G'day Wikipedia folks,
Farhad Manjoo of Slate has written a damning review of Knol.
http://www.slate.com/id/2200401/
"There are two articles about Sarah Palin on Google Knolhttp://knol.google.com/k/knol, the search company's abysmal new Wikipedia-like reference guide. One of themhttp://knol.google.com/k/marc-samuel-delvarello/sarah-palin/34hdx7ks0jha3/93?pli=1is a mess: Just a few hundred words long, the article is fraught with factual and grammatical errors." More in article
Regards
*Keith Old*
On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 1:37 AM, Keith Old keithold@gmail.com wrote:
G'day Wikipedia folks,
Farhad Manjoo of Slate has written a damning review of Knol.
http://www.slate.com/id/2200401/
"There are two articles about Sarah Palin on Google Knolhttp://knol.google.com/k/knol, the search company's abysmal new Wikipedia-like reference guide. One of them< http://knol.google.com/k/marc-samuel-delvarello/sarah-palin/34hdx7ks0jha3/93...
is
a mess: Just a few hundred words long, the article is fraught with factual and grammatical errors." More in article
It looks like someone's school essay on her... I mean, come on, there's blatant typos there...
On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 2:06 AM, Al Tally majorly.wiki@googlemail.comwrote:
On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 1:37 AM, Keith Old keithold@gmail.com wrote:
G'day Wikipedia folks,
Farhad Manjoo of Slate has written a damning review of Knol.
http://www.slate.com/id/2200401/
"There are two articles about Sarah Palin on Google Knolhttp://knol.google.com/k/knol, the search company's abysmal new Wikipedia-like reference guide. One of them<
http://knol.google.com/k/marc-samuel-delvarello/sarah-palin/34hdx7ks0jha3/93...
is
a mess: Just a few hundred words long, the article is fraught with factual and grammatical errors." More in article
It looks like someone's school essay on her... I mean, come on, there's blatant typos there...
-- Alex (User:Majorly)
Interesting. That other "knol" that was lifted from an earlier revision of our own article (without attribution as "Slate" correctly points out) still has all of it's links and footnotes pointing back at Wikipedia! Not sure how that's going to lift Knoll's pagerank.
On Tue, 2008-09-23 at 03:15 -0400, Elias Friedman wrote:
Interesting. That other "knol" that was lifted from an earlier revision of our own article (without attribution as "Slate" correctly points out) still has all of it's links and footnotes pointing back at Wikipedia! Not sure how that's going to lift Knoll's pagerank.
One don't have to worry about PageRank when one own the search engine...
2008/9/23 Kwan Ting Chan ktc@ktchan.info:
On Tue, 2008-09-23 at 03:15 -0400, Elias Friedman wrote:
Interesting. That other "knol" that was lifted from an earlier revision of our own article (without attribution as "Slate" correctly points out) still has all of it's links and footnotes pointing back at Wikipedia! Not sure how that's going to lift Knoll's pagerank.
One don't have to worry about PageRank when one own the search engine...
Google have said they're not going to push it but let queries reach their natural level of pagerank depending on how useful they show themselves to be to people in practice. Which would make sense - Google is a popular search because it's good, and only as long as it's good; giving an artificial boost to their own properties would risk shooting themselves in the foot.
(For interest: http://www.startupbin.com/google-google/ - Google results stripped of Google sites.)
- d.