Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Google Update Esmeralda

By kpaul in Op-Ed
Tue Jun 24, 2003 at 07:34:57 AM EST
Tags: Internet (all tags)
Internet

Google is dancing to a different tune this month. Some think the beat is from war drums playing in anticipation of a Microsoft search product. Following the naming convention started at WebmasterWorld (Google updates are given names like hurricanes), the Esmeralda Google Update is currently winding down.

For those of you who aren't regular Google-watchers, the Google dance (update) refers to a time roughly once a month when Google updates their index of the web with info from the last month's crawl of websites. During the update, the results Google displays differ in various servers in the Google cluster, hence the term Google is dancing.


Google has been undergoing a lot of big changes during the last couple months, though, and things have been quite odd to say the least. A lot of people seem to think Google is moving toward a rolling update instead of a re-ranking of the entire web once a month.

The weirdness started in May. The monthly update (Dominic) was late - very late. The Deepcrawler, which spidered sites deeply once a month for the big update, hadn't been seen in the logs of anyone who watched for it. Very strange. Forums across the 'net experienced a flurry of activity as people tried to figure out what was going on at the Googleplex.

To add to the mysteriousness, Freshbot began to act a little more like the Deepcrawler. Traditionally, Freshbot came from a different IP range and added pages to the index immediately as opposed to once a month like Deepbot did. Freshbot's purpose was to add 'freshness' to the search results in between monthly updates.

Did the late monthly update and disappearance of Deepbot signal the birth of a new bot? Names like deepfreshBot and FredBot were posted around the 'net as people pondered the new activity in their logs.

GoogleGuy (a Google employee who posts anonymously at WebmasterWorld - yes, it's been verified) confirmed that a big change was in the works and that people should be patient as Google evolved. He said the process would take "more than weeks, less than months."

Cryptic, but to be honest, I'm happy to get any first-hand, 'unofficial' info from them. During Dominic, SERPs (search engine result pages) were all over the place. Some pointed back to the now infamous September '02 update that was talked about in Wired and on that other site.

The doomsayers always appear during an update, though, predicting the downfall of the 'obviously-evil-because-they-don't-list-my-site' Google. The conspiracy theorists come out in droves as well.

One theory that was offered to the world was that Google had run out of unique id's because they used four bytes instead of five or more when designing their database infrastructure. Googleguy mentioned that a Google employee fell out of his chair laughing when he heard that.

Beyond the anger and conspiracies, though, some took GoogleGuy's messages and tried to make sense of what was going on. (This whole marketing thing Google has going on with GoogleGuy may be a story in itself.)

Anyway, although no one from Google has officially confirmed it, they're apparently moving away from a once-a-month crawl/update cycle to a more continuous updating process. As the web grows, this is becoming a necessity to have the freshest results possible. They're also perfecting (as much as they can) automated spam detectors to help clean up the SERPs.

For Google to stay on top (as they edge closer to an eventual IPO), these are worthy tasks. They need to innovate. They need to stay two steps ahead of their closest competitors, even if it means a little collateral damage in the SERPs for a little while. At this time, in my humble opinion, the only SE that comes close to rivaling Google is FAST's AllTheWeb.

Yahoo is most likely going to dump Google as a provider of their search engine results at some point this year, though. And Microsoft is also showing an interest in the search engine market. With two giants like that (not to mention FAST becoming a giant in its own right), it's becoming more and more important for Google to maintain their lead.

As I said in the intro, the Esmeralda update appears to be settling down somewhat and should stabilize sometime in the next few days. From there, SEOs (search engine optimizers) will again look at how Google ranks the web and how best to optimize for it.

The bigger question, though, is what it means for the Internet at large? Personally, I think it's an effort by Google to maintain their dominance in the search engine game. And Google has always been a good neighbor in cyberspace so this is not necessarily a bad thing.

Sure, some may snort and chuckle when Microsoft and search engines are mentioned in the same sentence, but they have a *lot* of money. In our society this means they don't necessarily need the best product to have the most market share. Just take a look at Internet Explorer and its dominance over Netscape and other browsers.

The thing is, if Google can remember what they were like when they were still the little guys, they have a fighting chance at fending off Microsoft and the others. This latest major change to their algorithm and crawling methods is, I think, a move by Google to sprint ahead of the competition before it's too late.

Go, Google, go.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Poll
Name for July Google Dance?
o Fred 21%
o Fabio 12%
o Freida 10%
o Francesca 21%
o Francois 8%
o Fez 14%
o Faith 2%
o write-in (see below) 8%

Votes: 47
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o Yahoo
o Google
o Google is dancing
o naming convention
o flurry of activity
o more than weeks, less than months
o Wired
o that other site
o doomsayers
o theory
o Microsoft is also showing an interest
o Also by kpaul


Display: Sort:
Google Update Esmeralda | 88 comments (54 topical, 34 editorial, 0 hidden)
Would you please... (2.00 / 2) (#3)
by Gornauth on Mon Jun 23, 2003 at 08:32:11 PM EST

..add more story/text/noise?

More background! More Links!

(erhm...quite a number of  links already...nevermind)

*grrrr* wrong type, wrong button (n/t) (2.00 / 2) (#4)
by Gornauth on Mon Jun 23, 2003 at 08:32:56 PM EST



[ Parent ]
hmm... (none / 0) (#5)
by kpaul on Mon Jun 23, 2003 at 08:39:34 PM EST

I added a link to Google Update in the first graf for backgrounder info - or does that defeat the purpose of what you were asking for?

Or were you being sarcastic?

Thanks.


2014 Halloween Costumes
[ Parent ]

okay (none / 0) (#57)
by Gornauth on Tue Jun 24, 2003 at 07:37:08 AM EST

... i like K5 stories big and long, but will settle for a set of decent links.

Was being sarcastic, curious and kinda drunk, gomen.

[ Parent ]

Have you heard? (1.18 / 11) (#28)
by STFUYHBT on Mon Jun 23, 2003 at 11:32:48 PM EST

It's true - the incidence of Google obsession is closely correlated with the incidence of inflatable rubber fetish. All the scientists agree.

-
"Of all the myriad forms of life here, the 'troll-diagnostic' is surely the lowest, yes?" -medham
And? (3.00 / 3) (#31)
by jonathan_ingram on Mon Jun 23, 2003 at 11:48:55 PM EST

Six word summary: Google slightly change their update method. Nothing else in that article seems to add anything to this.
-- Jon
the potential upcoming battle (none / 0) (#32)
by kpaul on Tue Jun 24, 2003 at 12:05:31 AM EST

between Google and Microsoft... will be one to watch, i'm sure...


2014 Halloween Costumes
[ Parent ]

Battle of the Search Goliaths (4.50 / 2) (#38)
by CheeseburgerBrown on Tue Jun 24, 2003 at 01:07:17 AM EST

the potential upcoming battle between Google and Microsoft... will be one to watch, i'm sure...

Damn straight. Word on the street is that Microsoft's Dominion Crush Power will wilt against Google's mighty Altruism Ray, but this may be a rose-tinted view. I have heard tell that Microsoft's beast will be wiley.


___
I am from a small, unknown country in the north called Ca-na-da. We are a simple, grease-loving people who enjoy le weekend de ski. Personally, I pref
[ Parent ]
heh. (none / 0) (#43)
by kpaul on Tue Jun 24, 2003 at 01:43:05 AM EST

i'd actually thought of godzilla when i was writing that bit... ;)


2014 Halloween Costumes
[ Parent ]

Think xbox? (4.00 / 2) (#67)
by bjlhct on Tue Jun 24, 2003 at 02:29:52 PM EST

Well, what are they gonna do to google? Undercut them? Heh.

OK, here's what they can do.

Remember the "integration" of IE? Basically they're doing this to be able to make people use IE. They can then extend the chain by "integrating" microsoft search into IE.

This will, of course, be preceeded by a big ad campaign, which may do a little but I suspect most google users like it.

While of course it will be possible to use another browser with windows, it may be tricky - not too tricky for most k5ers, but probably too tricky for many windows users.

The strategy is starting to fall into place. But Brin and Page are smart and while microsoft is a complacent giant google is not.

*
[kur0(or)5hin http://www.kuro5hin.org/intelligence] - drowning your sorrows in intellectualism
[ Parent ]

What really sucks (4.00 / 2) (#33)
by awgsilyari on Tue Jun 24, 2003 at 12:18:06 AM EST

Is when your site just vanishes from Google for no reason at all and doesn't reappear, and it's been 2 months now. Not just the new pages. The entire site is just gone.

And I see GoogleBot visiting at least once a week.

I went from 500+ hits a day to like... 10?

--------
Please direct SPAM to john@neuralnw.com

how new is your site? (none / 0) (#34)
by kpaul on Tue Jun 24, 2003 at 12:43:26 AM EST

that could affect it. or maybe you inadvertantly tripped one of the new spam filters in the algo?

like i said, they're big changes. google will be back better then ever.


2014 Halloween Costumes
[ Parent ]

It's been there since January (none / 0) (#40)
by awgsilyari on Tue Jun 24, 2003 at 01:17:04 AM EST

I even went to their add URL page over a month ago now. There was a power outage around the time it happened (but I can't remember if it was that exact day). If the site was down when Google tried to crawl it would that have made any difference?

--------
Please direct SPAM to john@neuralnw.com
[ Parent ]
It may have. (none / 0) (#41)
by kpaul on Tue Jun 24, 2003 at 01:41:52 AM EST

There's been talk of the age of sites and how that influences the algo recently as well - i.e. older sites are ranking higher.

Work on good backlinks - they make it easiest for Google to crawl your site and 'trust it...'

Backlinks have been weird last couple of months. I would give it another week or so to settle down. Even that's just a guesstimate, though.

It sucks if you have a clean site and your traffic plummets, but I think for them to maintain their dominance, they had to act quickly, which they did.

It was also pretty amazing because for the first time, Google started applying filters and using different algos in public, as if they wanted webmasters to help them out.


2014 Halloween Costumes
[ Parent ]

Google censorship, and link: doesn't work (2.50 / 4) (#63)
by Jonathan Walther on Tue Jun 24, 2003 at 01:59:43 PM EST

Except it's been only certain PORTIONS of my website... the portions containing controversial material.  I've noticed that where my pages will show up in a Google search, the link: feature shows NO pages as linking to them, which is blatantly false.

When I emailed Google about the link: feature not working, they said to do a websearch on the URL prefix all by itself.  This gave me the same results as link:, even though I knew of half a dozen websites that were well indexed by Google, and had linked to my pages.

This has been going on for about 2 months now.  I hope it is software glitches and not a sign of something more sinister, such as political sites getting filtered out.

Because Google is a privately held corporation, we have no way of knowing who is really running the show, and no recourse if they have been taken over and assimilated by the Scientologists, or strong-armed by this countries intelligence services.

(Luke '22:36 '19:13) => ("Sell your coat and buy a gun." . "Occupy until I come.")


[ Parent ]
Google censorship, and link: doesn't work (3.40 / 5) (#64)
by Jonathan Walther on Tue Jun 24, 2003 at 02:01:03 PM EST

The same thing has been happening to me, except it's been only certain PORTIONS of my website... the portions containing controversial material.  I've noticed that where my pages will show up in a Google search, the link: feature shows NO pages as linking to them, which is blatantly false.

When I emailed Google about the link: feature not working, they said to do a websearch on the URL prefix all by itself.  This gave me the same results as link:, even though I knew of half a dozen websites that were well indexed by Google, and had linked to my pages.

This has been going on for about 2 months now.  I hope it is software glitches and not a sign of something more sinister, such as political sites getting filtered out.

Because Google is a privately held corporation, we have no way of knowing who is really running the show, and no recourse if they have been taken over and assimilated by the Scientologists, or strong-armed by this countries intelligence services.

In the past couple weeks the Googlebot has started crawling my entire site again, but link: still isn't working. I hope it isn't an attempt to muzzle dissidents.

(Luke '22:36 '19:13) => ("Sell your coat and buy a gun." . "Occupy until I come.")


[ Parent ]
Out of curiosity... (5.00 / 1) (#76)
by CheeseburgerBrown on Wed Jun 25, 2003 at 09:43:23 AM EST

...what do you consider "controversial"?


___
I am from a small, unknown country in the north called Ca-na-da. We are a simple, grease-loving people who enjoy le weekend de ski. Personally, I pref
[ Parent ]
SERP Switcharoo (5.00 / 2) (#35)
by CheeseburgerBrown on Tue Jun 24, 2003 at 12:43:35 AM EST

I wondered what was up. Last week I searched for "cheeseburger" and was pleased to see my K5 article in the top 10. This week: it's gone, replaced by another instance of the article under my domain.

Weird. Usually my copy of stuff is listed way deeper than K5's.


___
I am from a small, unknown country in the north called Ca-na-da. We are a simple, grease-loving people who enjoy le weekend de ski. Personally, I pref
which one did you post first? (5.00 / 1) (#36)
by kpaul on Tue Jun 24, 2003 at 12:46:25 AM EST

and was there a while in between the times you posted them to the various sites?


2014 Halloween Costumes
[ Parent ]

Posted to K5 First (5.00 / 1) (#37)
by CheeseburgerBrown on Tue Jun 24, 2003 at 12:53:41 AM EST

Sometime after the article was voted up on K5 I made a copy and uploaded it to my personal website. Probably the same day, or the day after.

As I mentioned, until recently any cheeseburger searches I did turned up the K5 version many pages higher than my personal copy. Last week I looked and was pleased as punch to see the K5 version on Google SERP 1 (my personal copy lagged on Google SERP 3), but now it's my personal copy that is returning higher in the listings. Go figure.


___
I am from a small, unknown country in the north called Ca-na-da. We are a simple, grease-loving people who enjoy le weekend de ski. Personally, I pref
[ Parent ]
*shrugs* (none / 0) (#44)
by kpaul on Tue Jun 24, 2003 at 01:46:59 AM EST

will be interesting to see where it ends up after things settle. i'd bet on the K5 version floating back to the top...


2014 Halloween Costumes
[ Parent ]

You're the one! (4.00 / 1) (#45)
by ubernostrum on Tue Jun 24, 2003 at 02:15:45 AM EST

I'd noticed the referers to my site from that thing (the version on your domain, not on k5), and never quite put two and two together . . .


--
You cooin' with my bird?
[ Parent ]
You've been assimilinked.... (4.00 / 1) (#48)
by Parity on Tue Jun 24, 2003 at 04:05:08 AM EST

That page, at your site, not the K5 article, is definitely becoming a known 'cult classic' of a page. I totally missed the original k5 article, but I've bumped into more than one link pointing to the article on your site...

Which, in short, is why the version on your site is floating to the top - your copy of the article is linked! I'm sure it could be historically traced to somebody who posted a popular article and referred to it by your site rather than by k5-archive, but hey, there it is. Links makes ranks.

--Parity None


[ Parent ]

Pitoune (4.50 / 2) (#61)
by MonkeyMan on Tue Jun 24, 2003 at 09:50:48 AM EST

Cheeseburger, You inspired me to check my very first k5 comment: Poutine - Pitoune

It is now #35/3130 in a naked pitoune search and most of the links I gave rank higher.

I too am becoming an authority.

I don't know what makes it rank. Maybe I'm piggy backing on your poutine story. I tried looking for links to the story but that part of google doesn't seem to like K5 filenames. I.e. for http://www.kuro5hin.org/comments/2003/2/5/171112/7741/74#74 google offers to find linking pages, while for just http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/2/5/171112/7741 you have to use a text search.

Maybe this problem with k5 file names affects the rank differences between your home and k5 stories.

[ Parent ]
Don't forget putain (5.00 / 1) (#68)
by DominantParadigm on Tue Jun 24, 2003 at 04:19:41 PM EST



Caller:So you're advocating bombing innocent children? Howard Stern:Yes, of course!


[ Parent ]
Ou les putants [nt] (none / 0) (#75)
by CheeseburgerBrown on Wed Jun 25, 2003 at 09:41:53 AM EST


___
I am from a small, unknown country in the north called Ca-na-da. We are a simple, grease-loving people who enjoy le weekend de ski. Personally, I pref
[ Parent ]
Putants? (none / 0) (#78)
by MonkeyMan on Wed Jun 25, 2003 at 11:22:11 AM EST

As far as I know putant means putative mutant as opposed to cutant which means confirmed putant.

Is this more crazy québécois slang that hasn't made it on the net yet? Or do people there confuse gravy fries with curds, with prostitutes, with floating logs, with putative mutants?

[ Parent ]
"Nethers of a Whore" [nt] (none / 0) (#79)
by CheeseburgerBrown on Wed Jun 25, 2003 at 02:17:02 PM EST


___
I am from a small, unknown country in the north called Ca-na-da. We are a simple, grease-loving people who enjoy le weekend de ski. Personally, I pref
[ Parent ]
How I got ranked highly at google (3.30 / 23) (#49)
by MichaelCrawford on Tue Jun 24, 2003 at 04:23:46 AM EST

My consulting business website ranks highly in google for a number of search terms that are pertinent to my business.

I didn't get that way using a search engine optimization service. It didn't cost anything but my time and the sweat of my brow. And it's really very simple how it works.

I tell all my methods in How to Promote Your Business on the Internet.

In summary:

  • Put content on your site that visitors will want to read - and return to. Not just material aimed at potential customers, but stuff anyone will want to read.
  • Post new content regularly
  • Ask for links, and offer reciprocal links
That's the method I used to make a Google search for software consultant turn up my resume as the #4 search result.


--

Live your fucking life. Sue someone on the Internet. Write a fucking music player. Like the great man Michael David Crawford has shown us all: Hard work, a strong will to stalk, and a few fries short of a happy meal goes a long way. -- bride of spidy


Buy an add (1.00 / 11) (#51)
by jman11 on Tue Jun 24, 2003 at 04:33:14 AM EST

Isn't this the sort of comment that should be zeroed

[ Parent ]
I'm trying to be helpful to others, really I am (2.66 / 12) (#52)
by MichaelCrawford on Tue Jun 24, 2003 at 04:36:54 AM EST

If you understood my comment you would understand that I'm trying to help other people promote their sites by posting comments like the above.

I'm not trying to sell search optimization services. There is no charge to read the article, and I'm not in the business of helping you implement the advice I give there.

If you wonder why I would write an article such as that, read it and you will understand it's because I think it will make the web a better place.


--

Live your fucking life. Sue someone on the Internet. Write a fucking music player. Like the great man Michael David Crawford has shown us all: Hard work, a strong will to stalk, and a few fries short of a happy meal goes a long way. -- bride of spidy


[ Parent ]

Comments that should be zeroed (2.80 / 5) (#53)
by Ta bu shi da yu on Tue Jun 24, 2003 at 05:49:24 AM EST

Look, you clearly don't know which comment's should be zeroed. Being the helpful fellow that I am, may I suggest that this comment is a good example of one that needs to be zeroed.

Yours humbly,
Ta bù shì dà yú

---
AdTIה"the think tank that didn't".
ה
[ Parent ]

Apostrophe man strikes again! (nt) (2.60 / 5) (#54)
by Ta bu shi da yu on Tue Jun 24, 2003 at 06:04:53 AM EST



---
AdTIה"the think tank that didn't".
ה
[ Parent ]
I'd go with Dr. Wu Wang (2.50 / 2) (#65)
by Idioteque on Tue Jun 24, 2003 at 02:13:28 PM EST

Not only does he rank one above you, but I could call the software Wu-Ware

36 chambers!


I have seen too much; I haven't seen enough - Radiohead
[ Parent ]
Holy ratings, batman! (4.00 / 4) (#72)
by Ni on Wed Jun 25, 2003 at 03:57:10 AM EST

Do people not realize that the link is free? Why all the low ratings?

The post is very, very minimally offtopic, but the poster clearly knows what he's talking about, and far more offtopic posts are rated much higher.


"Hang on a minute, I'll rupture the gas main and toss in a flaming midget." -- mrgoat
[ Parent ]

Google is dying. (1.33 / 9) (#55)
by noogie on Tue Jun 24, 2003 at 07:09:46 AM EST




*** ANONYMIZED BY THE EVIL KUROFIVEHIN MILITARY JUNTA ***
Netcraft confirms it [nt] (2.50 / 4) (#56)
by MichaelCrawford on Tue Jun 24, 2003 at 07:19:09 AM EST


--

Live your fucking life. Sue someone on the Internet. Write a fucking music player. Like the great man Michael David Crawford has shown us all: Hard work, a strong will to stalk, and a few fries short of a happy meal goes a long way. -- bride of spidy


[ Parent ]

No IPO: you heard it here (4.00 / 1) (#58)
by p3d0 on Tue Jun 24, 2003 at 08:21:27 AM EST

Google will never IPO as long as they are not in deep financial trouble. The guys running the company seem to like the freedom too much to become publically-owned.

When they do eventually IPO, I wouldn't buy, because it will mean they have become so financially strapped that they are willing to give up their ideals. I don't care so much about the ideals, but it's the "financially strapped" part that would worry me.
--
Patrick Doyle
My comments do not reflect the opinions of my employer.

What about employee stock options? (5.00 / 4) (#59)
by MichaelCrawford on Tue Jun 24, 2003 at 09:03:56 AM EST

I am personally of the opinion that being publicly traded is really bad for companies. It prevents the management from focusing on long-term planning. They have to boost stock prices each quarter to keep the shareholders happy, or the board will get voted out. But sometimes investment in long-term success will lower quarterly results temporarily.

Look at Bechtel, the world's largest privately held company. United Parcel Service was private until they cashed in on the dot-com boom.

The problem is that I expect many of Google's employees received stock options as part of their compensation. Those options aren't going to be worth much until google goes public. So there's going to be a lot of pressure from employees to have an IPO. While I imagine no one's going to resign over it in today's economy, I expect that when the economy recovers, there will be some people leaving for other jobs because they can't make money from the stock options.

Given that, do you still think Google will never IPO, at least not as long as it is financially successful? What would you say to the employees?


--

Live your fucking life. Sue someone on the Internet. Write a fucking music player. Like the great man Michael David Crawford has shown us all: Hard work, a strong will to stalk, and a few fries short of a happy meal goes a long way. -- bride of spidy


[ Parent ]

In a word: dunno (none / 0) (#73)
by p3d0 on Wed Jun 25, 2003 at 06:39:47 AM EST

I think you know more about this than I do. But why are stock options worth less for a private company?
--
Patrick Doyle
My comments do not reflect the opinions of my employer.
[ Parent ]
They're hard to sell (4.00 / 1) (#77)
by MichaelCrawford on Wed Jun 25, 2003 at 10:06:30 AM EST

Stock options for a private company may not always be worth less, but often are in large part because they're hard to sell.

You can't just call your stockbroker to sell your shares, you actually have to go find a buyer personally. Sometimes the company will help arrange the connection, if people are approaching the company wanting stock and they don't have any the company itself wants to sell.

Also, once a company goes public, its stock becomes subject to stock market forces. That may create a price higher than what people may be willing to pay in private transactions.

Bechtel isn't publicly traded, but I imagine its stock is worth a lot in private transactions.

On the other hand, the share price for most pre-IPO companies is less than a dollar, while the IPO price will typically be more than ten.


--

Live your fucking life. Sue someone on the Internet. Write a fucking music player. Like the great man Michael David Crawford has shown us all: Hard work, a strong will to stalk, and a few fries short of a happy meal goes a long way. -- bride of spidy


[ Parent ]

Stock option myths? (5.00 / 1) (#80)
by levsen on Wed Jun 25, 2003 at 02:22:16 PM EST

I think this is a good moment to ask some questions about stock options:

- First of all, let's clarify here that the options eventually become shares, no? Sure you have to pay the money to buy those shares, but since options are usually granted to early employees, no?, they are priced low. So someone gets, say, 10.000 options priced at $1, it should be possible to cough up $10k when the options vest, at which point in time they could well be worth 10 times as much. (Hence 90k profit.)

- The reason why other stock option plans only work for public companies, is that those option plans are for companies that are already established and their shares are not bound to get much better. If you get 10.000 options priced at $20 when you join Microsoft then the share price might be at $24 when they vest, and you have to cough up $200k to realize a $40k profit, correct? This only works if employees can buy the shares (from the company) and sell the shares (on the market) in one transaction because they don't actually have $200k cash, correct?

- This brings me to the next point: You are saying it's not so easy to sell because there's no market. Duh, there was a point in time when shares were there to share the profit of a company (paid as dividends) and use the voting power to influence decisions. Making money out of rising share prices is more of a recent trend, no?

- Also you are saying that a public market raises the price of a stock. Well there will automatically be a bigger audience, but not necessarily more demand, correct? Only in a 1999-like stock-frenzy anything thrown on the market would automatically gain, because the demand was so huge the whole market could never satisfy it. On the other hand, someone pointed out that public companies often perform poorly because of the pressure of poorly informed and short-sighted shareholders. That sound to me like the price should DROP after going public, no?

- Forget the thing about pre-IPO-less-than-dollar vs. post-IPO-around-10, the share price is not an absolute thing but set arbitrarily but the number of shares issued, a number that can even be easily adjusted by splits etc.


This comment is printed on 100% recycled electrons.
[ Parent ]

Great comments, but... (none / 0) (#83)
by p3d0 on Wed Jun 25, 2003 at 09:30:59 PM EST

...you should occasionally end a sentence without asking a question, right?
--
Patrick Doyle
My comments do not reflect the opinions of my employer.
[ Parent ]
Nope (none / 0) (#85)
by levsen on Thu Jun 26, 2003 at 07:51:14 AM EST

I don't know any of this. It's all speculation on my part. I was hoping someone would give me the answer (i.e. "yes you are right"/"no you are wrong") to each one.


This comment is printed on 100% recycled electrons.
[ Parent ]

"going public" (none / 0) (#82)
by bolthole on Wed Jun 25, 2003 at 06:39:01 PM EST

Does anything actually mandate that, when doing "an IPO", that you actually have to put up over 50% of the stock for public sale?

I would presume not. in which case, the freedom-loving guys at google should be able to have their cake and eat it too.


[ Parent ]

Laws for publically-traded companies (none / 0) (#86)
by p3d0 on Fri Jun 27, 2003 at 08:14:43 AM EST

I have no idea, but I suspect that the minute you sell even 1% of your stock publically, you become a "publically traded company" and you must adhere to a whole new set of laws.
--
Patrick Doyle
My comments do not reflect the opinions of my employer.
[ Parent ]
new set of laws for public companies. (none / 0) (#87)
by bolthole on Sat Jun 28, 2003 at 04:45:13 AM EST

yes. but most of them have to do with just publically disclosing your financial statements, and limiting "corporate officers" from trading the stock under certain terms, etc. It doesnt really affect how you actually do business, apart from needing really accurate financials. Which could be seen as a bonus in some ways :->

[ Parent ]
Has anyone noticed Google has gotten worse? (none / 0) (#60)
by Silent Chris on Tue Jun 24, 2003 at 09:10:38 AM EST

Not a troll.  Trust me: I use Google perhaps more than any other site on the net (especially when doing tech support -- Google Groups owns).  I have noticed, however, that finding relevant results (particularly about "popular" topics) has gotten harder and harder with the main search engine.  If I search "vb .net system tray", I used to get references to source code in vb .net on how to make system tray icons.  Now I get some source code... and a mix of advertisements and links to things that have nothing to do with source code.

I know a lot of this has to do with web sites "learning the dance" and creating self-referencing pages that increase their height on the search page.  Fine.  But when Google came in, a lot of people thought internet search had proved impractical.  They proved them wrong.  Why can't they prove them wrong again with a massive update?

By the way, this doesn't seem to affect Google Groups.  I guess Usenet wasn't as badly tainted as the web in adjusting to Google.

Silly Nitpick (4.00 / 2) (#62)
by Lagged2Death on Tue Jun 24, 2003 at 09:59:42 AM EST

...they have a *lot* of money. In our society this means they don't necessarily need the best product to have the most market share. Just take a look at Internet Explorer and its dominance over Netscape and other browsers.

I don't think this is a good example of money or business strategies beating out a superior product. Microsoft may have had unfair advantages in the browser marketplace, but for most of the history of the web, IE (3.x, 4.x, 5.x) was also more reliable and less crash-prone than the Netscape equivalents. It was the better browser.

I think that's changed now - IE 6.x is a crash-o-matic ruin, and several really excellent Mozilla-derived browsers are available. But it's a recent development, give it some time.

Starfish automatically creates colorful abstract art for your PC desktop!
nice, except (4.00 / 1) (#66)
by golrien on Tue Jun 24, 2003 at 02:13:39 PM EST

I've had IE4 crash for me too often to be even remotely funny. I agree with you though, the nicest part of fully moving to leeenocks was browsing the web with <s>Mozilla</s> <s>Phoenix</s> <s>Firebird</s> Mozilla Firebird - it's not perfect, but it's a damn sight better than IE. That said, how many people use Phoenix over IE? I mean, on Windows I had Mozilla, Opera and IE and I used IE most of the time, despite it being the least reliable browser (not quite the slowest though, heh). Most people are lazy, the market nearly always makes poor choices.

[ Parent ]
Microsoft Scare Tactics (4.66 / 3) (#70)
by hardburn on Tue Jun 24, 2003 at 11:41:04 PM EST

I remember reading an article a while back (sorry, can't remember the magazine or the guy's name) by a former MS employee who was rated high enough in the company to sit around with BillG at a lot of meetings. OK, that's a lot of unsubstaintiated crap to put in one sentance, even on the Internet, but read on anyway.

He noted that in order to corner a market, Microsoft often didn't need to start creating an actual product or even do much research for a potential one. They just needed to "leak" a few rumors, make a few press releases, etc. Companies involved in that particular market would be so scared that they collapse on their own. Then MS buys the scraps of that company and either makes releases whatever product they were working on, or perhaps stick it all in a dark closet somewhere.

Companies that keep their cool usually survive the worst of Microsoft's tactics. For instance, AOL seems to be going strong, despite the fact that MSN has been around since Win95 was released (admittedly, this may be a case of coming across a pile of dog poo, and a pile of cat poo, and saying "ahh, the cat poo is better!").


----
while($story = K5::Story->new()) { $story->vote(-1) if($story->section() == $POLITICS); }


AOL sold out, (4.50 / 2) (#71)
by kpaul on Tue Jun 24, 2003 at 11:47:50 PM EST

though, didn't they? And settled for $750 million or so with a deal that IE would remain the AOL browser?

Google may be a company really immune to Microsoft's Gamma-marketing Ray. Will be an interesting battle nonetheless...


2014 Halloween Costumes
[ Parent ]
It's a funny thing (none / 0) (#81)
by Karmakaze on Wed Jun 25, 2003 at 02:58:19 PM EST

I seem to have a fairly good "Pagerank" just from longevity, and because all of my "subsites" link back to the parent.

Someday I'll have to re-optimize.
--
Karmakaze

Darn... (none / 0) (#84)
by Relinquished on Wed Jun 25, 2003 at 11:01:42 PM EST

Entering "dumb motherfucker" in Google doesn't bring up the George W. Bush store anymore.

--------------
If you rearrange the letters in "anagram for signature" you get "famous at rearranging".


Google Update Esmeralda | 88 comments (54 topical, 34 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest © 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!