Google Knol is Evil | Hacker News Reader

Google Knol is Evil

seldo.com

Knol is unnecessary. The single differentiating thing about Wikipedia is that everybody edits the same page about a certain topic. With Knol, everybody creates their own, which is just like... the Internet. As in, I can put up a homepage on my server about anything I like. So basically Google wants to have "the Internet" on their servers, with all the pages displaying their ads.

Also, in terms of quantity and quality, Knol (unlike Wikipedia) is competing with all the rest of the Internet. With Wikipedia, the small fraction of ppl willing to work on it together create pages (that are worthwhile). With Knol, everyone will create their own page, hence there's no difference between them and the rest of the independent Internet.

I think Knol will die off within a year.

Perhaps it will mutate into something else and be saved?

You mean it's a microcosm of the internet that's smaller but better structured?

Like Facebook, Wikipedia, or Second Life?

Clearly it's doomed.

This is so stupid. Pagerank is based on links, Knol has a lot of links, therefore it has good pagerank. Why is that evil?

Update: At the moment this comment is moderated -2, and the factually incorrect reply is +4. Nice.

How many sites/pages have you seen that have received a rank of 5 in a day and appear on the first page of SERPs, often at the top spot? As for number of incoming links, I doubt Knol pages have many from non-Google properties... they've been out there for less than a week.

But think about it. It would be such an incredibly stupid move for google to slay their golden goose just to prop up one of many new projects.

And I am actually unable to consistently reproduce evidence for preferencial ranking. If you search google for "Knee Surgery" knol is #109 and wikipedia is #11. The same search on yahoo gives you knol on #78 and wikipedia on #3

But it takes inbound links from non-knol domains to give it page rank. The point is it shouldn't have been able to bootstrap it's page rank like this.

PageRank is computed based on the links in the page graph, not domains. Knol was all over the news, so it has links from a variety of other high-pr sites.

It also ranks high in Yahoo search -- do you believe that they are in on the conspiracy too?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=buttermilk+pancakes

http://search.live.com/results.aspx?q=buttermilk+pancakes...

http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0oGkwE.oo5IxRgBQGpXNyoA...

Ranking of the Knol on Buttermilk pancakes:

Google: #4

Yahoo: #34

Live: #55

Google: #2 http://www.google.com/search?q=Pediatric+Sports+Injuries

Yahoo: #1 http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0oGklD1pY5I0hcByd1XNyoA...

I didn't bother searching msn. I'm sure the results vary from query to query, as they do for all sites. The point is that many of these pages are ranking quite high on Yahoo as well. Either you can attribute that to Yahoo being in on Google's evil plan, or you can understand that these pages naturally rank quite high because they are linked to from the front page of a highly linked site that has been all over the news and blogs recently (Knol).

Unfortunately the truth is not as dramatic as these "Google is evil" stories, so people often prefer the later.

It still remains that pages on Knol are getting much higher rankings than the pages themselves warrant. I wondered why the front page of Knol had such a random collection of content links - it seemed very ungoogle - now it looks like SEO that's damaging the reputation of their search engine.

I think it had a random collection of links because Knol is tiny and that's all they have. I'm sure it will change as they grow.

It sounds innocent enough, but it does point to some problems with their search ranking. The quality of their search results has to be far more important than Knol.

Complaining about Knol's ranking contributes to it.

any publicity is good publicity

That'd certainly put pages linked to from the front knol page up quite high. It does make me wonder what happens when a page changes its outlinks a lot, does pagerank get distributed along the last snapshot or does it amalgamate them. If this is whats driving the high page ranks they'll certainly drop off in time.

To preserve their reputation as an impartial index they should make those front page content links nofollow.

Give me a break. This post, and an number of the other Knol-is-bad commentary pieces floating around, boil down to not much more than "Google owes me/my friends a living".

This quote is priceless: "The company whose mission is to 'organize the world's information' is straying into 'monetizing the world's information'"

And how, precisely, is Google supposed to organize the world's information without monetizing it?

Some people need to calm down. If it's true that Google are inflating the PageRank of Knol pages, then they're damaging their most valuable product -- high quality search results. And it is well within their rights to do that if they choose.

Is it possible that Knol ranks high because its lives in the Google domain? And that no one touched the algorithm?

I can't imagine Google not understanding that this could happen. Hopefully, they'll speak up soon.

Do they really need to explain themselves? I'm on board with the knol has been linked from every major site with a high PR and most likely helped increase the page rank. But even if google gave it an extra push or piggy backed on the google.com domain, isn't that within their right? Its THEIR site, they can do whatever they want. I don't want to defend them and empower them to manipulate results at a cost of control. But what it comes down to is, if it pisses enough people off they will take their search somewhere else (cuil did just launch, HAH!). Also want to throw out that a search for "site:knol.google.com" brings back 1,500 results. I don't know if thats a major concern yet.

FWIW, when I searched for "search engine" on Google, the first[] results were Dogpile, AltaVista (?!), and Ask.com. When I did the same search on Yahoo, the first result was Yahoo, and Google was second. When I did it on Ask.com, the first result was for Ask.com and Google wasn't even on the first page (except for a "Narrow Your Search" link in the sidebar referring to "Google UK Search Engine"). Go figure.

[]excluding the "related searches", news articles, sponsored links, and other effluvia that gets put at the top of the page

I don't understand the argument. It's google's search engine, if they want to rank certain things higher, why not?

If people don't like the result content, they'll go to the competition!

I don't understand the argument. It's Microsoft's operating system, if they want to pre-install certain apps, why not?

Google's heading in the same direction as MS. They'll probably end up in the same court room in Washington DC few years from now.

It's Microsoft's operating system, if they want to pre-install certain apps, why not?

There's nothing fundamentally wrong with Microsoft pre-installing apps, just like there is nothing wrong with Apple pre-installing apps on OSX, or Sun on Solaris.

but it is wrong that Apple forces safari downloads on windows! grrr!

if it wasn't, they wouldn't have lost all those anti-trust suits

The courts do not always assess right and wrong -- they are concerned with legal and illegal, which isn't the same thing.

That comparison does not work. Microsoft pre-installing their applications, or tweaking their OS such that their applications provide a better experience is anti-competitive because it lets Microsoft utilize their monopoly to prevent competition.

Google is not preventing any other search engines from gaining popularity. People go to google to find the most relevant answer to a particular thing, when the top result is consistently a spam knol, people won't go there to search anymore.

You're getting the two mixed up.

The concern with Microsoft wasn't that they used their OS monopoly to unfairly compete with other operating systems, it was that they used their OS monopoly to unfairly compete with other applications (eg. IE vs. Netscape).

The concern with Google isn't that they might be using their search near-monopoly to unfairly compete with other search engines, it is that they might be using their search near-monopoly to unfairly compete with other websites (eg. Knol vs. Wikipedia).

If people don't like the result content, they'll go to the competition!

Ya we can surely go to the competition, but wait there is no competition now. Yahoo has outsourced its search ads to Google, that means they are not very serious about their search and Microsoft is still trying very hard but they can't compete with "Resistance is Futile Google". Early search engines like Wikia, Powerset and Cuil get slammed by "wisom of the crowd" users for unable to match Google results. Show me the competition, i would love to go there.

Yahoo is sending contradictory messages, BOSS is very innovative and forward-thinking, but their Google deal pretty much indicates they've packed their bags. Powerset got their payday and is now part of Live. Live is still fighting hard, though they're not there yet. But if you think about it, Live can't really go down much in usage - the people that still use it have got to be pretty loyal! ;) So it can only go up. There is hope, and how ironic that it is from Microsoft.

Google right now is looking so much like Microsoft 10 years ago.

their Google deal pretty much indicates they've packed their bags.

I don't see how it means that at all. They're making more on the google ads in that location than they were on their own ads. And, of course, there's plenty of rumors out there that the board and Jerry had to come up with a better alternative than MSFT's bid to buy their search product. Sounds like they're doing everything possible to keep their search business and monetize it by any means necessary.

If the bags were packed, they'd've sold.

> "Sounds like they're doing everything possible to keep their search business"

Search isn't a business without the ads. The Google deal basically lets Google place ads on Yahoo search results, if they can get a higher price. As a result of its market leadership position, Google commands higher rates for ads. Now that they're deploying ads in Yahoo results, they will get even better at selling ads, pushing rates up further. Since Yahoo is selling less ads, they will get more dependent on Google to monetize their search. The eventual case is that Yahoo outsources search advertising to Google, and Google has a virtual monopoly on search ads. Advertisers will hate this.

I dont think Yahoo has packed its bags. It outsourced only its sponsored search(not in full). This could make them understand which queries competition is doing better. If they were not serious, they could have outsourced web search. They could save tons of cash on development and servers.

The whole outsourcing thing is to make MS want them more, just inorder to prevent Yahoo from sleeping with Google

The problem is that it's anti-competitive. If Google owns the search business (and they do, more or less), they can drive other companies out of business by tweaking their listings - even companies that have nothing to do with search. What if your local phone company was owned by Verizon, and they "accidentally" misprinted phone numbers of Sprint customers? Or if the supplier of 70% of the world's cars made it harder for its competition's cars to get filled up with gas? Everyone loses except the monopoly.

You're right that ultimately, you could get a different phone book (or different search engine). But there isn't really a great search alternative right now. Hopefully that will change soon.

I use the "beta" stuff in myYahoo quite a bit and I like it. It provides search suggestions as you start typing (I've come to rely on them--instead of finishing what I was going to type, if Yahoo recognizes it in a slightly different phrasing I go with it), map links, etc.

I use it as my start page with rss feeds, etc., so it's kind of my default.

I still have to go to Google for some things, though, when Yahoo can't find it.

Do you have many links from google ? ... besides the Wikipedia Frontpage it's possibly the only other PR infinite Domain

Seriously, hasn't the "...is evil" meme run its course, 10x over?

Is Evil Considered Harmful (spoiler: yes)

If they don't get the issue of Knol pagerank sorted out soon, they are going to be hit with a massive anti trust lawsuit. And they are going to lose.

I'm curious as to why everyone is so surprised that this is happening though. It already worked like this with blogs hosted through Blogspot and websites hosted through Google Pages.

If they don't get the issue of Knol pagerank sorted out soon, they are going to be hit with a massive anti trust lawsuit. And they are going to lose.

I certainly hope not. Google, as a private company, should be free to display whatever they want in the search results. Once we start litigating and mandating search placement it becomes a no-win situation. If site A is placed above site B, site B sues. If site B is above site A, site A sues.

There is certainly solid legal ground for arguing that Google giving preferential search results to itself is an anticompetitive practice. It would be different if Google didn't control the vast majority of the search market, but it does.

Let's say there is a phone book company that pretty much controls the entire market. Google's actions are akin to the phonebook company only listing businesses that it owns in the main pages, while listing everything else in an appendix. Anticompetitive practice, to be sure. The phonebook company might argue, "Well since we are so tightly integrated with out own businesses, it is much easier to index them. Our competitors ending up in the back is simply an unintended side effect". Possibly true, but it's not going to fly in court.

To be honest, I don't care if Google is giving preferential treatment to Knol. But please, establish some plausible deniability. The speed in which Knol is being indexed is far too obvious. I think it would be a damn shame if Google were to lose its hold on the search market because of a lawsuit.

Google Maps is also integrated into the Google search. Any time it detects that you've entered a mappable location it provides a Google Maps link. If this feature were removed by, say, a lawsuit by Mapquest I think that Google would become less effective, and everyone would suffer as a result.

That's just my personal opinion, however. I had (and still have) no objection to Microsoft bundling a web browser and media player in Windows, and yet they've been hit by antitrust charges.

Maybe Microsoft would have been let off if their web browser and media player weren't such terrible products.

This is certainly much less significant then giving preferential page rank. Google controls what over two thirds of people see through search. If it doesn't appear on the first 3 pages of a Google search, exposure is very limited.

It's a shame that my original comment got voted down (didn't even know you could do that). I'd rather people share their opinions rather then voting down; the topic is worthy of discussion.

I really don't mind bundled software either. In fact, I don't mind preferential treatment being given to Knol. What I do mind is Google opening itself up to a lawsuit. A significant lawsuit against Google would have large negative effects in my opinion. I'd just like Google to show a little bit more discretion.

Problem is that Google's not artificially proppingp those blogs and they're not hosting ads by default and collecting revenue from them. Also, when you create a blog, you own the content.. not so with Knol.

That's incorrect... Terms of service states...

5.1. No Google Ownership of User Content. Google claims no ownership or control over any content submitted, posted or displayed by you on or through the Service. You or a third party licensor, as appropriate, retain all patent, trademark and copyright to any content you submit, post or display on or through the Service and you are responsible for protecting those rights, as appropriate.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com