3 ms·
I don't understand why there is a deal at all. Why isn't the situation simply that Google indexes things (like tweets) unless they have a rel=nofollow?
by SeanLuke 15y ago
I don't understand why there is a deal at all. Why isn't the situation simply that Google indexes things (like tweets) unless they have a rel=nofollow?
- kanamekun 15y agoAs of June last year, Twitter was churning out 155 million tweets a day: http://radar.oreilly.com/2011/07/gnip-twitter-firehose-realtime-data.html http://radar.oreilly.com/2011/07/gnip-twitter-firehose-realt... It's not easy to index find that much fresh data in anything resembling real-time. And with real-time data, seconds and minutes matter.
- niketdesai 15y agoI think you're right here. This is a non-issue. Google's core value proposition to users is search. If that can be improved by gathering content from the + network, they will (and should do it). If Google could have access to FB/Twitter content with consent, they would index and serve those results as well (it's fundamentally better for the user AND google). This whole thing is getting blown way out of proportion because people like to see giants fight.