Transformers fan location offers a assets of dope and goodies round all things transformers, including the cartoons, toys, movies, comics, and lots more….

Hmmm. Replace the word Google with Wal-Mart. And see if the same people rush to defend the honor of the company in question. Just a thought experiment.

What will threaten Google is not an absence of content; rather it will be the development of “better than adsense” ways of charging for content.

I’m working on it.

We no longer live in the 1950s. You are not in control. You cannot control the news. There are thousands of information/entertainment sources and more are being created everyday.

If I cannot find your content in Google/Yahoo/MSN/and everyother search service you do not like, I will find lots from your competition. When I get the information/entertainment I need from your competition, why would I think of coming back to you?

Case in point, DallasNews.com has almost zero Dallas Cowboys coverage. Why? Because Belo wants me to pay to access CowboysPlus.com. No thanks, I can get me Cowboys news elsewhere!

Well, yes. And Yahoo’s. Why not? I think they should. If the various major Times, Posts, Tribunes et al could all agree that their news goes in a central site, then that becomes the defacto News site and Yahoo and Google can cry in their beer.

Stoopidity Archive
http://stoopidityarchive.blogspot.com

All of this discussion is so “centric” to the publishers and content creators. Hmmm, this would work great for our business, let’s foist this on consumers. Or, I’m grooving on the open web — everyone else must want it that way. Just because we all spend our days like geeks surfing 1,000 sources, doesn’t mean everyone else does.

Al Ries got it right in his Ad Age piece. Google won because they focused on what consumers needed — a good way to search, rather than making the mistake of AltaVista and jamming in everything they could think of without regard for whether people wanted it from their search provider.

Whoever finds a way to help consumers figure out what they want — and what’s worth their time — will be the next Google.

As I’d mentioned to you–and as I hope comes through in the column–I’m not at all sold that the Content Consortium approach is a good one. But I do think we will see various ways that content producers will push back against the search engines. The one proposed by the AP’s Tom Curley in the column is one. Cal’s above is another. There are a bunch of hybrid approaches possible that don’t involve putting all your stuff behind a barbed-wire barrier; I suspect we’re barely scratching the surface on them thus far.

Jon

Didn’t anyone ever tell you that if you make the browser window narrower, the text will flow to fit, so you can make it as wide as you like?!?!?

Use-it text will thus work on almost any type of terminal or device, as befits the Web — quite unlike your own old fashioned fixed-width, dead tree newspaper-style layout, Jeff

2. Provide tag pages with no content that google will spider. “Want to read what 93 newspapers said about [x]?” thus using Google to drive traffic to their content. (for that matter, they could buy ads on Google for every word–and the words they’d be interested in would be cheap.)

3. Ideally, convince a few major advertisers to advertise exclusively with them. They could still drive traffic via google.

The key is wiping out Yahoo and Google’s access to news links. You’ve been drinking too much koolaid if you don’t think people would be interested in a high quality search engine that only has content. There’s nothing wrong with doing two searches.