and downloading of content is part of the warp and woof of the post 1994 crowd. This demographic includes some of the children of the legal eagles involved in this litigation. I don’t have any problem believing that a large company uploaded content to YouTube.com. At some point, other folks in that company discovered the content and promptly asserted that Google was the problem. When this happens at home, I think it is clear that parents have lost control just like the companies.
When the horse is gone, what can you do? In today’s world, you don’t want to sit and look at an empty barn. Sue somebody even if you left the stall door ajar.
Stephen E. Arnold, December 31, 2009
A freebie. I must report this to the Library of Congress. Once information gets into the Library of Congress, it is controlled. I think Viacom might want to check out the LoC’s methods.
Ballmer Criticized by Motley Fool
January 1, 2009
Tim Beyers, writing in The Motley Fool here, inked an open letter to Steve Ballmer. The idea of an open letter is that the recipient does not respond to private letters. So, the author writes a personal letter and makes it available to the public. I like open letters; it is similar to the thrill of finding a sheet of writing in a library book. Those documents are exciting and somewhat mysterious. “An Open Letter to Steve Ballmer” was not too exciting or mysterious. The message is one that is widely discussed; namely, “Google is the elephant in your Redmond, Wash. boardroom.” For years–a decade to be precise–Google has been waving the Web search flag and spraying advertising at anyone who would fall for the pitch. Google for years avoided any hint of competing with Microsoft. But after a decade, the mask is off. Google is the new Microsoft. Microsoft is now the IBM that was bedeviled by the “old” Microsoft. IBM has morphed into a weird consulting and services outfit, a path that Microsoft may be forced to follow. The shadow of Googzilla has been replaced by the dude himself.
Mr. Beyers’ made this point:
Drastic measures are all that’s left. You have to do something Google hasn’t tried but everyone wants. You’ve got to master social search, and then embed it with every platform you own.
Yep, I agree. Leapfrog is the game that must be played. Microsoft has a penchant for buying abandoned animals. My wife and I rescued a boxer. She loves us and is more grateful than my former show dog. He’s entitled in his doggy mind. Tess is thrilled not be kicked and ignored. She gets better health care than most people. But Tess is a lot of work and it is 100 percent impossible to turn her into a show dog. Microsoft’s acquisition of Fast Search & Transfer is a corollary. Powerset is another stray. Yahoo, yet another lost dog it is. None of these creatures can do battle with the Google in my opinion and win.
The problem is Googzilla and that greedy creature requires action built on reaction and stray technologies.
I don’t agree with Mr. Beyers that social search is one way to hip hop over Google. Social search is useful, but it will not do the job on the GOOG. Think 90 pound weakling against the Incredible Hulk. Life does not imitate anime.
Will Mr. Ballmer read and heed Mr. Beyers’ open letter. Nope. Will the Google continue to disrupt Microsoft’s business model. Yep. Is there a company able to stop the GOOG in 2009? Nope.
Stephen Arnold, January 1, 2009
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
