The Telegraph Pushes Local Search Engines as “Google Threats”

Posted by Mihaela Lica as Featured

The Telegraph.co.uk Caught with Its Homework Undone

An article at the Telegraph.co.uk inquires “why struggle” when it’s pretty clear that Google dominates search. In the article the author states that; “Yahoo! threw in the towel” , which is pretty inaccurate considering Yahoo!’s latest steps (Yahoo! aims to create the world’s first open search engine). Also, when we analyze Yahoo!’s site structure it’s not difficult to understand that without integrated search the company would have a lot to lose – so throwing the towel in is obviously not an option for them.

Yes, search is weak at Yahoo!, but Yahoo! Mail still dominates the free email market, at the end of 2007 being still 10 times more predominant than Google’s share. Skeptics will say that the reason behind Yahoo! Mail’s success is “age” (being one of the oldest free email services on the Web), but connected with Yahoo! Mail we also have Yahoo! Messenger - by far the best chat system available on the Web.

Flickr is a Yahoo! service Google simply cannot defeat, despite its Picasa efforts. Similarly, Yahoo! Finance and Yahoo! Local are far more developed and successful than Google’s analogous services. These are enough arguments to prove that Google is not “all mighty” despite its supremacy in search.

Other search engines have excellent chances to conquer certain niches – with the right approach. Microsoft for one, is being quite successful with its “cash back” campaign. The Alexa rank 4 shows indisputably that Microsoft is not only “trying” to beat Google: in fact“cash back” is a serious threat to Google’s dominance.

So, aside misinformation regarding Yahoo! Search and Microsoft, what else is wrong with The Telegraph?

Are UK Search Engines Seriously Threatening Google, or Is This Just Telegraph’s Attempt to Promote Its Affiliates?

It occurs to me that the purpose of the Telegraph.co.uk article mentioned in the opening of this entry is to promote search engines affiliated with the Telegraph.co.uk. Although they certainly have their merits, these are far from being “Google threats.” What I consider “Google threats” are Powerset, hakia or Quintura – these, with the right marketing approach, could gain more and more of Google’s niche.

But let’s go back to The Telegraph’s candidates. Pixsta for example, a “visual” search engine, has a purely commercial purpose. The Telegraph integrated Pixsta in its “power shop.”

Another UK startup featured at the Telegraph is Blinkx.com – a video search engine that bases its results on tags, voice recognition and even face recognition. Blinks is the system that powers the video search behind Ask.com, MSN and AOL and it’s apparently the most popular video service in UK. With an Alexa rank of 3191 today, we can safely assume that the service has good chances of becoming a primer on the Web. Yet despite the search technology behind the curtains, Blinkx itself is not a video search engine, but more of an online video service with integrated search functionality. A search engine is a searchable online database of internet resource. Blinkx searches for results in its own database and it will not return video results from other sites, whereas Google Video search does.

Last but not least, Endeca provides search technology for government organizations and other global powers – like Boeing and ABN Amro. The technology is not available free on the Web for the ordinary user. According to The Telegraph, Endeca charges between $100,000 and $10m per installation and it is valued on the London Stock Exchange at £1.9bn. Endeca is not UK based (headquarters in Cambridge, Massachusetts) but the mention among search engines competing with Google is irrelevant: we are dealing here with a different niche and a search approach that will never be adopted by the web users already accustomed with Google’s simplicity. For any search engine to beat Google, they have to come up with something as easy to use as cool, and able to provide in addition better search results. So far, the only endeavor that might come close to this ideal is Yahoo!’s open search platform, unless Google will come up with something similar faster than Yahoo! can actually make its system work.

As the first two “search engines” featured at The Telegraph are UK endeavors, we are entitled to raise questions about the article’s impartiality. Is this still a reliable source of information when all these systems are presented by the authors as “cutting edge” without actually disclosing Telegraph’s affiliations with each? I dare say no, despite the authors’ desperate effort of disguising the UK promotion by mentioning Technorati, Wikia Search and two other more obscure search engines.

Why would anyone still use the telegraph when we have broadband?

14 Responses

Dan Kaplan

June 25th, 2008 at 2:33 am
1

If the Telegraph has relationships with either of these companies and neglects to disclose them, it is pretty close to breaking the rules. I would argue with your point about Microsoft’s bribe-to-use campaign helping it to gain ground on Google…every metric I’ve seen recently shows Google continuing to expand its dominance at the expense of its two big rivals.

Good post!
Mihaela Lica

June 25th, 2008 at 2:37 am
2

Oh, yes, Dan, they neglect to disclose, and the proof is in the article: “The Telegraph integrated Pixsta in its “power shop.”

About “cash back” - yeah, maybe it will not shake Google to the core (after all, Google still has AdSense to bribe and AdWords to power its bribing platform - LOL) but the campaign is new… All we can do is… wait and see.
Alina Popescu

June 25th, 2008 at 7:06 am
3

This is a good example of journalists with poor skills. First of all, you can’t say a house competes with a car. Another car or a bike or walking competes with a car. The next thing you’ll hear from them is that Youtube is google’s next major competitor.

But generating buzz around your affiliates brings you income, so who cares about rules, about researching your topic and about not being caught with your pants down?

Great story, Mig! You should also send a list of tips to the Telegraph. No 1 tip should be: when you know nothing about a topic, ask an expert. Or maybe I should send it and recommend you for everything search
Alex Cristache

June 25th, 2008 at 9:58 pm
4

Mihaela, I must admit that your follow-up/answer post is much more passionate and informational than Telegraph’s. Thanks for a good reading!
Gord

June 27th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
5

Sorry Mihaela, but you’re talking through your hat. The article clearly states that Pixsta is used by the Telegraph (along with 120 other retailers) in the first paragraph of that section, it’s true that Blinkx only searches its own customers but it doesn’t claim to do anything else (rather like your tip Powerset, which only searches Wikipedia) and yahoo have handed large sections of its business to Google to avoid being bought by Microsoft, which can fairly be described as throwing in the towel.

I can’t see any claim that they’re all UK companies, or that they’re all going after Google’s core business. In fact, that’s exactly what the article says they’re not doing, but they’re search-related enterprises approaching areas of computing from another way.

What’s your problem, exactly?
Mihaela Lica

June 27th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
6

Oh, Gord… you added an “indeed Telegraph.co.uk” and you think that’s going to solve everything? Nice try. The problem? How can you even call Songza and Ablegrape alternatives to Google? The most disturbing thing is that you, or whoever the article’s author is, didn’t even bother to proof the source saying that Yahoo threw in the towel. I think I made my point clear in the first part of the article - it’s enough for you to follow some links to see what I am talking about. And why do you mixx pears with apples anyway?

The Telegraph article is clearly promoting Pixsta and Blinkx - they are featured first, on the main page of the article, whereas everything else is pushed on page 2 where not many would venture to read. Personally I don’t care that Telegraph is promoting its sponsors, but make sure the disclaimers are visible and don’t misinform the public about the other search engines.
Phil Butler

June 27th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
7

@ Gord,

Interesting, I read the resident article before it was changed and there was no “indeed” in the text, nor should there be if this were the original text. Why indeed? As far as talking through a hat, I think someone else should put their thinking cap on and click their heels…perhaps the Telegraph will come back in style and we can tap out signals to one another at 10mbs.

I will never cease to be amazed that people in such positions can never absorb just criticism. It is as if you think Mihaela is doing this out of spite rather than honestly trying to point things in the right direction. We are certainly not the “keepers of the gate” when it comes to all things Internet, but it should be painfully obvious that you guys sure as hell don’t need to be.

I think her problem is shared by many of us. We are tired of divisive companies bending the universe. When will someone just spend as much money making something of actual value as they do forcing people to believe what is often BS. As PR people, the general perception is that we do this very thing, but anyone who has even a pea for a brain knows that at the end of the day..there has to be something in the glass slipper.

Changing an article to include “indeed” Telegraph after the fact….would they do that?

Always, Phil
Boris

June 29th, 2008 at 4:51 am
8

I have #1 in Google forever and this SE has me #6. A competitor that is 35th on Google is ranked #7. I’ll stick with Google.
Is the Telegraph up to no good? « slewfootsnoop

June 30th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
9

[...] The article has raised one or two eyebrows in the online marketing community - here. [...]
Murray Dick

June 30th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
10

Hi Mihaela - this isn’t getting the coverage on his side of the pond it should be getting, so I’ve blogged about it here:
http://slewfootsnoop.wordpress.com/2008/06/30/is-the-telegraph-up-to-no-good/

Best,

Murray
Mihaela Lica

June 30th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
11

Thank you Murray, I read and Stumbled your article - excellent. I couldn’t comment on your blog - it asked me to be logged in to comment.
Gord

July 3rd, 2008 at 10:36 am
12

I criticise you so you think I must be the author of the article? Bit defensive, isn’t it.

I’m not, but the way. The author’s name, prominently displayed at the top of the text, is Julette Garside, and my name’s Gordon. Or do you think I’ve gone in and added that too? Is it possible you just missed it first time round and made up a load of guff in your indignance?
Mihaela Lica

July 3rd, 2008 at 11:39 am
13

Gord, I seriously doubt that I missed it the first time. As for my ignorance, allow me to keep it as it is. At least it provides for journalistic integrity and verticalness, which doesn’t happen at Telegraph as I see. I think you still miss the point of the article, proven 100% by my most recent blog entry that shows 100% that Microsoft does not throw in the towel, that there is still competition against Google - strong competition and that the search engines I mentioned (Powerset, which you don’t like and hakia) ARE serious competitors. And Gord, next time you comment do me a favor and be polite.
tech guru

July 13th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
14

interesting views…

however we have to admit that blinkx is having a great technology in place and it is the biggest video search engine in the world right now. they are hoovering on a daily basis all the net…their monetization system works better than anyone’s else. small company but very dynamic and innovative.
my opinion is that google (or a big player) will acquire them soon and it would be definately a wise move.