The founder and CEO of blogsearch Technorati has announced that he's stepping down from his executive position and installing a team of the company's Vice Presidents to serve as President. In his post explaining the move, Mr. Sifrey notes that their search for a replacement CEO has taken longer than anticipated, while others have noted that Technorati has benefited from several influxes of cash and may be headed toward oblivion because latecomer Google has been eating their shorts with a less functional tool.

I've long held that from the outside, Technorati looks like a good acquisition target for Yahoo! because it matches a lot of the criteria they've used in the past and a simple implementation of contextual advertising could be what the doctor ordered. Though I can speak only for myself, but I'd say that one of the big reasons that Technorati's widgets don't litter the web is because there's no back end from the results. Sure, Google hasn't offered an embeddable blogsearch and you're just left with their plain vanilla service, but if you use it or their "search within this site" functionality, the possibility does exist for you to monetize the results with AdSense.

Of course, Yahoo! is also in the business of contextual ads, plus their blogsearch tool was only available for a while and then it disappeared, or at least I can no longer find it. Nonetheless, it wouldn't take much for them to marry advertising to the Technorati widgets, but they have their own problems at this time and though I still think they should consider the purchase, if somebody were to ask me the solution to Yahoo!'s woes, the acquisition of Technorati would be the somewhere around third on my list.

It's still a good idea and the price is obviously ticking down, but since Mr. Sifrey made his announcement another scenario has popped into my head and because they aren't plagued by an infernal internal memo, it may actually be a more realistic option.

( My Suggestion )

Earlier, I made mention of a new "feature" from Google which would allow whomever they decide is the subject of a news story to post a response, which would be hosted by Google and posted alongside their link to the original story.

The context of my post was that it was another example of Google releasing a "feature" which has no revenue stream, but then during the afternoon, I ran across a post on TechCrunch highlighting that Google News does not allow spiders to crawl their site and that they own the rights to everything which isn't from another news source.

So, in effect, the NYTimes can write a piece, Google can scrape it from the NYTimes site, one of the subjects can write a response which Google will host and nobody, including the Times will be allowed to reprint it or make a derivative work.

When Yahoo! hit the IPO jackpot, they invested a lot of the extra cashflow into other standalone, web startups and as a result, they took a big hit when the bubble burst. The Google IPO has created a lot more liquidity for the younger search company, but they seem to be putting an inordinate amount of their money and effort into questionable in-house ventures which appear to only enhance the brand and which do not provide obvious income opportunities.

Over the past week, two such endeavors have come to light;

• Yesterday, Google announced that the subjects of a news story may now submit a written response and after the author's authenticity is verified, the response will be posted alongside the original story using AJAX, so a new pageview would not be required and no additional advertising would be displayed.
  
  An example of this setup can be found in relation to a story about McDonalds.



• On Monday, Google announced that they'll be recruiting "Business Referral Representatives", who will be independent contractors that will be paid per verified listing for going to local businesses to collect data like phone number and hours of operation, plus take a photo of the business so that this information could be added to Google Maps.
  
  While in contact with these businesses, the contractors, who could be anyone and anywhere are encouraged to talk-up the functionality of Google Maps and Adwords. Though, none of their pay is tied to the contracting for these services. The only way Google would make a return for this effort is if the business were to purchase Adwords and in my opinion, they may get some sales in markets larger than a hundred thousand, but in the smaller cities of this country, Adwords doesn't seem to make a lot of sense for the average brick and mortar business.
  
  For example, if you punch the name of my town, the postal abbreviation for the state and the word "hardware" into Google, the first three listings are from Google: Local. All three of these businesses belong to a national buying cooperative and their phone number and map position are already displayed.
  
  There's the "Ace", the "True Value" and a "Do It Best"; Two of the three do have freestanding websites which lists the kind of data that Google will be collecting, but they're already linked from the initial listing and an additional link to such a limited site would just be redundant. For shopping, specials or price comparisons, all of the businesses redirect to the national chains where the catalog is more extensive and the database is easier to maintain.
  
  If I were the owner of any of these businesses, I don't see how I could justify buying an Adword. My listing already appears at the top of the Google results and though a geographically-targeted Adword would put another link on the page, I don't see how it would benefit me. There's three hardware stores in this town, much like there's three auto parts stores and two laundries. This situation and these numbers are fairly typical for the smaller markets, so why should Google pay somebody up to ten dollars to collect their phone numbers, which are already in Google anyway because of their lookup service?

As a user, I may get some benefit from these efforts, but the hosted responses to news articles raises legal, ethical and competitive questions. I pretty much know what my local hardware stores look like and where they're located, so since the phone numbers are already listed and their hours are a click away, I can't see any value in the second effort for anyone in a small to mid-sized market.

If I were an investor in Google, it may be time to start questioning the reasoning for these and other ventures because I see only limited return, beyond a simple and non-revenue-producing enhancement of the brand.

Though, if I were unemployed and in need of an income, I'd totally bank some of Google's misguided funds.

(Valleywag and Lost Remote contributed links to this post)

Over the past couple of days, a lot of blogs have been pointing toward the newest "feature" from the "braintrust" at Google.

If you've seen any of the other postings, you've learned that you can now search via Google Maps for a business, say "Socorro NM hotel" and when you click one of the little locator flags, a "call" link appears behind the phone number on the pop-up. If you click the "call", a box comes-up for you to punch-in your own phone number, then for free, your telephone will ring within a matter of seconds and you'll be automatically connected to the business.

(I'm pretty confident that this feature won't be around for long because one would think, somebody is currently seeking a court order to have it pulled, if the company doesn't do it voluntarily because the problems are so freaking obvious.)

No matter the initial tone of the blog posts announcing this feature, it's usually pretty quick that someone jumps onto the potential for mischief in the comments. For example: Pull-up adult bookstores and connect them to an old girlfriend, or hook-up an old boyfriend with an escort service. Do you have a client that won't pay? Send them a subtle hint by connecting them with a collection agency. Does your ISP not perform? Send them some technical support. Hook a congressperson up with a candygram, or have Mark Foley's office get a call from a daycare center. The prank-calling possibilities are pretty endless.

Anyway, one of the things which has prompted a question in my mind is from the service's helpfile; It says that when your phone rings, your Caller ID will show the name and number of the business, so that you can store it for future reference.

I'm not going to try it because I don't pay for Caller ID and though I have some knowledge of phone systems, I'm not sure how this would work. How can Google spoof a Caller ID and what kind of dangers might that present to battered women or other victimized people? Theoretically and though it might require some technology, but Radio Shack is nationwide; Could a drunken wife-beater call his spouse in hiding and instead of his number appearing on the screen, why couldn't he pretend that the call is from her mother?

Again, I don't know. But, if anyone has any thoughts about this technology; I'm curious.

I was reading a nonsense story in Broadcasting & Cable about ABC/Disney withholding clips of Meredith Vieira from an NBC package welcoming her to The Today Show. One would think that with a little publicity, the House of Mouse might relent because as Ms Vieira's agent says, their use would also help promote both The View and the Who Wants to Be A Millionaire? franchise.

The article itself isn't important and wouldn't be of interest unless you're a devotee of the shows, or if you enjoy reading about the competitive landscape of the television business, or if you have two minutes to kill and nothing better to do. The content wasn't what prompted this post. Instead, it was the Google Ads which I've excerpted above and because it didn't always come up on a reload, I've also archived in context for posterity.

I'm not exactly sure which keywords were purchased by the New York Times, but the third AdSense listing links directly to an NY Times story from June 28th about Star Jones Reynolds and because it intrigued me, I did a little experimentation and found that the same ad came up on a random story about Ms Jones on Defamer, which I've also archived with a screencap. This strongly implies to me that "The Newspaper of Record" has bought the term "The View" because Star's name isn't in the B&C piece and Meredith's isn't in Defamer entry, so for some reason, they're willing to pay to attract readers interested in that particular subject.

The blogosphere is starting to get up in arms about a non-issue. It seems that Rep. Micheal G. Fitzpatrick (R-PA) has drafted a bill attempting to amend the "Communications Act" with a requirement that schools and libraries limit access to "Commercial Social Networking Websites" to only adults and for purely educational sessions.

After seeing the headlines and reading the proposed language, my first instinct was to suggest that everyone reacquaint themselves with an old song from Schoolhouse Rock. In an election year stunt, some Congressman introduced a bill. Thus far, it has not been assigned to a committee and no discussion has been scheduled. It's not really yet before Congress. It's just something that a Congressman's staff pushed out of their word processor and as he may have hoped, the resulting uproar is getting play. I'm sure he thinks that this will help with his re-election effort because the likelihood of this getting through committee, passing the House and working it's way through the Senate before the end of the year is slim.

The downfall or what will most likely cause the most hangup is the definition of "Commercial Social Networking Website";

The term 'commercial social networking website' means a commercially operated Internet website that-

(i) allows users to create web pages or profiles that provide information about themselves and are available to other users; and

(ii) offers a mechanism for communication with other users, such as a forum, chat room, email, or instant messenger.

The CNET article which first alerted everyone to the threat listed MySpace, LiveJournal, Facebook, Friendster, Orkut and Blogger.com as sites that could be restricted. In my first comment on the matter, I pointed out that Yahoo, MSN and possibly Google would be subject to these rules. To illustrate my point: I'm under the impression when you register with Yahoo!, you automatically get a profile page. It's up to you whether to complete it, but I believe one is automatically created. Yahoo! also offers IM, webmail and in addition to Yahoo! Groups, every news article is linked to an individual forum that is usually littered with racist and homophobic posts.

As written, this definition would also limit access to many other resource communities. It's been a while since I've visited an iVillage site, so I can't really speak to their system, but I can clearly see it'd cover some home improvement websites, such as DoItYourself. The site's big draw are their forums, where people ask questions and experts or those more experienced answer. The range of subjects go from sewer lines to television repair. And, because they operate this service using a Vbulletin system, when you register for posting or reply access, you are given a profile page. You can also enable emails through their mask, plus they offer an internal mail or instant messenger service. As written, it is obvious that this valuable resource would also be restricted.

This is all much ado about nothing. Some minor Congressman released a draft and issued a press release. It is election year posturing and though I'm not overly familiar with the politics of Bucks County and suburban Philadelphia, I'm sure he thinks it'll help him in his race. He may actually believe in his effort, but the language is far too vague and it'd not only have to be hammered out in committee, it'd have to overcome the opposition of some pretty powerful forces, namely Microsoft and Rupert Murdoch's empire.

If anything were to happen, it would be a long time coming and the end will probably look nothing like the beginning. After all, the song has only just begun and the highly vocal, unfounded protestations could lead to more cynicism. A lot of headlines and bloggers are trying to paint Congress with a broad brush, but it's only this one guy and I don't think he'll be swayed.

In afterhours trading, Google has plunged because they missed analyst's forecasts. Yahoo! faced a similar fate recently, but because Google is so overvalued and overhyped, it has further to fall on a pure dollar basis and average investors may be easier to frighten. Most of what I'm seeing is that the slide will probably continue into or through tomorrow.

The number of shares sold short has been decreasing, but that's because past performance has forced many to cover. Based on Yahoo!'s recent "miss", it's a pretty good bet that the shorts have been jumping back onboard and a quick glance at the message boards show that the screamers are in place to try and shake it, further down. Perhaps, if we wait a couple of days, Google will no longer be worth more than every newspaper combined, or be the nation's 25th largest company based on market capitalization.

Revenues and profits increased. Everything taking place is based on the "miss". The company and it's stockholders are getting hit for not living up to somebody else's expectations. Though in the end, the whole exercise could define the firmness of it's body.

When the "Search Engine Experiment" first came to my attention the other day, it was reported that 60% of the 12,000 participants had found Yahoo! and MSN's search results more relevant. Based on the graph, it was a skewed way to report and rounding was involved, but no matter how many times I've tried, my choice always ends up being the same.

If you have a few seconds and would like to help me see, if I'm somehow prejudiced or if my interpretation of relevancy is somehow different; Please go to this site, search on any term and select the column that appears more relevant. If you'd like to do two out of three, please be my guest, but the site will only count your first choice. Then, after you're satisfied, if you'd flash back here and select one of the following options; I may be able to get a better idea, if it was just me or if I'm missing something.

Poll #623528 Search Engine Experiment
Open to: All, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 10

Which search produced the better result?

Thanks!

I really don't hate Google. Not only do I use it as a verb, but I also use their website on an hourly basis. I do caution about their rising power, especially during this administration which not only has put antitrust investigations onto the back burner, but possibly sold the end to the one of Microsoft in exchange for campaign contributions and as a political consideration.

I'm also a big proponent of convergence, as I have said and as you may have gathered from some of my links. It is for this reason, I, like so many others were excited by this morning's announcement that AOL will begin streaming, up to a hundred Warner Brothers shows on six broadband "channels" starting at the first of the year. The list of their initial programming can be found in the tail of the official release and for your convenience, I'm also listing them ( here )

Of course, what troubles me about this morning's press can be found in the Washington Post article on the same subject, especially when it's married to my recent caution about Google's propensity to invest in content to which they would own exclusive rights.

Time-Warner has been shopping AOL around for the past few months. They see it as the last step in undoing the merger, where they were conned and the hope is that after ridding themselves of the albatross, their stock would once again soar. The two most active suitors have been Google and Microsoft. Time-Warner has announced that they've entered exclusive negotiations with one particular company, but the name has not yet been revealed.

Microsoft would probably want the content, but if they were to acquire the internet access customers, additional antitrust concerns would come into play. Though it may take until the next administration for them to be fully investigated. As I've posted before, Google has been buying dark fiber for quite some time and in light of their recent San Francisco bid, the current speculation is that they'd like to give free wireless access to all. I don't know of the accuracy of this theory and I would have some questions I'd like answered before it were to proceed, but AOL's subscriber base would be a good foundation for its launch.

I don't know, but what concerns me about the WaPo note on Google's possible bid for AOL is the revelation, they may be looking for a way to manipulate search results in order highlight content, all without compromising the integrity of the search. The article suggests that this may be possible by letting AOL bid on Adwords differently, but I don't see how that ties into AOL streaming reruns on-demand. What? If someone were to search on Welcome Back, Kotter, Mr Woodman, Gabe Kaplan or that babe who played his wife, a link to AOL's In2TV would pop-up at the head of the list? The applicability of this idea would certainly leave a lot to be desired.

If you've been reading this journal for any period of time, you'd know that websearch and the battle among giants is one of my areas of special interest. I actually have a boatload of relevant links that someday I may put in a post, but over the past couple of weeks and with increasing regularity, I've contemplated a more focused train of thought; Define evil?

It has become apparent or at least to this observer, Google is of a mind to control information. They seem hellbent on possessing all knowledge and though I still question their revenue model, it looks like they want to manage the flow. A perfect example of the directional difference between the Google and Yahoo! approach can be seen through a few recent offerings and developmental leaks.

From the surface, Google Base looks like a threat to eBay and Craiglist. The tech media seems focused on the classified advertising potential, as can be gleaned from this brief analysis and the linked screenshots. Craigslist and mainstream classifieds would be an obvious target for this product and the ease of extending it into eBay's domain seems fairly natural, not to mention that eBay already owns a large chunk of Craigslist, so they could be considered threatened from two fronts. But, if we were to add the reporting of John Battelle and mix it with Google Print, a pattern may be starting to emerge.

On the other hand, via my recent link to Yahoo! Podcasts and the experimental phase of Yahoo! Mindset, it appears that the original giant may be more content with mapping free knowledge and relying upon obvious ads. The newest service still has tremendous flaws and that's why it's being unveiled under the research subdomain, but coupled with the other offerings and the easily-accessed Yahoo! MyWeb beta, they appear to be more focused on giving the user greater control.

These thoughts are too new, so I haven't analyzed every investment or conduit under development and measured it against my theorem, but I'm honestly starting to see a pattern and though I'm not afraid; I'm also not sure of how comfortable, I may become.

Am I the only one who wonders about a correlation between Rupert Murdoch's recent proclamation that he's "in advanced discussions to acquire a controlling stake in a search engine" and the fact that Google has announced they are going to issue 14,159,265 shares?