No big deal, right? Good for both parties, right? Well, to the Google News team, that's a problem and they're working to change that via a new meta tag system.
This blogger thinks the new meta tags system is one Google News should have left on the shelf.
Last week, Google News unveiled this experimental system with two types of meta tags: "syndication-source" and "original-source." In the first, publishers can pick which one of two almost identical blog posts, columns, or articles can appear on Google News. In the second, Google wants news publishers to give credit to where the original story came from - the one that "broke the story." But stop right there. It's in the first case where Google's mistake is.
Where Google got the idea a publisher wanted to pick one of several identical posts that appear as the result of a content deal is not known. The idea of many content partnerships is to enjoy the traffic generating power of the content on more than one site, and with the assumption that both will appear on Google News.
If Google doesnt't want that, it will be the beginning of the end of Google' market share. In a tight economy, content sharing is more common than ever. To cause, say the SF Chronicle to lose revenue because of its relationship with Bloomberg, which is what could happen in this deal, is absurd. The end result is more akin to communism than capitalism.
Google must be careful not to try and control the market's behavior, but help it along. This blogger has the impression that Google feels it has to tinker in ways that make the overall web experience less enjoyable and less lucrative for small business in the media space.
If Google doesn't stop this course of action, it will see the growth of a competitor that will reduce its market share. Too often Google responds to the wrong voices in media, the voices of fear. These are the same voices that have not learned any of the New Media methods of writing for the Internet, and question the need to do so.
Some of those voices have also threatened to sue, or actually sued Google in the past, and unsuccessfully. In the vast majority of cases, their claims against Google were wrong. Google has to grow a pair and challenge these voices, not given in to them.
Which brings us to the second case. Determining the URL for an "original story" is an issue that can cause fist-fights. It's all too common for news sites representing established media organizations to take story ideas based on the work of bloggers, not source the blogger, but then want credit when the story is picked up elsewhere.
That has happened to a number of people, from myself with the creation of the term BeastWeek, to Richard Lieberman's local Bay Area media blog posts. If a blog is small, Google's not there to protect it, but if another blogger happens to expand on the story the bigger media organization put out, but got from the other small blogger without note, guess who Google comes after? The smaller blogger.
Google needs to rethink this idea. No, Google needs to trash it. It's too fraught with possibility for abuse.
Google must let the market work, not try to control it.
free market capitalism is the reason we have monopolistic media. capitalism is the source of all misery in the modern world, yet you dismiss anything that vies against it to be communism and therefore bad? you're too hopelessly ignorant to ever form a valid opinion, so let's just go ahead and say google news is not going to lose any of its "market share" because of this and if anything will become more credible than anything else that's out there. just because the associated press is responsible for 90% of the news out there doesn't mean that people should not be allowed to know that you copied their article verbatim without giving proper credit.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you it's not a well thought out idea. In an extremely competitive media landscape, who's going to want to give credit to their competitors?
ReplyDeleteAnd if you have a different angle on a story, is that now an original? If anything this discourages a competitive media. What about a story based on a press release?
What it does demonstrate is that Google doesn't really understand the media.
What really is needed is a strong competitor(s) to Google so that the market can force them to change. Right now they are so big that they can do whatever they like.
Where did you get the idea that Google News' goal was to promote news services? It's the consumers who want concise, first tier news. Just because you can (re)publish an article on ten websites only make it annoying, not ten times more valuable to the reader.
ReplyDeleteTodd you should research Google News content as well as the history of interactions between Google News and what you call "first tier" news. Moreover, your comment doesn't define what "first tier" is and in that sounds just as communist as their approach is starting to become. Krishna Bharat called Google News a "force for democracy." But you can't have such a thing and yet place your own bias of what news is on it. Explain why Google News has more Conservative than Liberal blogs listed on it? That's not "first tier" news.
ReplyDeleteSo if Ass. Press gets a story, do they own it? Does Reuters own the story if they publish it first? It's becoming a news channel owned by the larger news sites and corporations, and Google is helping them rather than allowing the news to filter to people without this creditation business. People could care less who broke it first, (the ones with world wide reporter networks would win every time). So the little guy has no business reporting the news. That is cutting the competition all right, Google lay off the control button, your going overboard.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, you're obviously not familiar with the situation, because the Associated Press does try to control the distribution of content, and in such a way that they look like they own the story, when they don't.
ReplyDeletePeople care if they want to break into the media business and find that a lot of unscrupulous news operators with big organizations are not linking to or sourcing their work. They also care if Google favors them, and the FCC cares too.
Although I see where there is room for abuse, it seems that this will only protect the little guy because authorship will be tagged from the beginning.
ReplyDeleteI would agree Demeter Design, except that "the little guy" and gal, has been booted from Google News.
ReplyDelete