

News Archive
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
Big Publishers Want Special Treatment from Google
March 30, 2009, 3:39 pmUpdate: In an interesting turn to this story, the New York Times has eliminated 993,000 article pages as it rolls International Herald Tribune (IHT) into the NYT site. Instead of redirecting the articles to the same article on NYT, they all simply go now to one landing page.
Ryan Tate at Valleywag writes, "The Times' longtime online chief, Martin Niesenholtz, recently whined that a Google search on the word 'Gaza' didn't include any of his content on the first results page. And yet he just nuked 121,000 of his own articles containing that keyword."
Original article: Big-brand publishers don't like being overshadowed by bloggers. What else is new?
A new AdAge article discusses a group of such publishers (including brands like the Wall Street Journal, ESPN, and the New York Times) which make up Google's Publishing Advisory Board, which is calling for Google to rank their content higher because they're "the original sources" of news stories. Of course we all know that while that may often be the case, it is also very often not. Somtimes even "original sources" even come from Microblogging. Remember when the news of the emergency landing on the Hudson River broke on Twitter?

This is not a new discussion. As Steve Rubel says, when he read the article he felt like he had stepped back into 2004.
The truth of the matter is, many big brand publishers have become more blog-like and many bloggers and blog-style news sites have become big brands themselves. Rubel phrases it well, "To me, we don't have zebras and elephants anymore. They have mated and we're all one species."
But that's not how some of these publishers see it. They'd rather get special treatment based on their own brand rather than putting forth the effort in search engine optimization that others would when they weren't ranking to their satisfaction. Matt McGee (who has also joined this particular discussion) recently looked at a study showing that the Fortune 500 is still "largely invisible" in natural search results.
So where does Google stand? A recent update did supposedly cater to bigger brands anyway. "There's absolutely value to original content," AdAge quotes a Google Spokesperson. "There's value to derivative content, too. We look at this in many ways from the point of view of the user. But the truth is there are so many shades of gray even within, quote, original content."
The big-brand publishers are awaiting a more concrete answer from Google. The council meets again on April 30. With so much gray, that answer is probably going to be hard to reach.
Where do you stand on this subject? Talk about it with WPN readers.




