SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Results 1 to 14 of 14
  1. #1
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    13
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Post Google's Wiki Killer "Uni Pedia"

    When Google launches it's "Knol" project or "Uni Pedia" project (they are still undecided on the name apparently)

    Who thinks that Google's new Universal Encyclopedia will kill Wikipedia?

    This is what I think.

    1. Google's UniPedia/Knol will be offering a share of ad revenue and a better design.

    2. Google could manipulate the search result and lower wiki's PR or something, so their own encyclopedia gets all the best placement in the SERPS.

    Withy those 2 points, I think Google will destroy wikipedia.

    What do other people think?

  2. #2
    He's No Good To Me Dead silver trophybronze trophy stymiee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Slave I
    Posts
    23,423
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DenPerry View Post
    1. Google's UniPedia/Knol will be offering a share of ad revenue and a better design.
    Google has no interest in revenue sharing. If anything they'll use an Adwords-like system on it to generate revenue.

    Quote Originally Posted by DenPerry View Post
    B]2.[/B] Google could manipulate the search result and lower wiki's PR or something, so their own encyclopedia gets all the best placement in the SERPS.
    They'll never do this. It would destroy their reputation and their company.

  3. #3
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    367
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by stymiee View Post
    Google has no interest in revenue sharing. If anything they'll use an Adwords-like system on it to generate revenue.
    When they first announced it they said they would do a rev-share.

    Quote Originally Posted by Official Google Blog
    At the discretion of the author, a knol may include ads. If an author chooses to include ads, Google will provide the author with substantial revenue share from the proceeds of those ads.
    http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2007/...ontribute.html

  4. #4
    Serial Publisher silver trophy aspen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    East Lansing, MI USA
    Posts
    12,937
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I just wish wikipedia would turn off rel=nofollow for properly vetted links on their site. I understand it for new/untrusted links, but all links? Pish posh.
    Chris Beasley - I publish content and ecommerce sites.
    Featured Article: Free Comprehensive SEO Guide
    My Guide to Building a Successful Website
    My Blog|My Webmaster Forums

  5. #5
    SitePoint Wizard bronze trophy bigalreturns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    The Wirral, England
    Posts
    1,293
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by aspen View Post
    I just wish wikipedia would turn off rel=nofollow for properly vetted links on their site. I understand it for new/untrusted links, but all links? Pish posh.
    [agrees wholeheartedly]

    [prepares to be shot down]
    If you were Google and you had access to a generally very well moderated source of information telling you a site was very relevant, in fact, an authority on its subject, would you ignore it? If I was designing a SE algorithm, I would certainly take into account Wikipedia links regardless of their nofollow status. Now I realise that Google doesn't make exceptions, but this could be an exception. Obviously total speculation, but logical speculation nonetheless I feel.
    "The proper function of man is to live - not to exist."
    Get a Free TomTom


  6. #6
    SitePoint Enthusiast John Sharp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    On Your Hard Drive
    Posts
    51
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Question Search Engine Monopoly

    Quote Originally Posted by DenPerry View Post

    2. Google could manipulate the search result and lower wiki's PR or something, so their own encyclopedia gets all the best placement in the SERPS.
    What do other people think?
    With Google being a public company if falls under jurisdiction of the Federal Trade Commission and one day Google will get hit with a "Unfair Monopoly" law suit. Something like the above "not saying it would" could be grounds for such a suit.
    Official Card Caring Member of the Seroquel Mafia
    Wordress Commando Design Services
    What we can do for you

  7. #7
    SitePoint Zealot
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Posts
    109
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    indeed, google is slowly becoming the MS version of internet.
    Over 100 Free Wordpress Themes for download
    Get your website a free hosting account
    Dotservant.com professional website hosting since 2000

  8. #8
    SitePoint Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,834
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by John Sharp View Post
    With Google being a public company if falls under jurisdiction of the Federal Trade Commission and one day Google will get hit with a "Unfair Monopoly" law suit. Something like the above "not saying it would" could be grounds for such a suit.
    Microsoft's monopoly was the result of illegal, anti-competitive behaviors. Google's (if they get one--and they are closing in), is not.

    I believe that Google successfully argued that their rankings are free speech. Thus, they could do anything they wanted to do, including placing competitors lower in the SERPs.

  9. #9
    He's No Good To Me Dead silver trophybronze trophy stymiee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Slave I
    Posts
    23,423
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by aaronjj View Post
    When they first announced it they said they would do a rev-share.
    Looks like that's just for the author of the article. That won't motivate anyone else to contribute, though.

  10. #10
    SitePoint Guru Rebirth Studios's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    621
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DenPerry View Post
    2. Google could manipulate the search result and lower wiki's PR or something, so their own encyclopedia gets all the best placement in the SERPS.

    Withy those 2 points, I think Google will destroy wikipedia.

    What do other people think?
    Since the majority of searches are performed at Google anyhow, I don't think the owner of the web's most sought after search algorithm would need to cheat it's own system when they have first-hand knowledge of it already.

    Even if they wanted rankings for their own stuff, I agree with stymiee, they would never do anything that would compromise their livelihood like that.

    Per it destroying wikipedia, I'm not sure if that would ever happen. Overtake, perhaps.

  11. #11
    SitePoint Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,834
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Rebirth Studios View Post
    Even if they wanted rankings for their own stuff, I agree with stymiee, they would never do anything that would compromise their livelihood like that.
    Of course not. Behemoth corporations with inflated stock prices (last time I looked the PE ratio was 42 times earnings, normal is 10-20) and an eye on the bottom line always act in the most ethical manner possible.

    Kind of like how Ford didn't strengthen the rear ends on Ford Pintos even though they knew they were prone to explosions in rear end collisions because it would have cost $11 per vehicle.

  12. #12
    I meant that to happen silver trophybronze trophy Raffles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Tanzania
    Posts
    4,662
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by cheesedude
    Thus, they could do anything they wanted to do, including placing competitors lower in the SERPs.
    Wouldn't that stop it being "free speech"?

  13. #13
    SitePoint Wizard bronze trophy bigalreturns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    The Wirral, England
    Posts
    1,293
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by cheesedude View Post
    Kind of like how Ford didn't strengthen the rear ends on Ford Pintos even though they knew they were prone to explosions in rear end collisions because it would have cost $11 per vehicle.
    Off Topic:

    My job is to apply the formula...
    "The proper function of man is to live - not to exist."
    Get a Free TomTom


  14. #14
    SitePoint Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,834
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Raffles View Post
    Wouldn't that stop it being "free speech"?
    No, that would be free speech.


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •