-----------------------------------------------------------------
SearchReturn Discussion List
"Understanding Internet Search Technology"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Moderator: Published by:
Detlef Johnson SearchReturn
http://www.searchreturn.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------
February 21, 2006 SearchReturn Issue #040
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SEND POSTS:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Refer a friend: http://www.searchreturn.com/subscribe.shtml
-----------------------------------------------------------------
.....IN THIS DIGEST.....
// -- CONTINUING DISCUSSION -- //
"WebSideStory Release"
~ Mike Banks Valentine
"ACLU, Google & The DOJ"
~ SearchReturn
// -- ESSENTIAL NEWS -- //
"Krugle Indexes Code"
"Local Search to Triple"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
// -- CONTINUING DISCUSSION -- //
-----------------------------------------------------------------
==> TOPIC: WEBSIDESTORY RELEASE
"Search engine referrals convert at a rate twice that of other
sources."
From: Mike Banks Valentine
http://www.searchreturn.com/digest/refs040.shtml
Here we go again with bogus numbers and so-called "conversion
rates" studies without looking at ROI. In a laughable footnote,
WebSideStory notes quietly:
Study examines only the conversion rate, not the ROI generated by
each major search engine
So why is conversion percentage relevant when total numbers of
search engine *referred* visitors is not included in the
calculations of conversion percentages? The entire thing becomes
absurd once total numbers of referrals *within specific time
frames* are known.
I'm horrible at math, but fortunately I have a calculator on my
computer here. It tells me that if Google sends 100 visitors to
those sites in this study, almost 4 of them buy something.
Whereas AOL gets more than 6 people buying something for every
100 that come from that search engine.
We'll forget for a moment that those searches are actually still
done on Google servers.
Now those 6 AOL visitors took about 10 times as long to show up
on the retailers sites from AOL searches because Google sends
easily ten times the referred traffic as AOL. My calculator is
telling me that, in the same amount of elapsed time, Google sent
400 buyers and AOL sent 6 buyers.
Hmmm, I think the conversion percentage is kinda irrelevant once
the time factor is considered. It would take AOL referred
visitors about 66 times as long to convert at that better rate -
*once they show up*. They trickle in from AOL at a rate
equivalent to a faucet drip, while Google sends a blast of
visitors at a full flow rate.
It makes me crazy each time these "studies" are done which
measure things nearly superfluous to ROI and the bottom line. I
believe WebSideStory is looking for a little favor from AOL - or
perhaps a little cash? MSN is right behind AOL as usual, in this
silly "study" which has no concept of time or volume, and
purposely ignores ROI by their own admission.
Mike Banks Valentine
http://RealitySEO.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------
==> TOPIC: ACLU, GOOGLE & THE DOJ
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4731640.stm
Essentials: Google is fighting hard against the DOJ subpoena. The
US government wants a week's worth of Google search records, and
website addresses for a million random sites from of their index.
This is going to be a hard one for Google to fight. The premise
for their case is as weak as the subpoena is silly. There is
little doubt the DOJ is being obtuse about this request. Their
plan is to prove the ease of porn findability on the Internet.
Obviously, this can be proved by any hack without the records
Did they ever think to try a search or two in the court room?
Regardless, it is going to be difficult for Google to show the
DOJ is overreaching. Is user privacy at stake? Do the records
reveal Google trade secrets? No and no. Why then would Google
fight this? The explanation that makes sense is protecting porn
ad revenue as we thought eariler. If the DOJ began forcing
American porn to load an age proofing mechanism, no pornographer
could possibly comply. Even if they could, it would be bad for
business. Since we're not talking about global governance in
this case, American pornographers would have to relocate off
shore to avoid age proofing. The whole thing would be a costly
fiasco for them.
Picking their battles, Google would rather fight the DOJ here
than if the DOJ were to ask about records to help them in a
criminal case. Statements show they would turn over records
(including personally identifying information) if it helped law
enforcement or national security. That is understandable, but
it doesn't get cheers from Googlers to stick it to the man like
a good fight against the DOJ does. This case is not about
privacy or trade secrets or anything noble like that. It is much
more likely Google is protecting their porn advertising revenue.
The ACLU states that in response, (in case Google loses), they
would be forced to request records that prove the data is not
indicative of real searching activity. They would subpoena Google
to learn how Google works, and show the influence of automated
queries undermining what the DOJ could do with the data. Good
plan. Google has more incentive to fight the battle too, and can
enlist the ACLU to help their cause. It's about the free speach
and the first amendment.
The thing that doesn't add up is the ACLU might as well subpoena
the engines that already surrendered data. Instead, they say they
have no need or desire to obtain the information. The thing is,
automated queries are not a Google specific problem. They are
saying this to the court that is narrowly looking at the Google
matter. If they needed it, the ACLU would subpoena data. The
threat of an ACLU subpoena is what they need to help Google with
its case (they will probably lose anyway). If they win it would
help both Google and the ACLU together. The ACLU will probably
win its case against the DOJ and COPA in the end, regardless of
what happens to Google.
http://news.com.com/2100-1028_3-6041223.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
// -- ESSENTIAL NEWS -- //
-----------------------------------------------------------------
==> TOPIC: Krugle Indexes Code
http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/02/17/2027211
Essentials: The search volume for code is enormous. The results
are often mixed, and contain webpage information and not always
reliable code. It will be interesting to see how well Krugle
really works, considering that code very often can take on a
personal flair and style. Open source tries to be agnostic in
this regard, so it may work well. The index will be made up of
open source code from common repositories and collaborative
projects, starting with a reported 3-5 terabytes of code.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
==> TOPIC: Local Search to Triple
http://www.clickz.com/news/article.php/3585511
Essentials: The local search market is set to more than triple
over the next four years. This is growing at a rate more than
twice as fast as physical Yellow Pages over the same period.
Assuming the mobile search market is growing, if there is a real
breakthrough for mobile phone consumers, demand for local search
will be enormous (possibly outstripping this estimate).
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Stay Tuned.
Got feedback?: http://www.searchreturn.com/feedback.shtml
Archives: http://www.searchreturn.com/digest-archive.shtml
Alternate formats:
http://www.searchreturn.com/info-formats.shtml
Manage Subscriptions:
http://www.searchreturn.com/help/manage-subs.shtml
Problems unsubscribing? Contact the postmaster:
mailto:postmaster@searchreturn.com
Information on how to sponsor this publication:
http://www.searchreturn.com/help/advertise.shtml
Published by SearchReturn
http://www.searchreturn.com
Website Membership:
http://www.searchreturn.com/register.shtml
The contents of the digest do not necessarily reflect the
opinions of SearchReturn or Detlef Johnson. SearchReturn and
Detlef Johnson make no warranties, either expressed or implied,
about the truth or accuracy of the contents of the SearchReturn
Digest.
Copyright 2006 Detlef Johnson. All Rights Reserved.
-----------------------------------------------------------------