Registered Members Login:
   
Forgotten Your Details? Click Here To Recover +
Welcome To The ShareCafe Community - Talk Shares And Take Stock With Smart Investors - New Here? Click To Register >

A reminder to all members that you agree through the use of ShareCafe, that you understand and accept the TERMS OF USE.


113 Pages (Click to Jump) V  « < 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 > »    
 
  
Reply to this topic

LOK, LOOKSMART LIMITED
LookingConfident
post Posted: Apr 27 2006, 04:55 AM
  Quote Post


Posts: 1,797
Thanks: 3


Is Google Search More Relevant Or Is There A Brand Factor?

http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/060426-122653

From within the above discussion Gord Hotchkiss, president and CEO of search research firm Enquiro, points out:

That …….."At first glance one thing should stand out, which is the expansion of the scanning area on MSN and Yahoo!, " Hotchkiss told the standing room only crowd. "People had to go deeper on the page and look around more to find what they were looking for."

He then went on to say …… “The ideal user experience, (according to Hotchkiss), would be if users would always find what they're looking for in the most prominent place at the top of the results listing”.

Few have noticed that Looksmart are doing great things with Verticals lately and as CEO David Hills has pointed out, (for articles content for students, or, general 'research' needs), ‘users’ should take one more step and find the Vertical that best suits their enquiry. And, yes, Google appears to provide the best results, to assist in doing so……

By using a “FindArticles in/on …..” search term, Google results can quickly direct a user to that Looksmart Vertical, that may then go on to provide all/many of the answers sough after & simply put, “in a nutshell’. Read on.

When a friend said to me …”I just searched Google on “Tomato” and got 31,400,000 results".

I replied that, Those 31,400,000 results were provided to you by the No1 search Engine, Google. And it's quite remarkable that it has so much information indexed on, the humble "Tomato" .......

I immediately wondered how many of those 31M results needed further 'going through' to eventually find the required information sought,to fully satisfy a searcher's needs? Looksmart feel that would prove both a "time consuming" effort and even sometimes, well, truly "exhaustive" type search.

No, Looksmart hasn't a “Tomato” Vertical, as yet (but again thanks to Google), they have articles on this topic listed that may present more defined/refined results within some of their Verticals, thereby allowing "users" to "drill down" or, narrow their search enquiry, so much quicker.

Looksmart call it, "essential" type search. It’s easy & can be much quicker. And it may very well be where search is heading, some feel.

Now check this out here:

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=Fi...tnG=Search&meta

We have now narrowed our search down to just 459,000 results in Google and you will note how Looksmart's Verticals "segment" this topic into what may now be considered by some, as more practical search results.

Do your own ‘exercise’ on Google using the “FindArticles in/on …...” Search term, as a prefix to your topic of interest. Readers may be pleasantly surprised.

Cheers !!

smile.gif
LC

 
LookingConfident
post Posted: Apr 25 2006, 06:41 PM
  Quote Post


Posts: 1,797
Thanks: 3


In reply to: filament on Tuesday 25/04/06 02:41pm

Some nice thoughts "filament" that I'll try and answer, as I see the situation, but it's only my thoughts.

< If vertical search engines turn out to be successful then what stops Google from adopting the method into it's own general engine ? >

1stly, Looksmart have advised the market that the the Verticals have enjoyed a rise in unique 'visitors' (per month) from 3M, moving up to 9M, from january to 'mid' december. The articles 'content' is mostly provided under partnership arrangements, with a lot through Co's like Proquest who are appointed as archive managers, for many newspapers & magazines.

And who do Proquest look after?? ("Check" their newspaper & magazine lists, here)

http://www.pqarchiver.com/n_home.html?type=n

and ....

http://www.pqarchiver.com/m_home.html?type=m

I had mentioned their "growth" in providing articles previously, in a post, back on Sunday 23/04/06 08:23am

The object of the Verticals, as I see it, is to help Publishers/media Co's to encourage new (plus keep existing) "users", to/on, their own websites. They want them to stay longer and 'shared' articles is a way of doing so. They want "users" to make THEIR sites, their "home" page, and it's understandable, as to why. This will then help them keep their own advertisers & hopefully bring back some of those already "lost", to the likes of Google. Google would only 'confuse' the situation to even think of a 'duplication' of the system, plus Looksmart do have a unique "brand" in the FindArticles 'handle'. Plus, Google already partner and provide a stack of advertising on an international scale, through their Adsense programme. I hope that makes some sense.

< I had a quick look at furl, as a tool it may get some occasional use.>

Yes, it already does. The NY Times 'licence' it from Looksmart for their 'near on' 500,000 subscription members, to use on their site. Others (including Viacom's CBS Local TV web sites, ASK and Interchange's Local.com) also licence this tool. The dramatic increase in "user" traffic in the past few days, suggest one of those may have "openned" up the "gates" and joined Looksmart's own, estimated 4 - 500,000 users. Possibly, The NY Times, is my guess.

http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_...//www.furl.net/

I personally feel they will stay with this model for a long, long time. It's only in it's infancy & will be an ongoing "work in progress", so to speak. It's a different way to get, a "slice of that pie" you mentioned, too.

I hope that helps you.

smile.gif
LC


 
filament
post Posted: Apr 25 2006, 02:41 PM
  Quote Post


Posts: 599
Thanks: 1


If vertical search engines turn out to be successfull then what stops Google from adopting the method into it's own general engine ?

I had a quick look at furl, as a tool it may get some occasional use.

Looksmart doesn't have much which would interest me in investing in them at the moment.
Maybe the report due out soon will have more info.

They will likely report another loss, they need a large margin product being in the fringes of searching or else find a high volume internet technology in a different area altogether.
Search engine business is becoming saturated with companies wanting a slice of the pie.

http://searchenginewatch.com/reports/article.php/2156451



--------------------
<p align="center"><b><font size="2
" color#0000FF" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">What lies behind us and what lies before us are
small matters compared to what lies within us.
- Ralph Waldo Emerson </font></b><br>
 
LookingConfident
post Posted: Apr 25 2006, 01:31 PM
  Quote Post


Posts: 1,797
Thanks: 3


And ......

10 Years of LookSmart - Visual Timeline ......

http://www.searchenginejournal.com/?p=3314

Cheers !!

smile.gif
LC

 
LookingConfident
post Posted: Apr 25 2006, 11:39 AM
  Quote Post


Posts: 1,797
Thanks: 3


And some more "logic" discussion, re; LOK, it's past & future endeavours ......

(Please do not consider this as a "ramp", at all. I do "hold" LOK (that's obvious) and they are ONLY my opinions, that's all.)

< If NWS wanted to buy LOK they probably would have done so already. Look have nothing that News Limited would want or more specifically they can’t do for themselves. >

Yes, I'd have to agree with the 1st part of the above, but with a slight variation:

"They (NWS) probably have done so, already"

And to say that NWS can do it for themselves, is rediculous!! You cannot seem to "grasp" (it appears?) the concept, as has been explained, over the last 12 months or, so ........ Right here on this board, too!!

Whatever their "settled for" 'buy-in' price was, (to gain that "controlling stake" in Looksmart) is an automatic, minimum "double" (at least!!!) upon any announcement, of them doing so!! Would you challenge that statement?? Hardly!! And then, it's "off to the races" ........ For both Looksmart & NWS, who would now be enjoying some 60% of ALL profits, generated from a massive esculation in search revenues!!

Newscorp don't "do it for themselves" ....... They go out and BUY!!!

(And, if it is NOT the case, it is still not too late for them to "sit down" and have me explain the "win-wins" for ALL concerned, associated with this, IMHO, "unbeatable" concept!!

And to think that Mr Rupert Murdoch & his Son actually listened to & 'bought the thoughts' of the likes of Mr John Ribot de Bresac, an electrician!)

http://www.looksmartmusic.com/ ?????????

http://www.looksmartmoney.com/?????????

< Its all templates, and its all basic technology parsing XML and RSS. >

It's a "means to an end" result, built around the "KISS" principal. That's all it has to be. Looksmart's neutrality is a central selling factor!! And they are not sites, to start a destination from, as such.

< There is no IP here and there is no audience. >

You may not be aware of Looksmart's Wisenut & Furl.net, that "both" have a 'role to play', and already do so!! Audience? Try a "potential" 1-2 hundred million!!

< Why did Microsoft ditch LOK years ago? Because the IP became so common, Microsoft could just do it themselves. >

Not at all!! MSN were more worried about the $39M "profit" LOOK made, rather than "how much" more can Looksmart now make for them, in ensuring years!! They "jumped into" a hornet's nest with another non-progressive BIG Portal (Yahoo), through it's Overture! They are now enjoying an approx 15% (only), of all search conducted!! MSN are a "gunna" Co, in relation to search, IMHO.

smile.gif

LC

 
LookingConfident
post Posted: Apr 25 2006, 08:55 AM
  Quote Post


Posts: 1,797
Thanks: 3


QUOTE (LookingConfident @ Monday 24/04/06 04:12pm)

And when I recieved the following reply to my post, it helps demonstrate what a "force" in search, Looksmart's Verticals, will prove to be .......

Sighs.....Yes the internet sure is full of big numbers. I just searched on Tomato and got 53,200,000 results.

Those 53,200,000 results were provided by the No1 search Engine, Google. And it's quite remarkable that it has so much information indexed on, the humble "Tomato" .......

I immediately wondered how many of those results needed going through to eventually find the required information, to fully satisfy a searcher's needs? Looksmart call that both "time consuming" and frankly, "exhaustive" type search.

No, Looksmart hasn't a Tomato Vertical, (but thanks to Google), they have articles on this topic listed and more defined/refined within some of their Verticals, thereby allowing "users" to "drill down" or, narrow their search enquiry, so much quicker.

It's called, "essential" type search. It's where search is heading, IMHO. Now check this out here:

http://www.google.com.au/search?client=fir...G=Google+Search

We have now narrowed our search down to just 452,000 results and you will note how Looksmart's Verticals "segment" this topic into much more practical search results.

Wendy Boswell from About.com, (in a recent review of Looksmart), choose the topic of "cheese" for her search enquiry. (Google has 133,000,000 references, to cheese).

LookSmart Search Tips

LookSmart has a lot to offer. To show you just what I mean, we'll do a sample search for cheese.

Search results for cheese bring back many search options in LookSmart. First, obviously I have general Web results, but if I want to get deeper in the world of cheese, I can:

* see what others found with Furl: these results are what other people have Furl-ed and made available publicly.

* see what articles there are at FindArticles: not surprisingly there are quite a few articles about cheese over at FindArticles.

* LookSmart news results: find news about cheese; right now there's an article about a woman eating 26 grilled cheese sandwiches.

http://websearch.about.com/od/enginesanddi...a/looksmart.htm

That's great! But Wendy may not have (as yet) discovered the "joys" of a what is a simple "FindArticles in..." search term, where Google results again show how Looksmart's Verticals "narrow down" choices, even more concisely. (And only, a little over 1M results this time).

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=Fi...le+Search&meta=

For "cheese and Tomato" connesiours Looksmart's Verticals will make a lot of sense! Me? I was brought up on a more simple "toasted cheese and tomato" from 'Hec Kains' snooker room in Botany Road Mascot, many moons ago! And ............. I really haven't changed my eating habits that much, since!!

Cheers !!

smile.gif
LC

 

Featured Stock Stories





filament
post Posted: Apr 24 2006, 07:07 PM
  Quote Post


Posts: 599
Thanks: 1


LOK 1st. quarter results in two weeks, May 4th !






--------------------
<p align="center"><b><font size="2
" color#0000FF" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">What lies behind us and what lies before us are
small matters compared to what lies within us.
- Ralph Waldo Emerson </font></b><br>
 
LookingConfident
post Posted: Apr 24 2006, 04:47 PM
  Quote Post


Posts: 1,797
Thanks: 3


In reply to: quiktrade_1 on Monday 24/04/06 04:20pm

LOL !!

You really are becoming "childish" now .....

Oh, in a previous post I mentioned:

And, the growth of Articles?

Results 1 - 10 of about 15,300,000 from www.findarticles.com

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=si...nG=Search&meta=

Yes, that's Google Australia ..... Now here is Google USA !!!!

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=s...com&btnG=Search

AND DID YOU GET TO "GO FISHING"??

No luck? Only got "the crabs", did you?

smile.gif
LC

 
quiktrade_1
post Posted: Apr 24 2006, 04:20 PM
  Quote Post


Posts: 351


In reply to: LookingConfident on Monday 24/04/06 04:12pm

Ah yes, the good ole Dorothy Dixer... lol

Quik. graduated.gif

 
LookingConfident
post Posted: Apr 24 2006, 04:12 PM
  Quote Post


Posts: 1,797
Thanks: 3


QUOTE (LookingConfident @ Monday 24/04/06 12:28pm)

No, Google are not buying Looksmart .... Posters suggested (both here & elsewhere), that was what I was trying to promote!! Far from it!!

< Google buying Look?????? Did you have a few too many last night ??? >

LOL !! This was a question intially asked of me, by Mikey_ ....... I clearly answered in the "negative", it's plain to see.

< You say "On the surface, it would seem one of the most logical things, Google should do." Now c'mon thats a bit much. You're basic reason is that Google have more money than sense. Blind Freddy could tell you Google have no reason to buy Looksmart. Sure $100 odd million is spare change to Google, but what would they be buying? 181 vertical sites? >

To me, it's plainly "logical". And I'll explain, why. And I will take you through this, nice and slowly, ok?

Looksmart's FindArticles.com (ATM) is showing listings within Google US, of ........ (or, references/links, to this site.)

about 33,500,000 for Google US.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=FindA...G=Google+Search

And, Google Australia has about 18,500,000 for findArticles

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=fi...le+Search&meta=

Millions of articles, contained in Looksmart's F/A's (and naturally, it's 181 Verticals) are indexed within Googles results, for that FindArticles' search term. They (this treasured & much sought after content) have been provided to Looksmart from many newspaper/magazine publishers & media Co websites.

< By the way how come you continually post links to Google search results. How come you are not posting links to looksmart search results? Particularly when you continually refer to NWS buying a stake in a search engine. >

It should (by now) become obvious to all, that the FindArticles "brand" is being assisted by Google's results, & that in effect Google helps "users" find Looksmart's Verticals, from a search conducted, on Google! Google will actually 'drive' many, many "eyeballs", (from a search conducted on the above newspaper/magazine publishers & media Co websites) to Looksmart's Verticals, for answers to their 'item of interest' or, a topic they may happen to have a passion for.

Looksmart is NOT a site that is designed to start a destination from. It won't be promoted as one, either. CEO David Hills quickly realised that the BIG portals had almost 90% of all (initial) search enquiries, so it was 'fruitless' to try and "take them on". Publishers & media Co's also understood, that a web search conducted on their sites would "drive" their own users (off their very own sites, &) out into the 'fairyland' of cyberspace. But they need a basic search the web facility, on their sites. He sat down with by now, these panicking publishers/media Co's and explained a plan, that by using Verticals, & by sharing content within the Verticals, effectively "users" to ALL their own sites could not only be "shared", they would then stay longer within this suggested "network", bouncing from one "partner's" site, off on to another!!

How? - By simply installing a search button that automatically directs a user to Vertical results contained in Google.. (etc)...

Lets search (on Google) for fishing .... You may enjoy the pastime? So, (effectually), a "FindArticles on Fishing" search gives us these results, both in the US and here in OZ.....

Whoops!! Google have 1.4M results, to choose from. And look at those Looksmart properties sitting up nicely, on page one!!

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=F...ing&btnG=Search

And Google Australia has 1.57M listings to select from. Again, note the 1st FIVE results !!!!

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=Fi...nG=Search&meta=

Now, I've chosen "commercial fishing" from within the Google US results, & we are now in the Looksmart "fishing" Vertical!!

http://www.looksmartfishing.com/p/search?q...0&y=0&vcat=cat4

Every article leads a searcher, (user) back to the content "origionator's", own site .....

And every step of the way can be "contextualised" with ADS to suit the interests & pockets of users!!! And it is only in it's infancy ....... Now tell me why NWS wouldn't want to be a part of this "universal" application, process? And you laughed at, & suggested Google would be wasting $100M of their "spare change" to buy Looksmart?? Hey, whilst there is the $2-billion-a-year Australian local-search market to 'capture', how much do you feel the "world" market will be worth, in a few years time?

Cheers !!

smile.gif

LC

 
 


113 Pages (Click to Jump) V  « < 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 > » 

Back To Top Of Page
Reply to this topic


You agree through the use of ShareCafe, that you understand and accept the TERMS OF USE.


TERMS OF USE  -  CONTACT ADMIN  -  ADVERTISING