» tagged pages
» logout

(Feed found, click Add Page to syndicate.) Error finding feed, please try again » Find feed title

A Blog Page allows you to add entries, for news or other time sensitive postings

(Login required to save to your tagged pages.)
(or Cancel)

Make further edits, (or Cancel)

(Login required to save to your tagged pages.)
(or Cancel)

(Editing anonymously: to be credited for your changes, login or register a new account)

Change Page Permissions? Changing these permissions will adjust who can modify this page.

alex (change)
Swik Users (change)
(or Cancel)
Upload an image from your computer:
or Copy an image from a URL:
or Erase the current icon:
Icon Preview:

or Cancel

Erase Google? The contents of Google page and all pages directly attached to Google will be erased.

or Cancel

(Editing anonymously: to be credited for your changes, login or register a new account)

other page actions:
Google

Google

Tags Applied to Google

6 people have tagged this page:

Google is a company that provides a widely popular search-engine service that is built on Linux.

Google hosts the regular ‘Summer of Codeopen source sponsorship project, which has led to the development of such projects as Firepuddle. Recently Google PageRank has been discontinued according to this google press release by Daniels Millions.

furniture

sorted by: recent | see : popular
Content Tagged Google

Google Code - Summer of Code

former student working on vim's undo tree persistence between edit sessions

opensource: del.icio.us tag/opensource

reddit.com: *NOW* Firefox 3.0rc1 is released.

Don't do that if you're trying to load the Google Toolbar. It'll make it so Firefox won't start again until you go in and manually delete the extension from the file system. /just learned the hard way

Firefox: del.icio.us/tag/firefox

Google Treasure Hunt update



Avast, matey! As announced on the Google Australia blog, we've launched Treasure Hunt — a puzzle contest designed to test yer problem-solving skills in computer science, networking, and low-level UNIX trivia. You'll find the first of four brainteasers at http://treasurehunt.appspot.com/. A new puzzle will be posted every week for the next three weeks, and a few lucky gobs to submit correct answers to every question will receive a prize.

The second puzzle will be appearing soon — to be exact, 936266827 seconds before Y2K38, so keep yer eyes open. We'll also be highlighting our Mountain View mother ship, so step smartly, lads and lasses, and good luck!

In case ye missed out on the first week's puzzle, it's still available, so 'tis not too late! ARR! (Can you tell we can hardly wait to Talk Like a Pirate?)

Google: Official Google Blog

How To Structure a Yahoo-Google Search Deal: It’s All About The Tail and the Torso

torso-tail.png

Even as Carl Icahn rallies angry shareholders to try to force Yahoo back to the bargaining table with Microsoft, one of the “strategic alternatives” Yahoo may still be trying to work out in the background is a search advertising deal with Google. There is a 60 to 70 percent gap between what Google collects for search ads and what Yahoo collects, so simply handing over a portion of its search advertising inventory to Google would boost its cash flow and profits considerably—perhaps adding as much as $1 billion or more in cash flow.

But how could such a deal pass muster with antitrust authorities, who are already investigating the test run Google and Yahoo did last month with only 3 percent of Yahoo’s search ads?

It would all depend on how a deal is structured.

One line of thinking is that Yahoo and Google could get away with a deal that only hands over 10 to 20 percent of Yahoo’s search advertising inventory. This would need to be on a non-exclusive basis, meaning that if somebody else could come in and beat Google’s revenue-per-search-query Yahoo would be free to hand them the ad inventory instead. The assumption was that this would be the 10 to 20 percent of keywords that bring in the highest revenues for Yahoo. (We discussed this point in our interview with Citi analyst Mark Mahaney last month, for instance).

But there is another way Yahoo could get a lot more bang for its buck in a deal with Google. Instead of handing over the most valuable search terms, it would be better off handing over the ones with the biggest delta in profitability (the difference between what Google makes on those terms and what Yahoo makes). Yahoo does not have any trouble getting decent ad rates for the most desirable search terms. Call those the head keywords that bring in the most revenues. What it has trouble making money on are the keywords in the long tail and torso of its advertising inventory. And that’s exactly where Google excels at squeezing out relevant matches and clickthroughs.

If Yahoo can identify which basket of search terms represents the biggest profitability gap compared to what Google makes, it can maximize what part of its ad inventory to outsource to Google. These terms will likely turn out to be the ones that are currently the least valuable ones to Yahoo. Picking the 10 to 20 percent of keywords where the delta is the greatest between what Yahoo and Google are able to charge would effectively multiply the impact of the deal. After all, there is no point in handing over high-revenue search terms that Yahoo is already matching Google on in terms of profitability.

If the numbers work out and antitrust can be avoided, such a deal would certainly be a way to appease (or at least answer) Yahoo’s increasingly irate shareholders. But if Yahoo is serious about striking a deal with Google, it should do so before the proxy battle with Icahn comes to a head.

(Photo credit:Jack Versloot).

Crunch Network: CrunchGear drool over the sexiest new gadgets and hardware.

Web2.0: TechCrunch

The F|R Interview: Turn Co-founder, Jim Barnett

Jim Barnett is co-founder and CEO of Turn, a three-year-old online advertising firm that uses an eBay-like auction to improve the way advertisers are matched to web publishers. Previously, Jim was president of AltaVista, and later, of Overture’s search division, which Yahoo bought for $1.6 billion in 2003. Jim talks to us about why he finally became a founder, why bootstrapping is not always the answer, and why sometimes co-founders need to part ways.

F|R: When did you first get the startup bug?

Barnett: Unlike some of your contributors, I’m a serial CEO. Historically, my passion and expertise has been taking entrepreneurial companies and scaling them into professionally-run companies. I did that with several companies, but ever since I was a kid I wanted to run a company from scratch.

F|R: Many founders find themselves in David vs. Goliath contests. Conventional wisdom is the only way to win is with superior technology. Turn is in a space dominated by DoubleClick, aQuantive, Advertising.com and Google. How do you compete?

Barnett: The Internet space doesn’t require you to have dramatically better technology, but there is no question that you have to be exponentially better at something. It might be technology, or maybe just a better product strategy.

In the ad space it depends on what part of the market you’re going after. Better technology is Turn’s approach because we’re going after the broad, more developed market in display advertising – it’s worth $30 billion now, and growing 20 percent annually. If you’re going after emerging categories, like mobile or video advertising, a lot of innovation comes from strategy; it is not necessarily a requirement to have better technology. Personally, I like to attack mature markets because even a small piece of a big market can lead to a big company, and I always want the vision of a big company. But for most startups, pursuing an emerging market where there is not an entrenched Goliath is a better path. So it’s about finding a new market (eBay, Yahoo, Netflix), a different product (Facebook) or simply a better product (Google).

F|R: Many of our founders are fond of bootstrapping. You’ve raised $22.5 million in venture capital for Turn. Why was this necessary?

Barnett: Bootstrapping is a fine strategy for consumer applications that don’t require deep technology or where a lot of your technology will be off-the-shelf. At Turn, we had to build both a team of PhDs focused on ad-selection algorithms and a best-in-class ad serving platform. It was capital-intensive. Whether you bootstrap or not, keeping your staff small until you get it right is absolutely the right thing to do. The truth is most startups struggle. Very few open their doors and experience life “up and to the right” every day afterwards. Often you have to evolve your strategy midstream, and that almost always requires tremendous persistence and time. We changed our strategy at Turn. If you don’t have capital, you won’t have the time to get it right. Selling equity to get some runway is the right thing to do.

F|R: How did Turn evolve its strategy from Plan A to Plan B and why?

Barnett: When we started we were focused on the long tail in advertising, but around year two, we changed our strategy to focus on larger advertisers and publishers. The problem with the long tail is that it’s the tail, it’s not the heart or the body…it’s not where the mass is. Our service is about aligning advertisers’ needs with publishers’ needs. Higher-quality advertisers want to be on higher-quality publishers and vice versa. The long tail gets a lot of visibility, but the real tonnage in terms of users and revenue is with the larger players.

F|R: Was this change difficult? What consequences did it have on Turn?

Barnett: Initially I had a co-founder at Turn. He’s a brilliant technologist, and he focused really deeply on our technology. But at a certain point I wanted to aggressively move to our new strategy and he had different opinions. So we parted ways. The lesson there is sometimes you have to make a change for change’s sake.

F|R: How do you know when change for the sake of change is what’s needed?

Barnett: You don’t know — you’ve got to trust your instincts. Most of the time there is no proven path, particularly if you’re in an emerging space. You want a collaborative environment, but at critical junctures most organizations ultimately need one leader to make the call, to stand up and say, “Nope, this is what we’re doing and here’s why…” That’s what good CEOs need to do.

Technology-News: GigaOm

BSDCan 2008: Google Summer of Code

Leslie Hawthorn, a Program Manager in Google's Open Source team, gave a talk at BSDCAN 2008 on Google's ongoing Summer of Code project. She started by explaining what the open source team does, including enforcing license compliance, hosting over 700,000 open source projects with Google Code, academic research, funding open source development, and community outreach including the sponsorship of conferences such as BSDCan. She went on to discuss how she got started running the project after its initial launch in 2005.

Having sponsored four summer of code's now, Leslie noted that Google has had over 1,500 "graduates" and over 2,000 mentors involved, coming from over 98 countries and working with over 175 open source projects. By the end of the currently in progress 2008 Summer of Code, the project will have provided over 10 million US dollars in funding, generating over 6 million lines of code.

read more

FreeBSD: Kerneltrap.org - FreeBSD News

Battle Over Data Ownership on Gillmor Gang

Epic Gillmor Gang today. Everyone went in with guns blazing over the data portability/ownership debate that has spilled out over the Facebook/Google scuffle. DataPortability founder Chris Saad was also on the call, but failed to take a leadership position in the debate (he did, however, weigh in with a blog post on the subject before the call). Their influence may be waning.

As the podcast ended the blog posts started rolling in.

Marc Canter, who I accuse of compromising his position as a thought leader in the data portability debate simply because Facebook is suddenly telling him everything he wants to hear, says that his position hasn’t changed (nevertheless, it has). Robert Scoble simply apologized for being on the wrong side of the issue, yet again. And Dan Farber, a Gillmor Gang regular who missed the call, picked up on the analogy to the founding fathers writing the Bill of Rights and wrote about it here.

All in all, the group seems to be in alignment after the talk. Data ownership is an important issue that cannot be left in the big co.’s hands. Because if it is, they’ll serve their interests first, and that will lead to more walled gardens.

Crunch Network: MobileCrunch Mobile Gadgets and Applications, Delivered Daily.

Web2.0: TechCrunch

Page 1 | Next >>
Username:
Password:
(or Cancel)