3 ms·

Ok, as clueless as he is, not even Mark Cuban can believe Twitter and Facebook live updates are going to supplant search engines. They serve completely differen

by mustpax 17y ago

Ok, as clueless as he is, not even Mark Cuban can believe Twitter and Facebook live updates are going to supplant search engines. They serve completely different purposes. Traffic from each source is almost completely independent of the other. The traffic you lose from Google News might be made up by Twitter, but it is never going to make up for the loss of Google organic search results. It is also ironic how each news outlet is so enthusiastic about their competitors blocking Google. They know they would just get their competitor's traffic for free. This jumping on the Rupert Murdoch saber-rattling bandwagon is getting old really quick. I will believe the viability of their alternative business models when I see one of these media moguls actually block Google in their robots.txt file.

onewland 17y ago
It makes me wonder: Does he even talk to people outside the tech industry? 90% of people I know that aren't in software/technology think that Twitter is a retarded fad. While I don't agree with that, they have an enormous amount of credibility building to do within the non-technical community. I don't care if CNN or Fox News reads tweets during their "news" broadcasts. Twitter already has a retention problem, and Walter J. McTraditionalbusinessman isn't signing up for a Twitter account because Rupert Murdoch won't let Google index his results. He'll just search Google, and not find the WSJ's articles. edit: To be fair, you don't need to be a twitter user to view public tweets. I do think, however, there is a general skepticism about the service that won't end soon in the business world.
endtime 17y ago
>Ok, as clueless as he is, not even Mark Cuban can believe Twitter and Facebook live updates are going to supplant search engines. He wasn't suggesting that! Just that Twitter is already a better source than Google for real-time news...not a very new or controversial statement.
- stingraycharles 17y ago
  His point basically is that, compared to Twitter, Google is unimportant for News Corp, traffic-wise. Which I personally find hard to believe.
  - dotcoma 17y ago
    Plus, why does twitterpose no threat to News Corp? it still sends readers directly to the article without losing time on the homepage. So, in what really is it different from Google?
- enjo 17y ago
  It would be rather controversial for me. Twitter search (at least on twitters site) is rather unsophisticated in the way it determines relevance. You have to wade through a pile of retweets to find anything truly useful. Google news (or other sites like oneriot) do a great job of parsing through ALL of the available news outlets on a pretty quick basis. At the end of the day you end up in the same place (tweets are nothing but pointers to 'real' content in most cases), but I find it's much more efficient to utilize a more sophisticated search tool. Put me squarely in the camp that the value of twitter is nothing more than ego stoking.
  - endtime 17y ago
    I don't use Twitter, I think it's a useless fad. But for real-time news, it's hard to argue that it isn't better than Google. It's not perfect, but looking at the trending hashtags tells you something Google can't.

by mustpax 17y ago

onewland 17y ago

It makes me wonder: Does he even talk to people outside the tech industry? 90% of people I know that aren't in software/technology think that Twitter is a retarded fad. While I don't agree with that, they have an enormous amount of credibility building to do within the non-technical community. I don't care if CNN or Fox News reads tweets during their "news" broadcasts. Twitter already has a retention problem, and Walter J. McTraditionalbusinessman isn't signing up for a Twitter account because Rupert Murdoch won't let Google index his results. He'll just search Google, and not find the WSJ's articles. edit: To be fair, you don't need to be a twitter user to view public tweets. I do think, however, there is a general skepticism about the service that won't end soon in the business world.

endtime 17y ago

>Ok, as clueless as he is, not even Mark Cuban can believe Twitter and Facebook live updates are going to supplant search engines. He wasn't suggesting that! Just that Twitter is already a better source than Google for real-time news...not a very new or controversial statement.

stingraycharles 17y ago
His point basically is that, compared to Twitter, Google is unimportant for News Corp, traffic-wise. Which I personally find hard to believe.
- dotcoma 17y ago
  Plus, why does twitterpose no threat to News Corp? it still sends readers directly to the article without losing time on the homepage. So, in what really is it different from Google?
enjo 17y ago
It would be rather controversial for me. Twitter search (at least on twitters site) is rather unsophisticated in the way it determines relevance. You have to wade through a pile of retweets to find anything truly useful. Google news (or other sites like oneriot) do a great job of parsing through ALL of the available news outlets on a pretty quick basis. At the end of the day you end up in the same place (tweets are nothing but pointers to 'real' content in most cases), but I find it's much more efficient to utilize a more sophisticated search tool. Put me squarely in the camp that the value of twitter is nothing more than ego stoking.
- endtime 17y ago
  I don't use Twitter, I think it's a useless fad. But for real-time news, it's hard to argue that it isn't better than Google. It's not perfect, but looking at the trending hashtags tells you something Google can't.