So I'm reading Google readying Web-only video search over on ZDNet and am struck by a few things.
First off, this "web-only" moniker is a bit odd. I read the whole article and was still left not entirely sure what "web-only" really means. The word "only" appears only twice on the first page: once in the headline and once in the lead paragraph.
Later on, I read this:
The first stage of the video search engine will put Google on par with chief rival Yahoo, which finished work on its own Web video search engine in May, as well as others such as America Online's Singingfish and Blinkx. Unlike Yahoo, which already has submission deals with companies such as Reuters, Google will avoid mining the Internet for video clips and will use only video clips that have been submitted by their producers.
There are few things wrong with that...
- Work was not "finished" on Yahoo! Video Search back in May. Andy Volk and the Video Search team are always working on enhancements. More on that soon.
- That does not put Google on par with Yahoo! Video Search. We mine the Intenet for video and accpet video from anyone via Media RSS. How on earth does Google's submission-only policy put them anywhere near us?
Later in the article, Stephanie write:
To a certain extent, Google is playing catch up. Reuters, for example, also has deals with America Online's Singingfish, Yahoo and Blinkx. It provides all those companies with a video content feed, which includes "meta data" or descriptive language that defines the content for automated indexing by the search engines. In turn, the search engines drive traffic to Reuters.com, which is trying to become a news destination site supported by online advertising.
So she admits that Google is playing catch up. I'm cool with that.
Eventually, Google plans to leapfrog its competitors by creating a "walled garden" of video content hosted on its servers. The content will originate both from independent and A-list video producers, sources say. That way, Google can eventually sell access and video advertising, or online commercials.
Excuse me? A walled garden?! That's such a mid-90s and un-Google way to approach the world on-line content. I can't wait to see who is allowed inside the wall. :-)
Posted by jzawodn at June 14, 2005 10:45 AM
Jeremy said: "Excuse me? A walled garden?! That's such a mid-90s and un-Google way ... "
Yeah, and here we have AOL (one of the masters of the walled garden) going the exact opposite way:
"AOL will focus on free music video":
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=847172&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312
Love that the title is 'Corrections for Stephanie Olsen', and that you mispelled stefanie's name.
:)
Luke: you must be new here.
I make typos *all the time*. I'm not proud of it, but it's a fact. Nobody edits this stuff but me and that's one of the downsides.
Video search exists since years. It was available under the Altavista brand.
So is Audio(file) search:
Altavista
http://www.altavista.com/audio/results?q=funny
Y!Japan
http://audio.search.yahoo.co.jp/bin/search?p=funny
Oh damn I HATE her Yahoo blog at CNET I have answered some of her previous post there... I just aaarrggg... (ok , alright I go out)
Uhm, Yahoo has video search. See http://video.search.yahoo.com/
Jeremy
Hi, I'm new here but wanted to comment. It doesn't seem to be characteristic of Google to not 'mine the web' for video content. Yahoo! Video Search will ultimately deliver better results, won't they? And isn't Google ultimately trying to build their reputation for better 'results'?
The fact that Yahoo mines the web for video brings up an important point. Yahoo is actually facilitating illegal file sharing. If you or I tried setting up such a site, we'd get sued by the video owners, but Yahoo can get away with it because they have partnerships with the major labels, and they're not afraid of the small fish. More info in my blog...
http://www.uglyblog.com/archives/2005/search-engine-corruption-part-two/
