The Tin-Foil Hat Club Strikes Again
Dave Winer:“I never in a million years thought Google would stoop this low, even Microsoft on its worst day never played this dirty.”
It appears that Google is fast becoming the “Evil Corporate Giant” de jour. And with Dave leading the “Shoot First, Ask Questions Later” crowd, it is not surprising to see so much invective about the alleged slight to RSS 2.0.
However, after reading through most of the comments, on Dave’s site and others, and after some cursory grepping through my own logs, it becomes clear that the more likely scenario is that Google is just looking for as many predictably named feeds as possible. Further, it seems as if Google only looks for the additional feed types if it doesn’t find that feed type linked in the page.
For instance, on my site, Google indexes my unconventionally named RSS 2.0 and ATOM feeds and every once in a while, it checks for ‘index.rdf’. It has NEVER checked for atom.xml or rss.xml. I’m betting this is because it already found valid versions of those feed types at the linked URLs.
The true test would be to launch a new page with and ATOM or RSS 1.0 feed, but no RSS 2.0 feed (just for testing Dave, just for testing…) and watch and see if GoogleBot will look for the “missing” rss.xml. If it doesn’t, then, at least, we can begin to wonder. There may still be other reasonable explanations.
Finally, I’m curious about the last line of Dave’s e-mail:
Developers, no matter what format they prefer, are going to be outraged that Google, which is a search engine, is trying to control and define publishing. This should be illegal, although of course I am not a lawyer.
Frankly, this attitude is more destructive than anything Google could possible do. Google only has as much control as people give to them. Unlike Microsoft, Google does NOT dominate any market with anything approximating a 95% marketshare, nor are they able to secure deals with OEMs to prevent users from using alternative search engines. This isn’t anti-trust. There is no monopoly. The knee-jerk suggestion that this (whatever “this” is…it still isn’t more than a conspiracy theory) should be made illegal is ridiculous.
UPDATE (2004-04-24): A commenter points out that the illegality in this case relates to illegal tying. The crux of any claim of illegal tying, however, would seem to require a showing that Google was, in fact, excluding formats other than RSS 1.0 and ATOM. My own limited research, as well as the comments of others elsewhere, show that they are indexing RSS 2.0 feeds. That alone seems to moot any claim of tying as there is no exclusivity?
Again, the important question is whether or not Google is showing any kind of preference for RSS 1.0 and ATOM by searching explicitly for those formats even when unlinked while not similarly searching for unlinked RSS 2.0 feeds. No one has presented anything resembling a conclusive answer on this issue to my knowledge. Once such behavior has been clearly demonstrated, we can begin to fairly question Google’s intentions. To date, all we have is rampant speculation unsupported by the evidence gathered thus far, and therefore, no accusation of wrongdoing or “playing dirty” is warranted. At this time, such accusations, in my opinion, border on the irresponsible.
Over and Underneath
Illuminate
Something to Say
10,000 Charms
Life of Pi
Believing God: Experiencing a Fresh Explosion of Faith
Fablehaven: Grip of the Shadow Plague (Fablehaven)
Fablehaven: Secrets of the Dragon Sanctuary
Comments
If you spin it that way, it sounds reasonable. But what if there were three popular word processors, and Google decided to index two but not the other. And suppose further that Google owned one of the two word processors they did index. Would that be illegal? Perhaps, if they have such a strong position in the search market that it would force people to switch to their word processor. This is called tying, and it is indeed illegal. If you want to have a productive discussion, maybe you should *try* to present the argument you don’t agree with in a slightly reasonable way.
comment by Random commenter on 2004-04-24 @ 7:16 am
I think I did “try” to. The issue is that your comment addresses some hypothetical situations that are NOT occuring.
1) Google _IS_ indexing RSS 2.0. Whether or not it is doing so as aggressively as it is attempting to index RSS 1.0 and ATOM is the question, and it hasn’t yet been answered conclusively. I tried to point that out.
2) Google _DOES NOT_ “own” the RSS 1.0 and ATOM formats.
3) They _DO NOT_ own the _ONLY_ tools available to create those formats. I can create an ATOM feed with almost _ANY_ tool available.
I’m curious, would there be _ANY_ outrage at all if Google was excluding RSS 1.0 or ATOM? What if Blogger only produced RSS 2.0 feeds? Would that still be tying? If that were the case, the facts would be the same (only the names would have changed), yet there would be no complaint. There’d probably be a little note on Scripting News with a little italicized “bing!” next to it.
comment by Cameron Watters on 2004-04-24 @ 7:42 am
Another quick response to #1:
“If you want to have a productive discussion, maybe you should *try* to present the argument you don’t agree with in a slightly reasonable way.”
Hmm…I linked directly to the entirety of Dave’s original argument. Shouldn’t that be sufficient? The great value of the web is that I don’t *need* to restate what he said…I can just link to his opposing view.
In this case, I tried to present the *evidence* and interpret it to the best of my ability. Dave didn’t even wait for more than a smattering of superficially suspicious data to come in before rendering his verdict.
comment by Cameron Watters on 2004-04-24 @ 9:03 am
[Dave didn't even wait for more than a smattering of superficially suspicious data to come in before rendering his verdict.]
Cameron,
The superficially suspicious data you speak of is a server log transcript from my own webserver. I have to ask - do you seriously think someone would go to the trouble of fabricating such data ? If so - you are the one with tinfoil on your head.
walter
comment by Walter on 2004-04-26 @ 3:33 am
I wouldn’t have a problem if Google only indexed Atom feeds. It’s their prerogative and the thing to remember is *they’re still indexing the blog entries themselves.* Keep a little perspective, people!
comment by Bill Brown on 2004-04-26 @ 6:21 am
Walter,
I said it was superficially suspicious, not fabricated. It’s outlandish to suggest that I’ve ever implied the data is fabricated. A woefully inconclusive and inadequate basis for such sweeping accusations, yes. Fabricated? No.
In fact, additional data, including my own logs (also un-fabricated), suggest that GoogleBot’s behavior belies a far less nefarious plan.
comment by Cameron Watters on 2004-04-26 @ 6:32 am
Since it is a minor technical task for any weblogging software to incorporate BOTH Atom and RSS, I fail to see how it would matter even if Google chose only to support Atom.
It is totally different from the word processor analogy above, because Atom is an open format that any software can use, whereas WP formats are typically quite hard to clone.
I just don’t see how this matters except to certain people whose egos are invested in the success of certain formats. It doesn’t seem that there is any nontrivial business issue at stake here.
comment by Gary Robinson on 2004-04-26 @ 6:39 am
Gary,
I make that very point (although much more verbosely; kudos for brevity) in a follow-up to the current post:
http://www.h2os.org/archives/2004/04/22/do_formats_really_matter_that_much
comment by Cameron Watters on 2004-04-26 @ 7:25 am
There was also all the data at photomatt.com, not just Walter’s data. When I posted, all that was on the table, it was actually there long before I posted.
comment by Dave Winer on 2004-04-26 @ 8:55 am
Dave: I read the photomatt stuff before I posted. The data there doesn’t support the conclusion that Google is _excluding_ RSS 2.0 (rss.xml) feeds. It _may_ show that Google isn’t quite as aggressive about discovering RSS 2.0 feeds compared to ATOM or RSS 1.0.
Again, my logs, as well those of some of the commentators at photomatt show that Google is, in fact, regularly indexing RSS 2.0 feeds. Mine has been indexed eleven times since April 1st.
Jumping to conclusions based on limited data is not justified by saying that it was all you had to work with. The evidence was obviously inconclusive. Additional research should’ve been done before publishing any conclusion.
Frankly, such research wouldn’t have been tough as Google appears to have indexed your rss.xml file:
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=rss.xml+site%3Ascripting.com&btnG=Search
I don’t know how often they index yours, but they index mine nearly every other day. No exclusion going on.
In fact, they seem to know about Walter’s rss.xml as well:
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=rss.xml+site%3Axanadb.com&btnG=Search
comment by Cameron Watters on 2004-04-26 @ 9:22 am
It’s good to see that you understand the issue. This doesn’t excuse the nasty things you said and I don’t care to discuss this with you. I just left the note so that your readers know that you had your basic facts wrong.
comment by Dave Winer on 2004-04-26 @ 9:39 am
Dave: I really wish it didn’t have to be like this. I don’t think I said anything particularly nasty. I said you were generally paranoid and that you tend to “shoot first and ask questions later”. Both of statements are demonstrably true. I also believe the paranoia is largely understandable, although not necessarily valid. I did say them in a goading manner, which may be what got to you.
I’m sorry that you’re unwilling to discuss this further. I’m truly sorry if I hurt your feelings. It is possible that I was confused about the tone of conversation you were willing to engage in by misinterpreting your use of terms such as “corporate asshole” and the harsh invective you typically direct toward those opposite you in the political spectrum. I figured that was just the way you approached arguments, and I’m comfortable having discussions that get a little heated without becoming distracted from the actual topic. My bad. No harm intended.
comment by Cameron Watters on 2004-04-26 @ 9:55 am
I dug around some old server logs and it turns out I was wrong - google last requested rss.xml on 25th march.
It still seems to be requesting those non-existent index.rdf and atom.xml files frequently - more frequently than the linked-to rss.xml file.
I guess I was wrong.
Walter
comment by walter on 2004-04-26 @ 10:09 am
Cameron, don’t be surprised by Dave’s negative attitude and the pretense of being offended. He is a very emotional guy, emotionally unstable some would say, and cannot take the hint of criticism of himself or the way he brings up issues. (Notice that makes him a world-class hypocrite, but he’s oblivious to that fact.) This is typical Dave behavior: 1. Dave brings up ridiculous assertion about some company he doesn’t like because that same company has slighted him in some manner (real or imagined); 2. Dave goes around on people’s blogs defending his viewpoint, but refusing to actually discuss the issue he brought up; 3. Dave makes direct accusations against others for discussing things in a way that make his original assertion (and hence, himself) look foolish; 4. Dave moves on to new tinfoil-hat topic of conspiracy. Lather, rinse, repeat.
comment by Harry Longes on 2004-04-26 @ 10:47 am
Bwhahaha! They’re indexing your own fucking RSS file, Dave! How much evidence does it take before you back down from your ridiculous accusations and just admit you were dead wrong?
Nothing to see here, move on…
Cameron, congratulations on getting your Winer Number. http://diveintomark.org/archives/2003/04/21/whats_your_winer_number
comment by Mark on 2004-05-01 @ 7:25 pm
Counting his responses to my comments on his own weblog, my EWN would be at least 1/3 (unimpressive, I know). Though, I’m not entirely sure if it should count, considering I theoretically abused him first.
comment by Cameron Watters on 2004-05-01 @ 11:07 pm