<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Google SearchWiki</title>
	<atom:link href="http://theappslab.com/2008/11/24/google-searchwiki/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://theappslab.com/2008/11/24/google-searchwiki/</link>
	<description>Driving Innovation</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 May 2012 12:38:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jake</title>
		<link>http://theappslab.com/2008/11/24/google-searchwiki/comment-page-1/#comment-5544</link>
		<dc:creator>Jake</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2008 02:39:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://theappslab.com/?p=1887#comment-5544</guid>
		<description>Interesting point. The key will be what percentage of Google&#039;s traffic comes from signed in accounts, and of that, what percent actually uses SearchWiki. My guess is that Google could argue the impact is very small, probably fewer than 5% of its searches. That said, I wonder why they did this in the first place.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Interesting point. The key will be what percentage of Google&#39;s traffic comes from signed in accounts, and of that, what percent actually uses SearchWiki. My guess is that Google could argue the impact is very small, probably fewer than 5% of its searches. That said, I wonder why they did this in the first place.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Roy Selig</title>
		<link>http://theappslab.com/2008/11/24/google-searchwiki/comment-page-1/#comment-5543</link>
		<dc:creator>Roy Selig</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2008 00:20:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://theappslab.com/?p=1887#comment-5543</guid>
		<description>This has the potential to create a significant friction between Google&#039;s ad model and end-user sentiment.  To date a brand can buy mindshare through keyword purchases and result rankings. It&#039;s a one way model. With individuals sharing back their filtered sets the advertiser has less predictable control over their buys.  &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;More problematic would be the negative sentiment toward products and brands that a few searchers could create by attaching negative info to content.   The advertisers would revolt at that.  I wonder how long Google will travel this road before pulling back.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This has the potential to create a significant friction between Google&#39;s ad model and end-user sentiment.  To date a brand can buy mindshare through keyword purchases and result rankings. It&#39;s a one way model. With individuals sharing back their filtered sets the advertiser has less predictable control over their buys.  </p>
<p>More problematic would be the negative sentiment toward products and brands that a few searchers could create by attaching negative info to content.   The advertisers would revolt at that.  I wonder how long Google will travel this road before pulling back.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

