1 files changed, 28 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/old/published/Webmonkey/Monkey_Bites/2007/08.06.07/Thu/googlenews.txt b/old/published/Webmonkey/Monkey_Bites/2007/08.06.07/Thu/googlenews.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..2ea6780
--- /dev/null
+++ b/old/published/Webmonkey/Monkey_Bites/2007/08.06.07/Thu/googlenews.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
+In what might be the strangest move yet for Google, the company announced yesterday that it will now allow comments on Google News. But the there's a very odd catch: comments will only be accepted from participants in the story and comments must be submitted via e-mail. 
+
+The whole thing reminds me a little of the old joke pictured above -- [Google circa 1960][4]. The lag time and restrictions on the Google News comments seem to fit with the thinking of that same era.
+
+As for who can participate, Google News business product manager Josh Cohen [tells Search Engine Land][2]:
+
+>If the subject or someone related to the organization is mentioned, they can give their comment. If you're mentioned in a story or quoted in it, you're a participant. Even if you’re a reporter writing the story itself, you’re a participant.
+
+So let me get this straight. If I write a [story on Facebook][2] for Wired News and Mark Zuckerberg were to take the time to e-mail Google and Google were to somehow confirm that the comments were in fact from Zuckerberg and get them posted in something approaching a timely manner, then I could also e-mail Google and wait for them to confirm that I was in fact who I am and then publish my comment and then Zuckerberg could read my comment and e-mail Google who then confirm that he was in fact Zuckerberg....
+
+It seems slightly more efficient to just snail mail Zuckerberg a tin can with 4000 miles of yarn attached and transcribe the results.
+
+Epicenter thinks this is Google's [phase one for a Digg takeover][1]. In this scenario Google wins because the comments have more value than those on Digg because of the verification aspect.
+
+It's possible I suppose, but I don't think the vast majority of readers care whether the comments on a story are from those involved or not. Nor do I think most would even bother to check who wrote a comment -- the value of a comment is in what's said, not who said it.
+
+In fact ,it seems like the inherent bias of those involved in a story would make their comments *less* valuable. In the example above for instance, the article takes Facebook to task for its closed nature, would it be valuable to the discussion to learn that Facebook disagrees with that statement (assuming they do) or isn't that just a tad bit obvious?
+
+The one obvious exception is of course celebrity stories. I'm sure if Britney Spears were to respond to some of the stories about her, it would up the readership of those articles, but for stories of a larger scope it just doesn't seem valuable, let alone practical.
+
+What, for instance, is Google News going to do when the next big natural disaster strikes and victims want to comment on the news coverage? How would Google verify identity in the midst of situation like Katrina or the Indian Ocean tsunami?
+
+I'm willing to admit I'm a bit of Luddite. I still prefer my news printed on paper, no matter how out of date it may be, so perhaps I'm wrong about Google's decision. I'm sure readers will set me straight in the comments below -- no verification needed (well, save the CAPTCHA thing to prove you're human).
+
+[1]: http://blog.wired.com/business/2007/08/diggle-rising-g.html
+[2]: http://searchengineland.com/070808-191446.php
+[3]: http://www.wired.com/software/webservices/news/2007/08/open_social_net?currentPage=all
+[4]: http://fury.com/google-circa-1960.php
+\ No newline at end of file