Mashable - The Social Media Guide - Latest Comments in Google’s Knol: Evil and Doomed.

Re: Google’s Knol: Evil and Doomed.

SunSeven — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 08:38:37 -0000

I usually write at HubPages and I must say that they are 100 times better than knol

Regards

Re: Google’s Knol: Evil and Doomed.

StevenHodson — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 13:13:50 -0000

you seriously need to cut back on the coffee or at least switch to decaf

Re: Google’s Knol: Evil and Doomed.

Richard — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 08:50:04 -0000

SEO parasites are simply bottom feeders and at the end of the food chain. And call it what you want Hopkins - 'internet marketing' et al.

I am sure you are licking your chops.

The day you can produce killer content with meta that works then quite trying to rip those of us actually can write.

Problem is - you people can't.

...... It would be smart if they didn't prop up their company with the "don't be evil" motto.....

Wow quote of the day from a parasite.

My personal dream is that google tracks and nails all you fuckers who suck the blood with promises - and cheat, and fuck, and cheat more to get your clients on top....

Re: Google’s Knol: Evil and Doomed.

Mark "Rizzn" Hopkins — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 03:56:45 -0000

Mostly because a product that's been active only 3 days now already has better rankings than established, more relevant sites using the same keywords. It's clear it's being artificially given juice.

Re: Google’s Knol: Evil and Doomed.

WebDrops — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 03:01:21 -0000

well Knol though sounds an interesting concept... but its a great treat for spammers as well... as i did a little bit of research... people have already started treating it as an article submission site and there is no moderation of duplicate content done... and yes as Aaron well mentioned... knol coming up in top rankings in google search seriously sounds disgusting

Re: Google’s Knol: Evil and Doomed.

Anrkist — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 19:41:49 -0000

I must be late to the party but I really don't see how Knol is going to be different from anything else they have done. From the article, it mentions Google products don't always have the best rankings. Why will this be any different?

With Knol the people who create an article get to have their ugly mug plastered onto it (something I don't suggest ugly marketers do...) and maybe some contact info?

Honestly, I don't have much experience with Wikipedia but in my short time of tinkering with it, it seems you can see everyone who edits an article... and these people can also create profiles of themselves in the system. It's not on the article page, but it is there. At least the focus is off "MS Evil" these days.

Re: Google’s Knol: Evil and Doomed.

Calan — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 11:45:16 -0000

@ Mark

It is not untrue. Even using Aaron's example, none of the search results were explicitly optimised for the search phrase 'SEO Basics', which means it's fair game that his page which uses that specific term as its title, will rank well on the phrase.

Nobody is providing a single example where a COMPETITIVE search phrase is being promoted. The only current examples are simply that a specific and uncontended keyword phrase is being returned in the SERPS, and this can in no way prove any wrong doing on Google's part.

I have more detailed comments and an example on the Guardian site.

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk...

It's surprising that someone like Aaron Wall would post this without really thinking it through.

The KNOL site is already linked to by major news sources worldwide and is a hot topic in the news, so it would stand to reason that uncontended search phrases could return results. This does not mean that competitive terms are being given priority ranking.

Calan

Re: Google’s Knol: Evil and Doomed.

learnfilm — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 10:57:38 -0000

Everything google does is about money they pretty much own the internet so no suprise Knol will be big soon

Re: Google’s Knol: Evil and Doomed.

Ling — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 10:54:30 -0000

I think you're jumping the gun here. The key issue, when it comes to whether Google will be able to match Wikipedia with Knol, is the number of people actively working on it. I simply don't see so many people devoting time to it, or shifting over from Wikipedia. So Knol will be just one more site, liek Mahalo. Nothing earth-shattering there.

Re: Google’s Knol: Evil and Doomed.

Michal — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 08:03:13 -0000

I expected it to be a bit more interesting... Plus the concept of getting paid has been around for some time in sites like Shvoong.com, which were honest enough to develop something of their own and not just copy Wikipedia

Re: Google’s Knol: Evil and Doomed.

Mark "Rizzn" Hopkins — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 05:53:20 -0000

This is turning out to be immediately not true.

See: http://www.seobook.com/goog...

Trust is hard to build and easy to destroy.

Re: Google’s Knol: Evil and Doomed.

Calan — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 05:25:52 -0000

Google has spent a decade bringing us relevance. They have worked tirelessly on this cause and have beaten out all competition by achieving it.

They now offer a new product and everyone jumps on the bandwagon and starts pointing fingers at them calling them 'evil'. What a joke.

A KNOL page will only rank well if it is cited and referenced on a number of external and credible pages, which would see it beat other relevant pages using its standard search algorythm. This is how Wikipedia pages rank, and KNOL will have the same battle. Google is simply providing another platform.

The notion that Google will fill its results with spammy pages is pure sensationalism and to think they haven't thought of it is shows a basic lack of understanding of SEO. They would never risk their search business on a subsidiary product.

Re: Google’s Knol: Evil and Doomed.

lifesized — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 04:23:14 -0000

You are nuts. This would tank their business in 2 seconds. Go get some brains.

Re: Google’s Knol: Evil and Doomed.

Mark "Rizzn" Hopkins — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 03:55:55 -0000

Not sure that this is the best way to go about it, then.

Re: Google’s Knol: Evil and Doomed.

Mark "Rizzn" Hopkins — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 03:53:55 -0000

It may be good for the Knol writers, but it'll be a net negative for Google.

Re: Google’s Knol: Evil and Doomed.

Mark "Rizzn" Hopkins — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 03:52:45 -0000

It would be smart if they didn't prop up their company with the "don't be evil" motto. It's part of the reason why more companies don't gun for them (the other is that they have quality search results).

If they get crap search results because of artifically propping these Knols up, it'll backfire quicker than you can say Live Search.

Re: Google’s Knol: Evil and Doomed.

Kuroki Kaze — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 03:45:15 -0000

I think these fears are anticipatory. Knol will feed on Wikipedia, not Google. And Knol search hits will be delivered amongst other G results.

"Make money" idea can be interesting. Gonna look after the service, maybe even write something in my spare time.

Re: Google’s Knol: Evil and Doomed.

Sachin — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 02:59:20 -0000

I think Knol will be a big hit in the years to come as it has the ability to make the writer rich in terms of money.

Re: Google’s Knol: Evil and Doomed.

StevenHodson — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 02:28:38 -0000

Back after Knol was first announced I wrote that it would become the playground of spammers and marketers - http://www.winextra.com/200... - interesting that more folks are beginning to feel the same thing

Re: Google’s Knol: Evil and Doomed.

Sunil — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 02:19:10 -0000

It's not at all a good thing from Google that came out as Knol. As mrshl said, if it's a bad business decision, market will sure kick them. Lets wait and watch.

Re: Google’s Knol: Evil and Doomed.

chris — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 02:08:21 -0000

I've said for a long time that Google is out-microsofting Microsoft. Unfortunately, the justice department and antitrust laws haven't caught up with the internet. Make no mistake about it...they ARE monopolizing it (if they haven't already). The internet is the last great frontier for small businesses and entrepreneurs, and Google threatens to destroy that.

Re: Google’s Knol: Evil and Doomed.

Anderson — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 02:06:46 -0000

Smartest thing they could do is to really use their own search engine as leverage, and kick everyone else out of the Index.
Why are they even showing dailymotion, metacafe, etc... results. Stop being carebares, and start caring about your shareholders.
Stop launching idiots things like
base, shopping, scholar, checkout, finance, sites, and start investing in marketing, and kicking your compeition out of the water.

Re: Google’s Knol: Evil and Doomed.

Mark "Rizzn" Hopkins — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 01:08:49 -0000

The "evil" in the title comes from the assessment of others, rather than being so much of my own opinion here. I think they'll very quickly be forced to demote the Knols in search results and re-approach how they're structured. I think your assessment on market forces is correct. Google isn't run by dummies, they'll see the dollar signs and change their plan accordingly.

The evil here is that they're cutting an entire market segment out, which is what Jason Calacanis was saying. Mahalo, Squidoo, Wikipedia, About.com, etc... this is their bread and butter, and they more or less rely on Google.

For Google to come behind them and say - "Ok, you're done now" ... not exactly the nicest thing they could do.

Edit: to directly answer your "evil" question, mrshl, it would be the prioritized placement in the search results.

Re: Google’s Knol: Evil and Doomed.

mrshl — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 01:01:14 -0000

Mark,

For once I (partially) agree with one of your "sky is falling" posts. But even if Google is wrong here, and Knol is a bad business decision, that doesn't mean it's "EVIL."

It's just a bad business decision. That's it. If you're right, the market will punish them for it, and they'll be forced to adapt (see, e.g., Facebook's Beacon).

Also, I'm not sure what's so evil in the first place. What are you criticizing? The idea of Knol? Or Google's apparent enhancement of those pages' position (which could still be a function of "freshness").

I think the idea is actually pretty good. But as with Google's other services, there needs to be a pretty clear firewall established between Google the search engine and Google the content host.