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. He wasn't suggesting that!
by 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 agoHis point basically is that, compared to Twitter, Google is unimportant for News Corp, traffic-wise. Which I personally find hard to believe.
- dotcoma 17y agoPlus, 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 agoIt 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 agoI 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.