Is it Really Crazy to Block Google?

For the Wall Street Journal it actually may make sense!

Get the WebProNews Newsletter:

[ Search]

After all is said and done Rupert Murdoch may still be seen as the sly old fox that really knew best. Many bloggers and journalists have pounded the insanity of Murdoch’s suggestion that News Corp publications might strike an exclusive indexing deal with Bing and delist itself from Google’s search engine.

However, what if Murdoch was really only talking about the Wall Street Journal and not all News Corp publications? Then the idea might actually make a lot of sense.

According to Compete.com WSJ.com already receives the largest percentage of its traffic from Microsoft’ (18.74%). This is contrary to many sites which typically receive the majority of their referrals from Google, often many times more than what Microsoft delivers. Yahoo provides another 6.3% and since Bing will likely be owning Yahoo’s search business that means Microsoft is actually delivering 25% of the Wall Street Journals current traffic. 

If Rupert Murdoch can get Microsoft to pay possibly as much as $50 million or more a year to lose just 11.5% of his Google traffic sent to WSJ.com the deal makes a lot of sense.

According to Hitwise Google and Google News combined deliver approximately 26% of WSJ.com visitors. However, even with this larger percentage (vs. Compete’s) Hitwise notes in a blog post why this might not be as much of a traffic loss as it appears:

Analyzing Google search terms driving traffic to the Journal, the top 100 terms accounted for over 21.6% of all Google search traffic to WSJ.com. Of that 21.6%, 13.4% were navigational or brand searches (e.g. "Wall Street Journal," "WSJ," "WSJ.com" etc…). Even if Murdoch decides to block Google, these navigational search queries will most likely remain intact.

Of the remaining 8.2%, the majority of searches were for stock quotes, and general business related searches. Most specific news related searches fill-out the long tail of search queries. While the Journal may lose traffic if it ceases to cooperate with Google the loss may be less then anticipated.

From Bing’s perspective Wall Street Journal exclusivity not only differentiates Bing from Google but it could also help change its image as a more consumer focused search engine. The Wall Street Journal is the most read business publication in the World and this deal could go a long way toward modifying Bing’s consumer image in the minds of business executives.

After all, a click resulting from a B2B oriented search term usually demands a premium price, which could help offset Bing’s cost of paying Murdoch for exclusive inclusion.

Update: Two more publishers have come out with statements indicating their possible desire to de-index from Google as well. Read more here …

Is it Really Crazy to Block Google?
Top Rated White Papers and Resources
  • CyberHodge

    Excellent points. I’ve been amused over the knee jerk response that followed instantly after Murdoch’s statements. Now after the emotionally charged reaction that included some very valid arguments , another perspective is being brought forth. I’d like to add a few more related points related to this that may/may not have been brought up about WSJ (print and online):

    WSJ is a B2B publication. It has a built-in brand of “go to first” business and investor news/content. It is not USA Today. It is not broad interest even though WSJ print has a larger week day subscription base than USA Today which is incredibly profound. WSJ captures a niche audience that focuses on building wealth. The audience has found that WSJ provides them, better than anyone else, with the most critical tool…effective information. And with speed of information very valuable, WSJ’s online presence is increasingly critical to them. WSJ competitors can provide the same speedy information for free and, of course, they will continue to do so. WSJ feels that their information is the most effective for their niche industry. It goes beyond stock tickers, splits, public offerings, DOW fluctuation and GDP gains. That information is a commodity. It’s the editorial and content wrapped around the free information that WSJ feels makes them the most effective to their wealth building community. WSJ’s capital investment into this distinct content is substantial and valuable. Murdoch and WSJ have quantified this investment. They have carefully reviewed the real value of their content and how to maximize the revenue from that asset.

    This leads to the value WSJ’s niche advertisers receive. You can speculate that a WSJ ad click is more valuable than other direct/indirect publishers. But the numbers are there. Murdoch knows those numbers. I think he and WSJ have looked at that 21.6% share from Google and given it a value based not exclusively on traffic numbers or intent, but on what it provides for WSJ advertisers.

    So, comparing that Google value to the value of their content, WSJ feels they can close the revenue gap more effectively with the Bing revenue source. They will potentially end up pulling off a few remarkable things including: 1) Sell that “less valuable” Google traffic share to Bing for a very substantial return 2) maximize their content asset 3) be a test for other niche publishers considering building their own payment wall that doesn’t reach the ceiling.

    Though there is risk for WSJ (as with every single business transaction by every single business), WSJ can simply flip an indexing switch and go back to status quo. There won’t be enough bad blood from their audience because it’s not about building principles, it’s about building principle.

  • http://www.kkominc.com Cathy Dunham

    “If Rupert Murdock can get Microsoft to pay possibly as much as $50 million or more a year to lose just 11.5% of his Google traffic sent to the WSJ.com”, why doesn’t he use that money to write user-focused articles and utilize better keyword strategies that would help the articles be found on the TOP Search Engines, ah, like Google! If they only rank for 21.6% of Google’s search traffic, those stats tell me that someone isn’t working their SEO very well…

    When you make information HARDER for people to find, well, then they won’t find you. They will find another source. If you are a primary source for specific information (say, stock quotes), yes, folks will go where the info is. But changing search engines? No, I’d just link directly to Wall Street and search there.

    As a SEO/SMO Marketer, I use a wide array of search tools and channels. Why on earth would one deny searchers the possibility of finding a website?? Using some type of “Google no follow” to disallow indexing of content on a website sounds evil to me.

  • http://deck-boards.com Deck Boards

    That’s some really flawed logic there. IF they really only get so much traffic Google (BTW, how did you get that info?), all they’d have to do is optimize a bit and they would more traffic in addition to the traffic they already get. The plan you outline above will have wsj.com getting less traffic.

    However Murdock’s real plan may be to collude to destroy a vendor that’s costing him too much money and/or helping competitors too much (Sorta like buying the ink company that supplies a competing newspaper? You make profit, lower your papers costs and increase the competitions costs). In that case, it makes sense. the risk is that Google is too entrenched and makes too much profit and the current administration isn’t as lax as other administrations on anti-competitive behavior (little risk thee though).

    Oh and in response to “Murdoch is not focused on Audience’s Best Interests” um, no crap, have you seen Fox news?

  • Guest

    If I wanted to read WSJ or CNN I would just go there. I go to google/bing news so they would “bubble up” the important news for me.

    This deal makes bing look biased in its news delivery. Since they will be paying for WSJ access, would they be placing the WSJ links to prove a point? If not, is it even worth paying for it? I for one would rather stick with google.

    Also, doesnt this look weird? Why should anyone pay for indexing anyone elses site? if they want to block all search engines its fine, but selecting site that can index them goes against the fredoom of the internet. Microsoft and WSJ are setting a bad precedent. In the future someone will refer to this in court as a “standard practice” and mess up the whole fabric of the net.

    • Guest

      I believe preferal treatments of content are areadly upon us. why do you think there are algorythms inplace? why do wiki articles shows up first on most searches. why do google wiki-knockoff shows up higher than other links?

      Not sure if its good overall, but articles from WSJ are more reliable then jack&jill’s blog.

  • http://live-horseracingresults.co.uk horseracer

    If microsoft would pay for CNN to give them exclusive news, then its a favor for microsoft..google should do something about it though..

  • Dimitri Bershadsky

    Leaving google’s index IMHO is like peddling against a waterfall.
    Mr. Murdoch, the real solution lies in combination of two simple facts:

    1. Current browser technology is a rudiment. There is a much better approach to structure information sharing that will make current set of internet technologies to disappear.

    2. End users would actually prefer mixed results to “just google” results. This is just a question of delivery that will be fixed.

    My prediction is that a revolutionary user centric internet browsing platform will emerge and will begin taking over in a matter of months…

    Just wait…

  • http://www.discoverqueensland.com Queensland

    Again from the previous comments – the little guys are only focussed on Google rankings that somehow are driving their business model. LOL

    WSJ is a major brand – it has little regard for the odd search engine based visitor. Cathy Dunham submitted a comment “why doesnt he use that money to write articles that will get indexed?”. Clearly a newspaper is writing articles all the time. And again Cathy is focussed on cheating the search engines.

    Also WSJ is clever in driving users to their website first to search on articles. Why use a search engine – when it doesnt have any content – only listings?? Use the search engine only when you cant find what you are looking for in a brand content site.

    • http://www.kkominc.com Cathy Dunham

      My dear, you have misquoted me. I did not say that Murdoch should use his money to write articles that will “get indexed”! If I had, for shame, because that would have people only writing FOR search engines. My actual comment was, why doesn’t he use that money to write “user-focused articles” and utilize better keyword strategies that would help the articles be found on the TOP Search Engines”. User-focused articles, my dear Queensland, is about catering to one’s targeted audiences. It’s not about playing footsie with Google, Bing, or any search engine, directory, etc. It’s about being true to your customers, prospects and other key stakeholders. And that is a GOOD business model.

      The last part of my sentence was to draw attention to the need of better educating online writers (or their editors) on integrating “search terms” that real people actually use; thus, helping searchers locate the best relevant articles. With a bit of research, writers (or editors, SEO team) can determine relevant terminology that most people use. For example, when I showed Ohio State’s College of Food, Agriculture and Environmental Services that hardly anyone searched for “Ohio State Agriculture”, they were shocked. So I showed them the results of using “OSU Ag” which had great results. They thought that was amazing… This was how people really searched for them… And, that was 3-4 yrs ago, so hopefully OSU’s improved their SEO skills by now.

      Yes, WSJ is a major brand. But there are many brands out there – large and small. And the beauty of the Internet is that it allows any online user (anywhere) the opportunity to discover new brands and learn more about them. And small brands CAN often compete with larger brands.

      Queensland stated that “WSJ is clever in driving users to their website first to search on articles”. HOW are they driving users? Will they continue to have media helping? and will users actually go there first? It appears to me that Rupert is snubbing Wall Street Journal’s nose at all the inquisitive souls (and potential customers) out there. So what if Google only sends 20% to WSJ! Twenty percent of ALL Internet users is a huge number to ignore. That’s a SAD business model right there.

      Dissing a major search engine is plainly idiotic. It will be interesting to watch how this all pans out:
      Murdock and Bing sitting in a tree,
      Looking at search so cluelessly,
      Rupert’s in the media
      and maybe Wikipedia,
      And a future college book case study…

  • Bogo

    Does anyone really think that this story is true in all of it’s details?
    Something stinks there.
    From my point of view it looks like yet another chapter in Microsoft vs. Google war.
    Personally I don’t believe for a second that Murdock is gonna pay anything to Microsoft.
    What does he get for his money?
    Same thing that he has already. His websites indexed on Bing. On the other hand Microsoft has a lot to gain. They get exclusivity and hope that others will follow Murdock so Google gets out of the picture.
    Windows7 vs. Google Chrome, Bing vs. Google … Smell a rat?
    Microsoft needs media exposure and that’s what they’re gonna get.
    50 mil.$?
    Who are they kidding?

  • Guest

    Would have the same effect and result as the White House blocking FOX. — A stupid move that would backfire. –

  • Bakh Malak

    what is the gain in earning for Microsoft, can not believe a company pays to advertise for some one else? They must have a different agenda from Fox? How about Google, may be they should do the same to Microsoft clients?? Start ad war?

    Fox might as well buy Google or Microsoft????

    some one should stop this monster from control of information (Fox).

  • http://new-cars-collection.blogspot.com/ William

    Very Crazy to Block Google. Because Google the Number One in The World

  • http://www.forwardslashdigital.com/ Digital Bristol

    Rupert Murdoch is 78.
    Rupert Murdoch’s eldest son Lachlan resigned from important posts a few years ago.
    Lachlan has just sold quite a lot of News Corp stock – http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/6673094/Lachlan-Murdoch-sells-28m-News-Corp-stake.html
    Whilst impressive, James Murdoch is not up to the job of fighting Google.
    So we come back to Rupert; it’s easy to see why he’d prefer to have the fight of his life whilst he’s still in his seventies rather than wait a few years to see if Dimitri Bershadsky’s prediction comes true (DB I think you’re on the right track) and be in your eighties.
    I think it’ll be a bitter battle but Murdoch will lose; mainly because for all it’s power News Corp does not own the news – Reauters does!

  • http://Lillicotch.com Jim L

    While the Wall Street Journal has a better model to try this than other newspapers I’m willing to bet that there are hundreds of WSJ wannabes waiting for this “opportunity”. That’s just exactly what it is, an opportunity to allow competitors to take market share away from you,

    Who knows, one of them may be as good or better? You say that the WSJ could “flip the switch” an put things back, but it may be that it won’t be like it was before.

  • Guest

    If the search operators decide to retaliate by not searching the sites Murdoch WANTS to be easy to find, like Idolonfox.com.

  • http://calusacreek.com Paul

    Murdoch is a crafty ol fellow, don’t count him out just yet.

  • Guest

    What truly is indexing? In marketing terms it is “sampling”. It reveals the headline and a sentence or so for FREE on an item that the owner of the content is trying to sell. How many Hershey’s bars would be sold if they allowed us to take a small taste any time we wanted for free? What do the most succesful marketers in the world do? They very rarely provide free samples. Every once in a while they have someone giving out free samples to stimulate demand but they KNOW that providing free samples all the time doesn”t drive more sales and DOESN’T BUILD A BRAND. If your name is Sulzberger and your goal at the New York Times is to influence as many people as possible, then sampling makes sense. If you want to maximize revenue, it has become clear that FREE TRAFFIC DOES NOT MAXIMIZE REVENUE. Murdoch is correct to let google and Microsoft bid for exclusive indexing rights.

  • http://www.medlawplus.com medlaw

    of WSJ only, then it might make some level of sense … assuming Bing / Yahoo are willing to throw anything near the kind of coin you discuss ($50m) to block google. Clearly Bing / Yahoo cannot come out ahead in a deal like that but it may have promotion value to say they are the sole source of search info on the WSJ.

    I still say Google should grow a pair and block ALL of Murdoch’s properties. The man claimed google is equivalent to a thief. Sounds like grounds to ban all his properties to me.

  • rob

    he can run but he cant hide. wsj is doomed if must block google just to stay alive

  • http://www.ameriwebs.net George

    For several years we have been tracking search results for several businesses. Google, with all it’s clicks, consistantly produces more traffic, but less business for dollar spent than with Yahoo and now Bling. Ecommerce and B2B sites benefit little from drive-by visitiors. They only benefit from paying customers. Google, while providing more viewers, also provides the lowest return for dollar spent on advertising of competing venues.

  • Guest

    Google hates the American Military and Christians – Google SUCKS.

    • Guest

      And believe me, not only Google, half the world hate conservative Americans. Eat that lol

    • Guest

      What? Did you really type that?

  • http://www.ukmagz.co.uk UK Magazines

    If someone type in brand name which 13.4% and he/she don’t find WSJ they will not like this and will consider a problem with WSJ rather google which will lead the people to find the resource from other sites. This is because most of the google users are very loyal.

  • http://www.mypalaceresorts.com All Inclusive

    Is it really a problem that The WSJ is considering being paid for exclusivity on Bing or is there another alarrm that is going off?

    Given the information about where the WSJ gets most of its traffic, it seems to me they are actually looking at pinpoint marketing tactics – aiming for their market rather than the masses.

    It also seems that a financial reward to a news publication makes good business sense in today’s market since the market has substantially changed in the last decade.

    No, I don’t agree that SEO is the answer for a news publication, but I don’t want to discuss my perspective on that presently.

    What delights me is that there is a challenger to the monster that Google has become.

    I loved that Google rose from a couple of intelligent young entrepreneurs, but they have been so successful that they have entered the world of Jekel and Hyde. I am tired of the heavy hand that big businesses are taking. They are destroying the essence of what our economy, and even the global economy thrives on. Competition and selection… Big business is driving out the smaller companies and entrpreneurs. I realize that growth is important to business, but where does one draw the line on greed and when will the FTC step in? It will be the consumer and the work force that will suffer in the long run.

    Need another example of a great company allowing greed to dominate their business practice? Have you been following the news about Green Mountain Coffee Roasters? They are driving to own every coffee company licensed to manufacture K-Cups and it will be the consumer that will suffer in the short run… in the long run they will destroy their own market and their stocks will plummet.

    Take a look at our economy and tell me that big business hasn’t taken us down a path that is affecting the world in multiple arenas.

    I say “Go Bing Go”… and any other contenders out there. Bring back healthy competition. Maybe more people should be reading what’s in The Wall Street Journal.

    • http://www.mypalaceresorts.com All Inclusive Mexico

      Forgot to ask the question…

      You don’t think they are just paying for indexing do you? Who supplies the news for the news page for search engines? Perhaps there is a reason the The Walll Street Journal will receive remuneration and indexing isn’t it.

    • Guest

      “Maybe more people should be reading what’s in The Wall Street Journal.” . . . . .

      Maybe you are referring to the OLD ownership WSJ . . . Murdock has turned the WSJ into a Faux News style right wing propaganda rag, reducing a once staid solid editorial bias into a echo chamber for the panic-fest Reich Wing agenda . . . . the “new” editors favor the likes of Neo-Con anti-government failures that brought us the Bush style of incompetence and mis-management . . . I say let Microsoft waste MILLIONS and let the Murdock empire continue making billions until the lucky day Rupert is “de-indexed” from the gene pool . . . .

  • Guest

    Go ahead and block Google, block all your competition, you’re dying anyway, let’s not dag out your downward spiraling demise.

  • Guest

    I wont advise him to do so. but what is the real issue here. It is power that he seek and if I was Google is would drop him yesterday. Good bye Murdoch

  • http://www.americanpedalcar.com Walter Bumbulis

    1. Blocking Wall Street Journal from Google is an inane idea, is akin to violating the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution and should not be done. The WSJ gives true documented facts that other medias do not or will not show the public and many around the world people refer to the Wall Street journal for factual assesment of the world market place. This is something that is sorely needed, especially given the current political and finanicial crisis that is standing on our doorstep in these perilous times threatening the individual liberties of all peoples in the the world, and their nations soveriegnty. Much is at stake for everyones future, now is not the time nor ever to censure anything.
    2. The internet so far has remained an open platform for all types of media and marketing. It should not matter who goes where and looks at what. The public should be free to make their own decisions. To this point the feds have not been able to tax or control the internet allowing free people everywhere to access whatever information they desire and should remain so. It is often the only source of obtaining truthful information.
    3. To block WST is a form of control and will be of no benefit to anyone. I say do not block Wall Street Journal from Google. The internet must remain a free forum for all to use.

  • Jess Wonderin

    Mice marketing position and attack by Microsoft . . . after all they have the size and MONEY to waste on any project . . . go ahead BLOCK ALL Murdock propaganda . . .

  • http://www.8womendream.com Eight Women Dream

    It would be wonderful if all of Rupert Murdoch’s media enterprises did not show up in Google. Can it start today? Yesterday? NOW?

  • http://thepolicenews.net Breck Porter

    Rubert don’t like anything he don’t own and can’t buy.

  • http://www.articles23.com Ron Lovell

    I always look at things from the “Follow The Money” perspective. Did Murdock make the statement to manipulate a deal? The answer is yes, only time will tell regarding this. This type of manipulation has been going on for a long time.

    Let’s go back in history to the ATT Monopoly and the Breakup in 1984. Att and the Bell Companies wanted to be in the Long Distance, Cable TV and Cell Phone business but the courts would not let them do it. So what happens, they are broken up in small companies. Guess what the newly evolved companies have become: Verizon is the old South Western Bell. Att Long Distance is now ATT. A lot of the other broken up companies were bought up by Verizon and ATT. Bell South was bought by ATT. Follow the money is real. This is a prime example. You will not find this story anywhere. Only the former employees knew what was really happening and it happened like they planned it. It took 25 years, but that is a drop in a bucket of time for ATT.

    Murdock made the statement for a reason, to manipulate a deal with someone to get money. The victem was either Google or Bing. Only time will tell and the consumer will pay for this manipulation somehow in the end. Murdock has a Master Plan in mind and is executing it as we speak about the topic.

  • Morris O

    Rupert Murdock is nothing but greedy in the first place anyway and second of all he is nothing but a greedy Zionist Jew who only thinks of himself. The best place for Rudolph Murdoch is in prison with his buddy Bernard Lawrence “Bernie” Madoff the ripoff artist.

  • Guest

    Most likely 99% of the WSJ profit is derived from 1% of its base readers, so I doubt they have much to loose. Anyone who needs the WSJ probably already subscribes in one form or another.

    The business information is authoritative, in depth and timely –a combination you rarely find in a Google search. Besides, who would trust any news source that was SEO manipulated to rank higher in a search engine? Even if the paper could ethically justify doing something like that, I doubt they would have the time to do it. The value of news has a very short shelf life.

    Maintaining the quality and making it less available on the web will only increase its value to the professional users of the journal –its real target.

  • Gary Cook

    Surely a newspaper should be unbiased and aim at as many people as possible in order to get that news out to the world. Clearly Murdoch isn’t interested in news per se. I will feel no loss as I continue to Google.

  • Stuie

    Why would anyone be searching for any kind of article from him? Anything that comes from WSJ and News Corp is slanted, biased and only designed to sway public opinion. “Effective Information”? How’d you come to that conclusion?

    That “Sly old fox” has managed to brainwash most of America.

  • Guest

    Murdoch delisting anything? and collaborations with MS are worrying!
    It feels wrong. I am an enthusiastic user of all things Google (because its in the Cloud) , I pay a subscription for premium content from the Financial times. I would not keep Confidential stuff on the cloud servers (I have yet to back my cloud stuff up – I wonder should I?) I will be looking for my Bank to give me Cloud type stuff on their servers – again I would wonder If I should back up.

    In other words – I like the Cloud model because it avoids having to be a systems administrator and it gets worse the more devices – I have two laptops two desk tops one net book – no doubt soon an android phone. So I’ll watch the concepts of Android and ChromeOS over the next 1/2 years.

    I want a life NOT as a machine minder. MS charge and then your life is taken up with updates , upgrades S/W and H/W – So I guess one day we’ll pay for Google for the data security.

    I can see that local and red top papers do not have much premium content to offer.

    Google seems committed to the evolutionary model and use my activity to work out the future and support e- commerce and my education, training, seld development and information.

    Sorry for stream of conciousness, but I don’t like the headline “Murdoch delisting”

  • http://www.ellefagan.com Elle Fagan

    This article made me smile – it’s like getting your favorite hotel to pay YOU for staying with them.


  • Guest

    What we’re seeing in this news item is the visible beginning of the end of traditional, free-to-the-user, search paradigms. Maybe the existing model worked well until the mid-90s, but today’s Google-Bing-Yahoo form of internet search — with “its WIDE array of tools and models” — has sat in the fridge well past its expiration date. It is nearly useless for its users. What’s worse, it’s expensive, obscure and useless for the vast majority of its advertisers.

    Hint to Silicon Valley: there’s a huge opportunity in evolving past the dinosaurs.

  • Guest

    Rupert Murdoch can go to that extremely hot place beneath the earths crust for all I care. I will never follow him. I’m staying with Google.

    • http://www.sturgisrally.mobi Tommy Brown

      AMEN brother, Google has brought us to the future with gmail and search engines and well heck fire everything.

  • http://www.sturgisrally.mobi Tommy Brown

    Yeah right, who in their right mind would do that? I can tell you who.
    The person that plays Mafia War Games on Facebook like me. You can learn to be “That way” by playing this game it will make you into a stradegist on all things pertaining to money, friends, gifts at the right time and much, much, more. Just remember “Tommy Told Me”

    btw” ciao

    RSVP: Google has done nothing but good to us all, unfriend like Microsoft who has taken us on a ride thru their terrible OS’S to say the least. Remember gmail? The email that made hotmail straighten up and fly right. Micrsoft is going the trail of AOL I believe and the reason is looking us all in the face.

  • Galadare

    I don’t think it’s likely to be too much trouble for them if they opted out of Google. The Wall Street Journal was a big name even before the internet and it’s unlikely that opting out of the search engines will be anything like putting a nail in the coffin. A small fry company would have a tougher time of it, but the fact of the matter is that, as useful as the search engines are, Search Engine Optimization is not the final word in drumming up new business online.

  • http://syndicat.com Niels Dettenbach

    why not? If Murdoch want’s to make a deal which brings him an urgent profit on a short range, while major parts of the brand will be damaged. This is just Murdoch and his decision…

    The (since many decades) well known brand “NYT” just will loose recipients and readers in the world and gives other smaller newspapers a better chance to get into the global as local markets.

    The very most of the classical newspapers today have websites which aren’t really useful and interesting as they sell older articles / access to their archives, while i.e. broadcast stations and Wikis more and more give unlimited access to their archives of news or broadcasts. If they limit their access from search engines too they would be just more useless.

    Internet users mainly prefer content and services which are freely available. Most internet users from emerging or third world countries are not able to pay just a dollar for an article as they mostly can’t get any credit card or even a bank account. Such users will switch to other / free available content.

    how nice was the good old time where the most internet applications was of a more non-commercial background. But even at the times of Altavista, WebCrawler, Excite and Co. such a decision had make no sense. Yes, often we had to use different indexes to find (all) the relevant pages (or meta-crawler).

    Since Google there is no real competition between the search engines anymore. Bing in his concepts faces to me just as a bad copy of google and web catalogs like Yahoo! are mainly dead because of outdated content.

    I see here just another reason why we urgently need more independent indexing and search machine concepts – ideally on a open source basis – where everybody is able to run (a network of/ indexers, indexes and or search applications (frontends) if he want. There is enough unused server capacity in the world which could be used more efficiently – even to save the climate.

    I didn’t understand really why one search engine with one ranking concept should be the best solution for each internet user. That makes no sense as that machine is not able to target each user preferences and his interests, cultural and ethnical background.

    If someone is interested in developing a core in a open source project for such a system feel free to contact me. Just let Gooogle, Bing and Murdoch do what they assume as the best for their business. The user has to decide which content he want and which not.



  • http://1www.hiv-test-kit.com Mike

    This may be slightly off subject however I think it is pertinent.

    Without doubt Google has the #1 slot in global search engine patronage.

    With this arrives a control factor through captive audience usage that could become and possibly already is a malign filtering factor on what users can and cannot access readily or if at all.

    God forbid if the Internet falls into the hands of 1 search engine and 1 desktop OS as Google proposes, that will determine search result ranking and availability, 1st page, 2nd page and so on, or no page at all.

    As you know Google can ban sites and can place others so deep into the results that only the very persistent of users will bother to scroll through the many pages to find what they truly seek.

    Rupert Murdoch has power, Google has power.

    Abuse of power is the issue at stake here and Google is definitely no longer a truly organic search engine anymore, and shame on them for that.

    As for Rupert, well he is a self made man and probably has kindred monopoly survival instincts as Google has, and I have know idea of his true motives on his current decision.

    However my whole point here is that I would like Google to turn back to their grass roots and not forget where they came from.

    And not forget the soul of the support from patrons in the early days when it was all Alta Vista etc.

    In other words I would like to see Google become less commercially orientated and revert to being an authentic organic search entity that we old timers expect from them.

    Get real Google you do not control the net, you only filter it!!!

    Comment are appreciated.


  • http://www.sriraj.org Sriraj

    I recently saw a comment on TechCrunch on the same topic of blocking Google.
    One guy said, Rupert is stupid. To be straight, I couldn’t disagree with that view.

  • Christopher Mootham

    The WSJ is about 40-something % corporate press releases anyways. They would be the last source I would use for any “effective” business information. Good riddance. Less garbage I have to sift through on Google. Any publisher who dosen’t want to disseminate his information and continue to cultivate brand affinity and brand value should follow Rupert Murdoch’s lead. Cheers

  • Guest

    I’ll keep my comments short and to the point – ”Rupert Murdock is a Power Hungry Lunatic” that should sum up the whole situation!

  • http://www.sitebyjames.com James

    Ya…. Compete.com is completely inaccurate… I wouldn’t trust a single statistic from it.

  • http://idolplanet.blogspot.com Guest

    Does Google cares about the traffic lost from WSJ?
    I don’t think so.
    What if people still use google to search for similar content instead and
    other websites will catch this traffic by providing similar content .

  • Chris

    This type of thinking – foregoing the long-term health of the business in order to capture the short term profit – is exactly what is wrong with American businesses in the global marketplace. Like it or not, the Internet (along with it’s concurrent ideals of access to information) is the future, and it will be very different from the monopoly model of the past. I sort of expected this type of behavior from Microsoft – which hasn’t shown any real innovation in computing since DOS 2.0, but rather prefers to buy out or out-litigate the competition. Murdoch’s enterprises, in contrast had (up until now I thought) embraced progress and emerging markets. Guess I was wrong. Go ahead and try to create your WSJ-Bing information “monopoly”. Within six months there will be a new start-up that will provide the same content you are trying to control, and they’ll do it cheaper, faster and better.

  • Guest

    I think it is very smart. All newspapers should block both google and yahoo. Free news is not developed by google or yahoo. It is developed by highly trained and paid journalists from newspapers. Without newspapers, google news and yahoo news would not exist. Why should they get the news for free and not pay for it?

    • Guest

      Gee, WHO paid these highly trained journalist BEFORE Google????

      “They” don’t get the news for “free” . . . it is indexed to make LOCATING it easier . . . it’s like asking the Post Office to PAY YOU for listing your address . . . if a “business” decides to move off the grid, cancel it’s street address and select to receive NO MAIL, I’d say that “might” be a bad decision

      . . . on the other hand, judging from the radical Right Wing bias and fabrication record of Murdock properties, getting them “off the grid” is actually a BETTER thing for intelligent society in general . . .

  • Guest

    This Jew Puppet sold the Iraq war for Israel to American people through his corporate like fox and he should be tried in International criminal court for war crime.

    Now this puppet is promoting war with Iran through his propaganda media.

    Why would anyone wan to read WSJ.Pure propaganda rag promoting corporate welfare of bankers and wallstreet bailout.All idiots who read it and invested their money was swindled off by bankers and criminals like Bernie Madoff.

  • Guest

    To be a monopolist is prohibited in whole world as you know if you have power more than 30%. Who gave all rights to Google to take control of all of small business. As I know and see everytime Google has lot’s of “click” sites and most of nowadays information in search engine is a junk. Instead of giving a promotion to real small business to let them grow their business and advertising them correctly and be on Google search list, what we see is more and more click wrong websites instead. How about all this rank page? the same situation and here. All those “click’ sites are paying to be on the top by giving real people who are searchign for certain stuff the wrogn information. I would block Google for making the worse global monopoly, distroying every real good websites as banning them or making them down the list, letting be the worse competitors to other search engines…

  • Join for Access to Our Exclusive Web Tools
  • Sidebar Top
  • Sidebar Middle
  • Sign Up For The Free Newsletter
  • Sidebar Bottom