I am not talking about getting Bush’s or Obama’s website found at the top of the listings when doing a search for ‘failure’, I’m pondering over what might one day topple Google. Is this possible? Would it be possible if Google used Page Rank as part of its algorithm in a licence arrangement with Stanford Uni? Read on…
The Internet revolution is still in its infancy and we have already seen some casualties that have been a surprise. Take Bill Gross and his company Goto (latterly Overture); it wasn’t long ago that he was the pioneer for paid search and his company cornered the market. If Gross had stuck to his guns and concentrated on building Goto as a destination search engine rather than providing syndicated content to the main portals of the time (mainly Yahoo and MSN) then perhaps Gross’s GoTo could have been what Google is today.
Gross originally came up with the formula that made Google the success it is today; paid search on a ‘pay per click’ model – without AdWords Google would not be the company that it is today. Google never really had a clear understanding of how to monetise the huge amounts of traffic they were generating until this new approach came along…
Although Gross got $1.63 BILLION when selling to Yahoo he knows that this is a mere pinch in comparison to what Googles achievements now equate to.
So, what made Google stand out from the crowd in the early days? It’s simplicity? The fact that it never sold out to the DoubleClick approach and displayed banners all over the results pages? OR was it just down to the fact that its results just worked?
Considering the company never spent a dime on advertising in its early years I think it is fair to say that the engine came to fame just simply because it worked! This was REAL viral growth, it created a buzz in the world of search. It earned ‘free’ PR in places like Time Magazine; the article read Gaga over Google and explained how prolific this new engine was and how it was growing by people recommending it to their friends…
They had a powerful card up their sleeve; their algorithm got around the spam problems that engines like AltaVista were now being hit with. They had the ‘Page Rank’! When considering the strength of the ‘back rub’ (an application Larry created to determine who was linking to his site) being implemented into their Google search algorithm they stumbled upon the new Page Rank (seeing who was linking back to a site, then analysing the importance of those sites by also considering the links they had back to their site (in the most simplistic explanation!)), a contribution to the Google algorithm that set them apart from a market that seemed to be already established.
The Page Rank was named after Larry Page (a founder of Google) and it doesn’t relate to web page as people often initially think.
So, I think it is fair to say that the Page Rank is one of Googles most important assets? Well, think of this. Imagine that Google was only using this patented technology on a licence basis… This is fact! Ok it is a licence granted exclusively to Google by Stanford University (the Uni where the founders created and tested Google) but this licence is renewable in 2011.
What will this mean? Could other companies start using this unique technology if Stanford decided to open up the licence in 2011? Is this possible? Could they do this? If so, what could this mean to Google?
It is also believed that the page rank patent expires in 2017. Will page rank be a thing of the past by then? Will SEO companies be catching up with the latest ‘new thing’ in Googles algorithm by then anyway? What is the next big algorithm change going to be? Has page rank already had its day?
Is Google as safe as we think it is? Have they dominated the search market and made it theirs like Hoover did with the vacuum cleaner? Or is there a Dyson out there waiting for the right opportunity to make its own mark. Is 2011 something that Google needs to prepare for or is it something that isn’t even worth worrying about?
It would be great to hear your feedback on what you think this means for Google. Does the licence of Page Rank matter? Could Stanford Uni licence the Page Rank to other companies after 2011? Is this the real Google bomb? Let’s hope not :)
I remember when Google first gained mainstream acceptance and traction over Altavista, Yahoo et al and it was all about *trust*.
At first Google’s results weren’t noticeably better than its competitors but it emerged that paid search results from the others were indistinguishable from organic search results, whereas Google’s were obviously separate. That transparency gained Google a load of traction.
Later the other search engines were busy becoming portals and when Google concentrated on improving its search alg instead, its place at the top of the heap was certain.
As for what happens in 2011? My guess is that Stanford will continue to licence the PR eigenvector to Google but it will have become much less central to the SERPs by then. Sergei Brin was dropping hints about semantic search last week so that’s where I’d put my money.
Thanks for the comment. Yes, Google made a brave move to remain all about search – they were just a means to an end; go onto the site, perform a search and go elsewhere.
The competition seemed worried about that at the time. They didn’t want to loose the traffic, they wanted to be sticky. I can remember that one company ‘boasted’ about the fact that their search results were diminishing!
Google stuck at it and specialised in search and thank god never became another portal for the sake of monetising.
the thing is 2011 isn’t far away now. I personal feel that Page Rank still plays a big game within the SERPs. Has anyone got anything more specific from Brin that we can start looking at?
Interesting stuff.
Rand at SEOmoz just wrote a post on what it might take to overcome Google’s dominance – well worth a read.
My feeling on the PageRank license is that Google must have a plan for this and would never let it get into anyone else’s hands; surely they have some agreement with Stanford for 2011.
Ultimately Google’s dominance came through the quality of their results. The only way they would be threatened is (a) if their results started to become significantly less relevant, and (b) a startup or competitor comes up with a better way (ie not just by stealing the PageRank formula) to index the web. Many have tried – Powerset, Mahalo and even (ha ha) Cuill – but none have come up with that winning formula.
Perhaps an algorithm that looks at browsing behaviour (eg MSN’s BrowseRank) instead of links?
Yeah, I also remember weaning people off Yahoo by showing them that Google had better results – it was so obvious that very few did not immediately switch.
Many of us never believed that Microsoft could resist biasing search to their own sites and own self-serving interests so their efforts to attract us away went nowhere.
Often overlooked is that Google was smart enough to use Linux to power the army of machines that made all this possible – that contributed greatly to their speed, reliability and low costs.
The Page Rank issue has become less and less important – one because it has been falsely manipulated so often but also because as more criteria have been added its relative importance diminishes. If the patent expires, I can’t see it hurting Google at all – search is so much more than that today.
Check out this, speaking of G bomb. What a laugh.
http://www.googlebombshelter.com