haha die murdoch! DIE! :D

does anyone actually use bing?

Talk about suicide LOL. Good luck to them, hope they're happy together. I'll stick with the big G thanks

There's gotta be a better way than search engines these days, I can't find a damn thing amongst all the ads and blackhat seo websites..

I can find reasonable stuff if I'm looking for facts / information, but try booking a holiday or getting travel / visa advice, good f*****g luck is all I can say...

haha die murdoch! DIE! :D

does anyone actually use bing?

looking at our stats - no. Bing traffic is less than 2% of what we get from Google.

Trog you know that if you guys fixed your forum urls to be SEO friendly you would get a lot more traffic and be able to charge a lot more for advertising ;)

My post... horrible concise info in my post.

I just don't get why Murdoch thinks Google are the enemy.

It's like taking your add off the worlds largest billboard because the billboard company wont pay you for your add.

Well yeah it does actually.

we're pretty happy with our SEO optimisations at the moment

...
- Duplicate content between qgl and ausgamers forums (maybe qgl should be robot disallowed)
- There's no H1 tag on this page
- Topic within the url would give threads a boost as well

I agree that all that can help, BUT clearly ausgamers doesn't need it. One time I posted a thread asking for help, I went back to google at the end of the day to research further and did a search using similar kewords as to the topic of the thread. Ausgamers was on front page. (risk with the URL though is that the may end up being too long)

The amount of content Ausgamers has, how relevent it usually is and how often it is updated play a massive part in how well this site ranks.

If I don't find what I want on the first two pages of google I go to bing.

Really? I've never had to go to page two, not even 5th result most times.

I'll be fair, i'm just a god at google.

I know murdoch and news corp are big but why would you want to throw down against the biggest force on the internet? seems stupid to me.

Saint it may seem stupid but if google didn't gauge how keywords are used with markup then the keyword best associated with this page might be "Brisbane, Queensland" or "post a reply" :) Ultimately markup afftecting the ranking encourages people to develop their sites according the w3c standard which helps clean up some of the mess that Microsoft created.

Page rank is mainly determined by the PR of a site's inbound links and Ausgamers has nearly 45,000 inlinks according to yahoo . Having an old domain helps as well. I can attest that on site optimisation is a big factor and worth attention. I manage another PR5 site's online marketing effort.

A lot of seo is indeed conjecture but this is great guide on telling you where to concentrate your efforts:
http://www.seomoz.org/article/search-ranking-factors#ranking-factors

I mean I just searched for something generic like "left 4 dead 2 review". The Ausgamers review is on page 3 of google. I'm not sure if you have google webmaster tools setup but I suspect (and have seen this on another clients site) that the site localisation hasn't been setup. Because if it had, it should put your review on the front page somewhere because Ausgamers is an Australian site and Google will rank Australian websites more highly than internationally-focussed sites. That's why all you'll see competitors setting up subdomains like au.ign.com and or localised domains like kotaku.com.au so they don't get outperformed by local websites like Ausgamers.

Your biggest asset, the home page, isn't targeted to any particular keyword phrases which means you are really missing out some easy traffic. Here's a term-extractor report for Ausgamers' home page top keyword terms (one word):

1. news
2. ausgamers
3. ausgamers.com
4. poll
5. november
6. videos
7. the
8. lego
9. shift
10. encounter


Now here's Kotaku.com.au's

1. australia
2. kotaku
3. game
4. reviews
5. news
6. resident
7. evil
8. warcraft
9. wii
10. world


Gamesradar.com:

1. game
2. cheats
3. xbox
4. games
5. gamesradar
6. video
7. news
8. 360
9. reviews
10. previews


Pretty self-explanatory. The word 'games' or 'australia' don't even appear for Ausgamers.com - and this is the site's subject matter.

Anyways you guys said you are happy with your SEO but maybe this will open your eyes to a bit to simply better utilising what you already have? Trog has my email if you are interested in my help.

Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation has held talks with Microsoft on a plan to remove its content from the search engine Google.

I didn't read the article but this line in the OP makes no sense. Why would murdoch be talking with microsoft about removing stuff from google?

I'm pretty sure I get the meaning of it but the way they worded it reads like they're making out MS owns google.

edit:

Trog is horrible at taking advice. He will say s*** like "I'll look into it" then never do anything about it.

I'm still waiting for him to come pick up this old computer. It's kerbside cleanup this weekend, maybe I"ll put it out for some newb to take instead.

last edited by whoop at 19:02:10 24/Nov/09

Skythra and othe google gods mayb you can help me with this, where google returned naught an bing didn't.
 
I get the following error in event logs on Windows 2003 with SQL Server 2005 SP2 CU9 installed
 
2009-11-18 13:43:33.50 Server Windows kernel object 'Global\SQL_90_MEMOBJ_[instance]_0' already exists. It's not owned by the SQL Server service account.
 
What I normally do is filter out the information specific to my event that isn’t generic, in this case [instance]_0 which is the instance name and the date and time, and chuck it on in to google, so I’d search for: Windows kernel object sql_90_memobj already exists.
 
Google returns nothing:
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=Windows+kernel+object+SQL_90_MEMOBJ+already+exists.&btnG=Search&meta=&aq=f&oq=
 
Bing returns two hits:
http://www.bing.com/search?q=Windows+kernel+object+SQL_90_MEMOBJ+already+exists.&go=&form=QBLH&filt=all&qs=n
 
 
My other recent case was on the 12-Nov.  I had an error which returned SqlFeatureStateCheck failure as part of the installation process for the second node of a SQL 2008 on a Windows 2008 cluster.
 
Google returns nothing on the actual text SqlFeatureStateCheck Failed: http://www.google.com.au/search?rlz=1C1GGLS_enAU316AU316&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=SqlFeatureStateCheck+failed
 
And nothing on even SqlFeatureStateCheck: http://www.google.com.au/search?rlz=1C1GGLS_enAU316AU316&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=SqlFeatureStateCheck
 
Bing returned two entries: http://www.bing.com/search?q=SqlFeatureStateCheck&go=&form=QBLH&filt=all&qs=n
 
Obviously within a day google will now have these entries indexes thanks to the awesomeness that is ausgamers SEOing, but still, at the time it returned zip, and more than a week later still returns zip.

Google doesn't treat underscores as a word separator like Bing seems to.

With error messages I tend to just search for the non tech jargon aspects like the following query. Quotes are useful only when the text should match exactly.

Windows kernel object already exists "It's not owned by the SQL Server service account"

.

But the News site is predominantly stuff straight off the wire or re-writes of the wire. There's very little actual news content that isn't fluff. Here's the top 5 headlines on news.com.au at 22:34

1. Turnbull to stay Liberal leader
- Staff writers. An actual murdoch article.

2. GREG Bird is a free man after winning appeal over glassing of long-term girlfriend Katie Milligan.
- Straight off the wire. Written by AAP

3. TWO weeks after the murders of his father and sister, suspect Antony Waterlow is spotted.
- Straight off the wire. Written by AAP

4. RESIDENTS are afraid to go outside as wild camels overrun an Outback community.
- Straight off the wire. Written by AAP

5. FIRST some thought Demi Moore wasn't all that hip, now there may be photo proof of a missing body.
- Lets pretend this is actually news, not fluff. It's tagged as news writers, but they've just taken a NineMSN article and a HuffingtonPost story and mashed them together

I then ran down the top 5 items in the 'breaking news' section and none of them were written by News.com.au. It's either AFP or AAP.

So if the three of the five main 'top headlines' on news.com.au aren't even news articles written by news, what is Murdoch selling?

He's basically got a aggregation service that isn't anywhere near as good as google's but wants people to pay for it.

Where do Google display entire news items from other people? I don't read 'real' news often so the only Google news thing I'm aware of is http://news.google.com/ .

edit: also afaik they don't put ads on their news content

stagrrr that would be true if Google News site put ads on their page, which they don't. At least I can't see any advertisements as of today, but I don't think this is a recent development.

So I guess that nullify your comments regarding google making money on Advert on that particular service. But your point is taken about paying for what you used, authors/publishers of books took Google to court over Google Books and won. So now Google'll have to pay them for putting up their books etc on Google's Book site.

I guess it's a fine line, whether using an excerpt (like most aggregating service) is a breach in copyright. For the most part copyright doesn't allow you reproduce anything either part or as a whole of the copyrighted material. So Newscorp could argue that Google is breaching that way but man that's like splitting hairs...

^^^ Exactly PornoPete, that's why I'm a bit perplexed as to why Murdoch would be so pissed at Google sending him Traffic?

stagrrr that would be true if Google News site put ads on their page

also afaik they don't put ads on their news content

Well fine, but what I said was "Google News site (as an example)". Which was meant to illustrate the point that sourcing content and repackaging it doesn't mean the content is then yours or free. I take the point that it wasn't clear but comments about there being no ads on Google news pretty much deliberately miss the point of the post.

Obviously, the current boggle is over Google search, which does display ads and is why News Ltd is negotiating to possibly have its content only show up with Bing.

Exactly PornoPete, that's why I'm a bit perplexed as to why Murdoch would be so pissed at Google sending him Traffic?

The point about the traffic Google sends News Ltd sites is that it is not particularly attractive to News Ltd advertisers. This is because the traffic can be completely random and it's extremely hard for an advertiser to know 'who' is clicking through. So, basically, is the person clicking through and reading the Greg Bird story a sports fan? Or someone just curious about some bloke glassing his missus?

The reason it is so hard to tell is because the traffic clicks a Google link, reads the News Ltd story and then leaves the site. Advertisers are mainly interested in knowing how long a person 'engages' the site. Basically, how long they stick around. This then lets them know the audience and whether it is attractive or not for them to spend money sticking their ads there.

It's hard to explain but it's a bit like a pub that makes money from selling beer and to attract patrons it shows live sporting events on it's TVs. If it packs out the pub but no one buys any beer and just watches the sporting event then leaves, the pub makes no money. Essentially these are the types of patrons News Ltd is saying it gets from Google.

The second part about News then charging for content is a bit like saying the pub is going to charge an entry fee for watching the sporting event. Everyone seems to be saying well you can't make money because you will have heaps less people come into your pub if they have to pay. Murdoch's response would be: well most weren't buying beer anyway so what do I care if most of them don't come back?

Anyway, poke holes in the examples and miss the point again if you wish, but News Ltd is actually in talks with Microsoft. He is actually pissed about Google not paying for content. Google news ads or not.

Obviously, the current boggle is over Google search, which does display ads and is why News Ltd is negotiating to possibly have its content only show up with Bing.

I take your point about searches and ads but, realistically how many people "search" for "new" News item just so they can read the news? I sure don't, I don't know anyone that "search" for news to read on the daily basis? You either go to the source site or news aggreation services like Google News.

And if you're talking about royalty then then people that use Search engines are not loyal anyway. They're searching for specific information on the internet and not specifically on "News corporation" owned site - sure they owned a lot but they're not only one.

Besides, like people already suggested if he doesn't want them to index his site then just put in robot.txt problem solve and none of this is even an issue anymore. Hell he can even block Google crawler if he really wants to.

So I don't see why it'd bug Murdoch all that much about search engine results and Google is making money from the ads because:

1) He can prevent this already;
2) The traffic from search engines are by nature one off anyway.

The point about the traffic Google sends News Ltd sites is that it is not particularly attractive to News Ltd advertisers. This is because the traffic can be completely random and it's extremely hard for an advertiser to know 'who' is clicking through. So, basically, is the person clicking through and reading the Greg Bird story a sports fan? Or someone just curious about some bloke glassing his missus?

The reason it is so hard to tell is because the traffic clicks a Google link, reads the News Ltd story and then leaves the site. Advertisers are mainly interested in knowing how long a person 'engages' the site. Basically, how long they stick around. This then lets them know the audience and whether it is attractive or not for them to spend money sticking their ads there
.....
Anyway, poke holes in the examples and miss the point again if you wish, but News Ltd is actually in talks with Microsoft. He is actually pissed about Google not paying for content. Google news ads or not.

I totally undestand your point but, surely a better solution would be to negotiate with news aggreate site and serve ads from there so you can track them etc. Which ironically as you point out, is exactly what they're negotiating with Microsoft to do just that??!?.

That's why I don't get why Murdoch is so pissed seeing that he's quite happy to negotiate with MS but, just basically say, talk to the hand Google, cause the face ain't talking.

Perhaps Google just being a prick (which I don't doubt) and just go nah screw you Rupert we don't wanna pay you or talk to you. Who really knows what the back story is as to why Rupert is so hard up about the big G.

I just think Repert is just having a bad few years and now he's making more mistakes. I guess time will tell if this his strategy has proven to be ingenious or disaterous. I for one think it's the latter.

That's why I don't get why Murdoch is so pissed seeing that he's quite happy to negotiate with MS but, just basically say, talk to the hand Google, cause the face ain't talking. Perhaps Google just being a prick (which I don't doubt) and just go nah screw you Rupert we don't wanna pay you or talk to you. Who really knows what the back story is as to why Rupert is so hard up about the big G.

He did go to Google and they said: lols, no. And, he isn't hard up on Google per se, he has mentioned a range of people that he believes take content. He has also mentioned microsoft. His boggle is his content is being used without it being paid for. Google just gets more coverage because it is so big and powerful and people are interested in a tussle between them and News.

Typically ads are sold in such a way that the 'engagement' of users is not a big deal.

You're living in the past man. You keep saying "but it doesn't work like that!". Firstly, in most other mediums it does work like that. Secondly, Murdoch is organising his sites so that it will work like that online for him.

If you buy a 'Gamimg' magazine most ads in it will be gaming related. 'Gaming' advertisers value a 'specialist' magazine over a free hand out on the street because they know that the people that buy the magazine are 'engaged', that is, interested about games/gaming, And, thus more likely to buy their gaming related product. Whereas a hand out on the street is mostly going to land in the hands of people who don't give a s***.

This is basically the set up Murdoch is aiming for. Paid content with a known subscriber base that is highly valued to advertisers. That's not to say that en masse clicky clicky advertising won't make you some money. But as Murdoch has said, not every website can or will make money, there is only so much advertising dollars to go around. He is positioning himself so that he can attract the biggest advertising dollars.

So his strategy is two-fold. One, start charging for content through subscriptions, and two, stopping other people (Google amongst a host of others) from taking his content without compensating him (by possibly de-indexing his sites from Google).

Murdoch has said that any de-indexing if it occurs will be done when pay subscriptions to his sites is brought in.

That's true of any traffic though. Someone that goes to news.com.au directly is pretty much indistinguishable from something clicking through from Google. If I go to to news.com.au right now in my browser, they get no more information about what demographic I'm in or anything else - unless I volunteer that information as part of a membership signup or something. And I'm just as likely to do that going to their site as I am clicking through from news.com.au

I have already gone over this point but either way this is basically handled by the pay subscription part of what News is looking at doing.

I think News doesn't have a problem with Google. It's just that Google wouldn't play ball with paying up. Which is fine. But, it's silly to think that Murdoch wouldn't at least look at other ways of doing things. The fact that, as Trog points out, most people don't think what he is doing will work is largely irrelevant to the man himself.

If you really want to see who is going head to head with Google look at Microsoft. Microsoft, even before News approached them, was already sounding out sites to de-index from google and index exclusively with Bing. That is, Microsoft was (is?) going to _pay_ for exclusive rights to list content.

People keep saying it can't work, it can't work. But when you have Microsoft and News Ltd seriously looking at changing things up it's silly to be as dismissive as people are being.

most people believe that Murdoch is making more money from Google click-throughs than he would by not being in Google and charging for content.

And, if Microsoft pays News Ltd to list exclusively on Bing and News sets up pay subscribers? It may not get up, but it is what Murdoch is pushing for. And if he does get it, why wouldn't it make more money than the current set up?

http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2009/12/new-user-agent-for-news.html

Google announces a new way for publishers to not appear in news results

You're living in the past man. You keep saying "but it doesn't work like that!". Firstly, in most other mediums it does work like that. Secondly, Murdoch is organising his sites so that it will work like that online for him.

You are making the same mistake Murdoch does - trying to treat the Internet like its "most other mediums".

I'm living in the now! I talk to advertising people on a weekly basis; it's the /only/ revenue stream of AusGamers.com. So I have some idea on how the market is currently segmented.

If you buy a 'Gamimg' magazine most ads in it will be gaming related. 'Gaming' advertisers value a 'specialist' magazine over a free hand out on the street because they know that the people that buy the magazine are 'engaged', that is, interested about games/gaming, And, thus more likely to buy their gaming related product. Whereas a hand out on the street is mostly going to land in the hands of people who don't give a s***.

Most of the ads on AG are sold on the basis of the target demographic - gamers, 98% male, mostly 18-25 with disposable income. The people that come to AG are interested in games.

The people that land on news pages on news.com.au sourced from Google will be interested in the topics they searched for - by definition. Back to the subject - their "engagement" in the site is (mostly) limited to their interest in the article they're reading. If they can find more related articles then they does increase their engagement, but atm the bulk of ads are sold on the basis of getting that first, most important click-through - because that's the only one you can bank on.

BUT, you are right to some extent - the market is changing.

And, if Microsoft pays News Ltd to list exclusively on Bing and News sets up pay subscribers? It may not get up, but it is what Murdoch is pushing for. And if he does get it, why wouldn't it make more money than the current set up?

Bing is a tiny fraction of the market at the moment; I can't think of anyone who would start searching on it so they could make sure they could get news.com.au articles included in their search results.

People keep saying it can't work, it can't work. But when you have Microsoft and News Ltd seriously looking at changing things up it's silly to be as dismissive as people are being.

I agree and have been saying since Day 1 that I hope he makes it pay-per-view, because that's the only way we're going to see what will happen. The speculation is based (largely) on a bunch of MS/FOX hating that doesn't really view the move clinically. Most of the tech-rage is simply because NewsCorp are a) possibly trying to subvert Fair Use and b) whining about something that can be solved (..as of today, anyway) with a one-line change to their web server configuration.

As you say (sort of), the ONLY question on his mind is - will this move increase shareholder value? And that is the only metric that matters when it comes to determining whether the move is successful.

My gut feeling is that Google is just too entrenched at the moment for this to be a good move and that the traffic they will lose won't be made up. But that's just a guess.

^ Like the hordes of DBAs and Sysadmins trying to figure out what the hell the SqlFeatureStateCheck error message means