Comments on: Who Gave Google Permission to be the Judge and Jury of Mobile Content? http://mobhappy.com/blog1/2006/03/09/who-gave-google-permission-to-be-the-judge-and-jury-of-mobile-content/ Russell Buckley and Carlo Longino on mobile technology. Wed, 10 Mar 2010 15:31:40 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Vodafone UK, Doing A Lovely Job Of Supporting The Mobile Web By Breaking It at MobHappy http://mobhappy.com/blog1/2006/03/09/who-gave-google-permission-to-be-the-judge-and-jury-of-mobile-content/comment-page-2/#comment-103112 Vodafone UK, Doing A Lovely Job Of Supporting The Mobile Web By Breaking It at MobHappy Thu, 07 Jun 2007 17:10:17 +0000 http://mobhappy.com/blog1/2006/03/09/who-gave-google-permission-to-be-the-judge-and-jury-of-mobile-content/#comment-103112 [...] On a related note, according to The Guardian, Vodafone’s transcoder “tends to strip out adverts”, though an exec insists this is just part of the attempt to “present content from the internet as quickly as possible”. Haven’t we been through this before? [...] [...] On a related note, according to The Guardian, Vodafone’s transcoder “tends to strip out adverts”, though an exec insists this is just part of the attempt to “present content from the internet as quickly as possible”. Haven’t we been through this before? [...]

]]> By: Does Adaptation Trump Copyright? | StayGoLinks http://mobhappy.com/blog1/2006/03/09/who-gave-google-permission-to-be-the-judge-and-jury-of-mobile-content/comment-page-2/#comment-101026 Does Adaptation Trump Copyright? | StayGoLinks Thu, 22 Mar 2007 09:37:46 +0000 http://mobhappy.com/blog1/2006/03/09/who-gave-google-permission-to-be-the-judge-and-jury-of-mobile-content/#comment-101026 [...] A recent post by Dorrian Porter highlighted an interesting topic raised by Russell Buckley just over one year ago. The title was, ‘Who Gave Google Permission to be the Judge and Jury of Mobile Content?‘ Despite some very informed comments the topic remained unresolved. In order to render certain web pages suitable for mobile devices, Google had cut out some advertising and in some cases added their own. [...] [...] A recent post by Dorrian Porter highlighted an interesting topic raised by Russell Buckley just over one year ago. The title was, ‘Who Gave Google Permission to be the Judge and Jury of Mobile Content?‘ Despite some very informed comments the topic remained unresolved. In order to render certain web pages suitable for mobile devices, Google had cut out some advertising and in some cases added their own. [...]

]]> By: The Equity Kicker » Blog Archive » One internet or two? http://mobhappy.com/blog1/2006/03/09/who-gave-google-permission-to-be-the-judge-and-jury-of-mobile-content/comment-page-2/#comment-34329 The Equity Kicker » Blog Archive » One internet or two? Fri, 06 Oct 2006 10:03:22 +0000 http://mobhappy.com/blog1/2006/03/09/who-gave-google-permission-to-be-the-judge-and-jury-of-mobile-content/#comment-34329 [...] Opportunities for entrepreneurs and VCs will come (or have come) at the infrastructure level, like Volantis and tools to take apps like Betfair mobile.¬† Beyond that we need to look for things that are truly different on mobile - not different just because of screen size etc.¬† Location based services/local search is a good example.¬† Advertising might be another - different messages will be appropriate to people on the move and the screen size point is significant here because the advertising is secondary to the main page people are looking at and there simply won’t be enough space for it (see Google¬†strips out ads when it optimises for mobile). [...] [...] Opportunities for entrepreneurs and VCs will come (or have come) at the infrastructure level, like Volantis and tools to take apps like Betfair mobile.¬† Beyond that we need to look for things that are truly different on mobile – not different just because of screen size etc.¬† Location based services/local search is a good example.¬† Advertising might be another – different messages will be appropriate to people on the move and the screen size point is significant here because the advertising is secondary to the main page people are looking at and there simply won’t be enough space for it (see Google¬†strips out ads when it optimises for mobile). [...]

]]> By: October MoMo London at MobHappy http://mobhappy.com/blog1/2006/03/09/who-gave-google-permission-to-be-the-judge-and-jury-of-mobile-content/comment-page-2/#comment-34164 October MoMo London at MobHappy Thu, 05 Oct 2006 11:23:12 +0000 http://mobhappy.com/blog1/2006/03/09/who-gave-google-permission-to-be-the-judge-and-jury-of-mobile-content/#comment-34164 [...] I last wrote about this back in March when Google went down this route of removing ads from sites and it proved to be one of the most commented posts I ever wrote: For a publisher, or a content owner, this is pretty hard. For the most part, online publishing is all about selling ads round the content. Any publisher who needs to make money from his site (ie they are a business) has to sell those ads, or the site will disappear - it’s that simple. So by stripping these ads out, Google is effectively depriving publishers of income. You can’t argue (like Google News) that you’re sending traffic to sites by offering a taster of the content. They are simply taking traffic away from exposure to the publisher’s advertising. [...] [...] I last wrote about this back in March when Google went down this route of removing ads from sites and it proved to be one of the most commented posts I ever wrote: For a publisher, or a content owner, this is pretty hard. For the most part, online publishing is all about selling ads round the content. Any publisher who needs to make money from his site (ie they are a business) has to sell those ads, or the site will disappear Рit’s that simple. So by stripping these ads out, Google is effectively depriving publishers of income. You can’t argue (like Google News) that you’re sending traffic to sites by offering a taster of the content. They are simply taking traffic away from exposure to the publisher’s advertising. [...]

]]> By: MobileCrunch » Google’s New F-Finance Beta Pretty on Mobile but Lacking Substance http://mobhappy.com/blog1/2006/03/09/who-gave-google-permission-to-be-the-judge-and-jury-of-mobile-content/comment-page-2/#comment-2426 MobileCrunch » Google’s New F-Finance Beta Pretty on Mobile but Lacking Substance Wed, 22 Mar 2006 14:51:55 +0000 http://mobhappy.com/blog1/2006/03/09/who-gave-google-permission-to-be-the-judge-and-jury-of-mobile-content/#comment-2426 [...] If you enter the URL into a mobile phone it automatically mobilizes the content so that it is easier to read (which is a plus here, but a disaster on many other websites that have already been optimized by the site’s original authors- and a topic about which I will post on shortly). [...] [...] If you enter the URL into a mobile phone it automatically mobilizes the content so that it is easier to read (which is a plus here, but a disaster on many other websites that have already been optimized by the site’s original authors- and a topic about which I will post on shortly). [...]

]]> By: Scott Rafer’s Mobile Chair » Blog Archive » A Thank You Note from The Gambia http://mobhappy.com/blog1/2006/03/09/who-gave-google-permission-to-be-the-judge-and-jury-of-mobile-content/comment-page-2/#comment-2279 Scott Rafer’s Mobile Chair » Blog Archive » A Thank You Note from The Gambia Mon, 20 Mar 2006 14:52:03 +0000 http://mobhappy.com/blog1/2006/03/09/who-gave-google-permission-to-be-the-judge-and-jury-of-mobile-content/#comment-2279 [...] It is also why we can’t take Google’s mobile site censorship casually. [...] [...] It is also why we can’t take Google’s mobile site censorship casually. [...]

]]> By: Scott Rafer http://mobhappy.com/blog1/2006/03/09/who-gave-google-permission-to-be-the-judge-and-jury-of-mobile-content/comment-page-2/#comment-2267 Scott Rafer Mon, 20 Mar 2006 05:21:24 +0000 http://mobhappy.com/blog1/2006/03/09/who-gave-google-permission-to-be-the-judge-and-jury-of-mobile-content/#comment-2267 Carlo's comment is close to right from my perspective. What I'm upset about is censorship and the creation of derivative works in the face of copyright notices that specify otherwise. I'm not a fan of the DMCA whatsoever (please support chillingeffect.org), but Google deciding that they have the right to create a derivative of every single site in their index is arrogant to an astonishing degree. In practice, what I am demanding is: (1)Google finds a way to respect the user agent handling performed by sites even if they are ignorant of Google's specifics. Even occasional (see end of this paragraph) spoofing the user agent of the phones in question would be better than the current situation. There is an extra compute expense the first time there is a Google Mobile clickthrough to a web site (or on indexing at their option), after which they can auto-opt-out the mobile-savvy sites and re-check the others every 90 days or so. (2) Where noted in a standard XML format on the indexed sites, observe copyright notices for "no derivative works." There are many such well-formed notices at this point. If Feedster and Technorati can afford to index them, so can Google. I have no issues with transcoding when a site owner provides no decent mobile alternative, and they haven't made their copyright preferences clear. Carlo’s comment is close to right from my perspective. What I’m upset about is censorship and the creation of derivative works in the face of copyright notices that specify otherwise. I’m not a fan of the DMCA whatsoever (please support chillingeffect.org), but Google deciding that they have the right to create a derivative of every single site in their index is arrogant to an astonishing degree.

In practice, what I am demanding is: (1)Google finds a way to respect the user agent handling performed by sites even if they are ignorant of Google’s specifics. Even occasional (see end of this paragraph) spoofing the user agent of the phones in question would be better than the current situation. There is an extra compute expense the first time there is a Google Mobile clickthrough to a web site (or on indexing at their option), after which they can auto-opt-out the mobile-savvy sites and re-check the others every 90 days or so. (2) Where noted in a standard XML format on the indexed sites, observe copyright notices for “no derivative works.” There are many such well-formed notices at this point. If Feedster and Technorati can afford to index them, so can Google.

I have no issues with transcoding when a site owner provides no decent mobile alternative, and they haven’t made their copyright preferences clear.

]]> By: Carlo Longino http://mobhappy.com/blog1/2006/03/09/who-gave-google-permission-to-be-the-judge-and-jury-of-mobile-content/comment-page-1/#comment-2264 Carlo Longino Sun, 19 Mar 2006 23:42:34 +0000 http://mobhappy.com/blog1/2006/03/09/who-gave-google-permission-to-be-the-judge-and-jury-of-mobile-content/#comment-2264 Phil -- if you use Google's search from a phone's browser, Google doesn't give you the option, as I said before. That's the problem. The default "Web" option transcodes the pages you click through to (see <a href="http://mobile.google.com/web_search.html" rel="nofollow">http://mobile.google.com/web_search.html</a>). The "Mobile Web (beta)" option searches mobile-specific content (see <a href="http://mobile.google.com/mobile_search.html" rel="nofollow">http://mobile.google.com/mobile_search.html</a>). This search, however, is by no means comprehensive, it's far from it. There seem to be two steps Google could take immediately to improve the situation: if a site serves up pages designed for mobile devices via stylesheets, use those pages instead of transcoding full Web pages. Second, make a link that takes users to the original page. Phil — if you use Google’s search from a phone’s browser, Google doesn’t give you the option, as I said before. That’s the problem.

The default “Web” option transcodes the pages you click through to (see http://mobile.google.com/web_search.html).

The “Mobile Web (beta)” option searches mobile-specific content (see http://mobile.google.com/mobile_search.html). This search, however, is by no means comprehensive, it’s far from it.

There seem to be two steps Google could take immediately to improve the situation: if a site serves up pages designed for mobile devices via stylesheets, use those pages instead of transcoding full Web pages. Second, make a link that takes users to the original page.

]]> By: Phil Wilson http://mobhappy.com/blog1/2006/03/09/who-gave-google-permission-to-be-the-judge-and-jury-of-mobile-content/comment-page-1/#comment-2262 Phil Wilson Sun, 19 Mar 2006 18:51:21 +0000 http://mobhappy.com/blog1/2006/03/09/who-gave-google-permission-to-be-the-judge-and-jury-of-mobile-content/#comment-2262 Scott, you've said "spreading the mobile web to mere users is the goal we‚Äôre seeking to reach" but also in the same breath "The crowd here is overly educated enough on these issues". Well, what about everyone else? At what stage do you *not* want Google to transcode pages? Without a doubt Google are currently making the mobile browsing experience 200% better for 99.9% of people using mobile devices on the web. For you and people like you they are not because you actually understand these issues, and how to provide better, mobile-specific versions of your sites. I also disagree your disagreement with Dennis :) - if you are against one transcoder, you are against them all. If you are not, your position is ambivalent and you need to make your point more clearly. Do you dispute Google's transcoder because they are so popular or because of what they do? Would you be happy with transcoding if all online search engines had an equal market share? Like Dennis also says, I'm no Google fan either, in fact, they scare me in a lot of ways, but your reaction appears to be emotional in some part and not entirely logical. Russell, your response to Steve is such a misrepresentation of what he said! He said that Google search gives you two options, one of which is rearranged furniture, one of which is as you left it. You *do* get the option. If I don't want you to rearrange my furniture (whether I realise it's being rearranged or not), I don't have to let you. Gosh, I think that's that metaphor tortured quite enough. I've only read this all very quickly so I sincerely hope I haven't made any blundering errors in that little diatribe :) Scott, you’ve said “spreading the mobile web to mere users is the goal we‚Äôre seeking to reach” but also in the same breath “The crowd here is overly educated enough on these issues”. Well, what about everyone else? At what stage do you *not* want Google to transcode pages?

Without a doubt Google are currently making the mobile browsing experience 200% better for 99.9% of people using mobile devices on the web. For you and people like you they are not because you actually understand these issues, and how to provide better, mobile-specific versions of your sites.

I also disagree your disagreement with Dennis :) – if you are against one transcoder, you are against them all. If you are not, your position is ambivalent and you need to make your point more clearly. Do you dispute Google’s transcoder because they are so popular or because of what they do? Would you be happy with transcoding if all online search engines had an equal market share?

Like Dennis also says, I’m no Google fan either, in fact, they scare me in a lot of ways, but your reaction appears to be emotional in some part and not entirely logical.

Russell, your response to Steve is such a misrepresentation of what he said! He said that Google search gives you two options, one of which is rearranged furniture, one of which is as you left it. You *do* get the option. If I don’t want you to rearrange my furniture (whether I realise it’s being rearranged or not), I don’t have to let you. Gosh, I think that’s that metaphor tortured quite enough.

I’ve only read this all very quickly so I sincerely hope I haven’t made any blundering errors in that little diatribe :)

]]> By: Russell Buckley http://mobhappy.com/blog1/2006/03/09/who-gave-google-permission-to-be-the-judge-and-jury-of-mobile-content/comment-page-1/#comment-2257 Russell Buckley Sun, 19 Mar 2006 00:09:01 +0000 http://mobhappy.com/blog1/2006/03/09/who-gave-google-permission-to-be-the-judge-and-jury-of-mobile-content/#comment-2257 Jim Thanks for pointing out Guy's post. Lots of inaccuracies in there actually, as well as the interesting accusation that I'm Russell Beattie :-) At least that's what I assume he's talking about. But, we never have been seen in the same room, so it might be true. In the interests of full disclosure, I do have a Yahoo email! account, which I don't really use, and the sharp eyed will see that Yahoo! ads are served on this site. Not sure why this would effect my opinion and it's hardly secret as every one can see them. Oh and I have a gmail account and we have used AdWords here. Is that enough disclosure. Cheers Russell Jim

Thanks for pointing out Guy’s post. Lots of inaccuracies in there actually, as well as the interesting accusation that I’m Russell Beattie :-) At least that’s what I assume he’s talking about. But, we never have been seen in the same room, so it might be true.

In the interests of full disclosure, I do have a Yahoo email! account, which I don’t really use, and the sharp eyed will see that Yahoo! ads are served on this site. Not sure why this would effect my opinion and it’s hardly secret as every one can see them. Oh and I have a gmail account and we have used AdWords here. Is that enough disclosure.

Cheers

Russell

]]>