I don't get it. Didn't Google try to get Facebook and Twitter to allow this, and both companies turned them down?

For the last farking time, Twitter, you farking idiot.

You [Twitter] put rel="nofollow" on all of your links after wrapping all of them in your t.co URL shortener. "nofollow" makes sure a search engine robot, you know, doesn't follow them. So the entire catalog of tweets is crawled and indexed, but any and all outgoing links from a tweet are not followed, and not indexed. This is to deter spammers from gaming Twitter and Google, by spamming the same link in every tweet, and artificially inflating a page's Google Page Rank.

The reason tweets aren't showing up in the new social search feature is because everything is farking working as designed you goddamn illiterate internet whore.

FTFA: Google insists that its users benefit from Search Plus Your World, and that the company has no legal duty to boost its rivals' services.
"The laws are designed to help consumers benefit from innovation, not to help competitors," said Adam Kovacevich, a spokesman for Google.

Yeah. Microsoft tried that same argument in United States v. Microsoft, and it didn't get them very far. Anybody remember this quote?

"Consumers did not ask for these antitrust actions - rival business firms did. Consumers of high technology have enjoyed falling prices, expanding outputs, and a breathtaking array of new products and innovations. ... Increasingly, however, some firms have sought to handicap their rivals by turning to government for protection. Many of these cases are based on speculation about some vaguely specified consumer harm in some unspecified future, and many of the proposed interventions will weaken successful U.S. firms and impede their competitiveness abroad."

That's the quote from "An Open Letter to President Clinton From 240 Economists On Antitrust Protectionism", a full-page ad published in 1999 to protest the DoJ's investigation regarding the bundling of Internet Explorer with Microsoft Windows.

I mean, never mind the irony of Google, a company that benefited from the United States v. Microsoft suit, trying to use Microsoft's very defense for a very similar action - the simple fact that Google is now attempting to use the very same defense for a very similar issue should ring warning bells at the Department of Justice.

That is, of course, unless the right palms are being greased.

Google Realtime search....it used to be there...

bittermang: For the last farking time, Twitter, you farking idiot.

You [Twitter] put rel="nofollow" on all of your links after wrapping all of them in your t.co URL shortener. "nofollow" makes sure a search engine robot, you know, doesn't follow them. So the entire catalog of tweets is crawled and indexed, but any and all outgoing links from a tweet are not followed, and not indexed. This is to deter spammers from gaming Twitter and Google, by spamming the same link in every tweet, and artificially inflating a page's Google Page Rank.

The reason tweets aren't showing up in the new social search feature is because everything is farking working as designed you goddamn illiterate internet whore.

...wha? How Twitter's use of nofollow tags on links within tweets related to whether Google indexes the tweets in the first place?

How is google a monopoly when they don't even have 2/3 of search market share? And that is just typical websearch which doesn't include searches on twitter, facebook or any other site that powers it own search features.

Link (new window)

Just because they are perceived to be a monopoly doesn't make them one.

If you're content is publicly available you are a dipshiat for complaining about Google making it part of their search results. No exceptions. No qualifiers. End of line.

WhyteRaven74: If you're content is publicly available you are a dipshiat for complaining about Google making it part of their search results. No exceptions. No qualifiers. End of line.

They are complaining Google is allowing people to add +Google posts to their searches but not Facebook or Twitter posts. As a farker pointed out, these social sites explicitly made their webcode so search engines CAN'T do this but now they complain about Google allowing +Google searching but not Facebook or Twitter searches.

MrEricSir: bittermang: For the last farking time, Twitter, you farking idiot.

You [Twitter] put rel="nofollow" on all of your links after wrapping all of them in your t.co URL shortener. "nofollow" makes sure a search engine robot, you know, doesn't follow them. So the entire catalog of tweets is crawled and indexed, but any and all outgoing links from a tweet are not followed, and not indexed. This is to deter spammers from gaming Twitter and Google, by spamming the same link in every tweet, and artificially inflating a page's Google Page Rank.

The reason tweets aren't showing up in the new social search feature is because everything is farking working as designed you goddamn illiterate internet whore.

...wha? How Twitter's use of nofollow tags on links within tweets related to whether Google indexes the tweets in the first place?

Because Google rates sites based on who they are linking to and who is linking to them.

I dont really know, but it seems to me that by screwing with the links it throw the ranking algorithms into che'hoss.

So exactly how long is it until the internet becomes self aware and jacks up the lot of us?

So why doesn't Facebook pair up with AltaVista or something?

threadjackistan: Because Google rates sites based on who they are linking to and who is linking to them.

I dont really know, but it seems to me that by screwing with the links it throw the ranking algorithms into che'hoss.

But that's the OPPOSITE of how PageRank works -- it's not about who you're linking to, it's about who's linking to you.

Build a better mouse trap then.



\Hotlinked like a terrorist

FormlessOne: Yeah. Microsoft tried that same argument in United States v. Microsoft, and it didn't get them very far. Anybody remember this quote?

Yes, but that case was a dog and pony show from the very beginning. The US government doesn't have a "shoot first, plant drugs later" approach with Google, so I'm interested to see how a fair trial might play out.

My GED in law hasn't been renewed in a couple years, but I don't think what Google is doing here is competition stifling at all.

MrEricSir: threadjackistan: Because Google rates sites based on who they are linking to and who is linking to them.

I dont really know, but it seems to me that by screwing with the links it throw the ranking algorithms into che'hoss.

But that's the OPPOSITE of how PageRank works -- it's not about who you're linking to, it's about who's linking to you.

Yeah, but nothing links to tweets except other tweets.

Right? I dont actually use twitter.

threadjackistan: Yeah, but nothing links to tweets except other tweets.

Right? I dont actually use twitter.

No, you can link to any url from within a tweet.

MrEricSir: threadjackistan: Yeah, but nothing links to tweets except other tweets.

Right? I dont actually use twitter.

No, you can link to any url from within a tweet.

Yeah sure, but who is going to link TO a tweet except another tweet.

threadjackistan: Yeah sure, but who is going to link TO a tweet except another tweet.

You can. Each tweet has its own page which shows activity relating to it- RTs and replies. I don't even use Twitter, and I know this- because people have linked me to tweets.

Faddy: How is google a monopoly when they don't even have 2/3 of search market share?

It's not about size of marketshare. It's about "does this company use its position in the market to prevent fair competition?" Integrating otherwise unrelated products- a search engine and a social network- could be viewed as as running afoul of anti-trust laws. Google is certainly giving G+ a competitive advantage over other social networks. Now, from what I've seen, Google has said that they'd be perfectly happy to do the same for other companies' social networks- if they can demonstrate that this is true, they might not have an issue. This assumes that Google indexes G+ content through a set of APIs that a) anyone can use, and b) anyone can implement a compatible version for their own social networks.

I know Google wanted to index tweets but Twitter wanted millions for the right to do so. Google refused to by and Bing ponied up the cash. I don't know how you can claim a company refusing to pay you is illegal.

It's nice to see the Web companies getting into the same shiat slinging contests that software companies have been involved in for the last 20 years or so. Once you get big enough, competitive practice starts to include legal actions to quash rivals innovations.

So google is getting into trouble because one of its products has the ability to access another one of its products, both of which are used completely voluntarily by the user?

Even if its blatantly anti-competitive they will get a slap on the wrist so..

t3knomanser: Faddy: How is google a monopoly when they don't even have 2/3 of search market share?

It's not about size of marketshare. It's about "does this company use its position in the market to prevent fair competition?" Integrating otherwise unrelated products- a search engine and a social network- could be viewed as as running afoul of anti-trust laws. Google is certainly giving G+ a competitive advantage over other social networks. Now, from what I've seen, Google has said that they'd be perfectly happy to do the same for other companies' social networks- if they can demonstrate that this is true, they might not have an issue. This assumes that Google indexes G+ content through a set of APIs that a) anyone can use, and b) anyone can implement a compatible version for their own social networks.


It definitely is about market share. In Europe Microsoft has to let users independently choose a browser because bundling IE was stopping other competitors because of their massive market share. Apple is free to bundle Safari and all sort of other apps that Microsoft is unable to because they have 90% of the computer market. So when you say position in the market you are talking about market share.

A monopoly is a legal term and google is not a monopoly until a court says it is, it isn't.
Link (new window)