http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3783507.stm

Little by little - insights are released - Patience :rolleyes:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3783507.stm

Little by little - insights are released - Patience :rolleyes:

interesting reading...to bad it didn't say much... :rolleyes:

>didn't say much

Yep, that's Matt. He'd make a great politician, hhh! Seriously, he's a darn good "company man" and is one of the best I've seen at keeping their secret formula, ummm, secret.

>didn't say much

Yep, that's Matt. He'd make a great politician, hhh! Seriously, he's a darn good "company man" and is one of the best I've seen at keeping their secret formula, ummm, secret.


Yes and that, coupled with some serious misunderstandings by BBC makes it more of a humerous read than anything else:

Mr Cutts is one of a team at Google who help webmasters and website creators tweak their pages to ensure they are properly indexed by the search engine.

Yes and that, coupled with some serious misunderstandings by BBC makes it more of a humerous read than anything else:

Quote:
Mr Cutts is one of a team at Google who help webmasters and website creators tweak their pages to ensure they are properly indexed by the search engine.


That almost sounds like Googleguy, don't it?

Google "PLANS" to reveal some of it's CODE


Giving something Back :cool:


that is what this article is stating - Is this credible

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/06/21/1087669904427.html?oneclick=true




Search engine giant Google is preparing to publicly release some of its underlying software code only months before it undertakes a multibillion-dollar stock-exchange float.

The revelation comes as Google considers Melbourne for the home of a regional research and development centre in an effort to triple its global workforce over the next 12 months.

The time has come for Google to "give something back", Wayne Rosing, the company's vice-president of engineering, told students while on a recruiting drive in Melbourne last week

Well, I'm not going to hold my breath until it happens. :p

Triple its workforce? That's the first time I've heard that.

Will this help them keep up with spam reports?

Triple its workforce? That's the first time I've heard that.


See this article http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/06/21/1087669904427.html?oneclick=true

"He [Wayne Rosing, Google's vice-president of engineering] said Google will triple its workforce from, 700 to 2100, during the next 12 months."

So Now we know where some of that IPO money is going to be spent.

Well, I'm not going to hold my breath until it happens. :p

Funny was thinking that myself... but they have been moving in the direction helping a little here and there... guess they may just add a few pages on best practices, and support it by saying these are weighted well in the algorythm.

An Associated Press interview has been published where half the transcript is about GOOGLE :D


Mr. Semel: Yahoo over the years used various companies for search technology. We were not unhappy about that. But we were starting to realize that the makeup and the scale of the Yahoo network with all of its vertical (market areas) was really quite different than what some of the search technology was taking advantage of.

The first pitch meeting from Overture to us in 2001 ... led to us to think we should really start to take charge of our own algorithmic search. And we thought down the road we should probably either build or buy our own sponsored-search mechanism because (otherwise) we would end up with some outside company representing an awfully large part of our overall business.



WSJ: Why have your own algorithmic search technology?

Mr. Semel: Personalization was one factor. The other factor was we understood then that good algorithmic technology could aid us in a number of our vertical (market areas). We could use our own search technology to drive a better shopping model for (consumers visiting the shopping part of Yahoo's site).



WSJ: Did Yahoo miss Google's growing appeal? Was it a classic case of an upstart coming up from behind?

Mr. Semel: No. The whole industry looked at search through the year 2001, maybe at least until 2002, as a technology business. There were earlier renditions of search engines. It was a technology business that started, as a result of Overture, to find a way to monetize search. Prior to that it was a small business, very technology-driven.

The other technology providers also did not go into sponsored search in a big way. I don't think there was anyone alive -- except maybe someone who founded Overture would tell us they did -- who could have guessed that sponsored search would grow so quickly, become so relevant.



WSJ: What is the future of search?

Mr. Semel: We've probably just finished phase one as an industry. Initially, the great need was to amass all of the information and to provide it in the most efficient and effective way so that users could access that information. What we are going to see, in phase two, will be much more specific. The same information could be presented taking into account your location, so that if you are looking for a plumber or a pizza parlor it doesn't turn out to be 3,000 miles away from where you are searching but rather several miles from your house. In our case, it is also about integrating the very large communities and groups who represent millions of people who have very specific interests and spend a lot of time on Yahoo expressing those interests through chats and through groups and communities. The advantage that Yahoo has is that we are providing a lot of those services outside of search today.



WSJ: How do you compete with a rival like Google and the buzz around its IPO?

Mr. Semel: For one thing, what is hot and buzz is not a way to think about running a company. When you're running a company like I am with Yahoo, we think long-term. We think creating long-term value for our shareholders and our consumers.



WSJ: Google lists Yahoo and Microsoft as its most important rivals. Are Google and Microsoft your biggest threats?

Mr. Semel: We have a lot of big competitors. There's no one competitor who's going to change the course of what Yahoo thinks about or does. They're going to aid that. But who knows two years from now which one of them will be Yahoo's true competitor.



WSJ: When you hear Google executives saying their company aims to "do no evil," what do you think?

Mr. Semel: I never thought about that before. I don't pay a lot attention to all of that stuff. At the end of the day it will come down to consumer satisfaction over a long period of time. And that's something Yahoo has been in focus on for many years. I think about what's good for our consumers. I don't know about any evil.



_______________________________________________


http://docs.yahoo.com/docs/pr/pdf/2q04pr.pdf

Yahoo's second quarter results represent another record quarter for the company and demonstrate continued execution of our core priorities," chairman and chief executive Terry Semel said in a statement.

"Yahoo is in the midst of a product renaissance, as we have been busier than ever rolling out new products and services we believe will be essential to our users."

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/07/08/1089000264450.html?oneclick=true

Mr. Semel: Personalization was one factor. The other factor was we understood then that good algorithmic technology could aid us in a number of our vertical (market areas). We could use our own search technology to drive a better shopping model for (consumers visiting the shopping part of Yahoo's site).

Hmmm...or vice-versa. I often wondered if the Y!Store results ever recieved any benefits in the SERPS. I have not really noticed any to date. But I am noticing a slight edge on one site that uses Yahoo Store Clinks (affilliate links). It is doing quite well in the SERPS at Yahoo Search.

Hmmm...or vice-versa. I often wondered if the Y!Store results ever received any benefits in the SERPS. I have not really noticed any to date. But I am noticing a slight edge on one site that uses Yahoo Store Clinks (affiliate links). It is doing quite well in the SERPS at Yahoo Search.
I've had a Yahoo! Store for almost 4 years now (before we used to have a full .ASP dynamically driven store). We do very well, but it is all thanks to natural SEO, with NO extra boost whatsoever that I've noticed from being part of the Yahoo! network. Only if the user would come from a natural search on yahoo.com for "whatever-KW" and then hit the "Products" tab. But as we all know, that is very unlikely.

In fact, our SERPS do a lot better in Google than the new Yahoo! Search. Almost 2 Google visits to each Yahoo! visitor. When it comes to orders (organic only), these two going head-to-head results in 1/3 for Yahoo and 2/3 for Google. And about the same for revenues.

But it's like my two kids, one 3 1/2 and the other at 1. I can't expect the same from both. My little one still has a lot more to learn than her big brother. What's most important is that I love them both the same and I depend from them the same.

I could never complain about the great job both of these search engines do for my business. It's really about them figuring us out through their crawler and algorithms, and us figuring them out with search marketing and optimization.

That is pretty much what I am seeing Nacho ... for the Y!Store. But my reference was to external affilliate sites that use the Clinks.

I have one site that feeds a Y!Store in this manner and it is doing very well at Yahoo Search, it can't do no wrong as a matter of fact. I am not saying that it is because of those links mind you, it was strange to see the site rise up at Yahoo so dramatically. I have no clear answer for it.

I've had a Yahoo! Store for almost 4 years now (before we used to have a full .ASP dynamically driven store). We do very well, but it is all thanks to natural SEO, with NO extra boost whatsoever that I've noticed from being part of the Yahoo! network. Only if the user would come from a natural search on yahoo.com for "whatever-KW" and then hit the "Products" tab. But as we all know, that is very unlikely.

In fact, our SERPS do a lot better in Google than the new Yahoo! Search. Almost 2 Google visits to each Yahoo! visitor. When it comes to orders (organic only), these two going head-to-head results in 1/3 for Yahoo and 2/3 for Google. And about the same for revenues.

But it's like my two kids, one 3 1/2 and the other at 1. I can't expect the same from both. My little one still has a lot more to learn than her big brother. What's most important is that I love them both the same and I depend from them the same.

I could never complain about the great job both of these search engines do for my business. It's really about them figuring us out through their crawler and algorithms, and us figuring them out with search marketing and optimization.
No one has every gotten me close to tears about search marketing before Nacho...

No one has every gotten me close to tears about search marketing before Nacho...
You know, it's perfectly OK . . . you can actually join a club for that:

http://www.oldmencrying.com/home.htm

Cheer up ! :)