Actually the reason is that Google is too good. It often gives you the answer you need, so there is no need to actually go to the source.
Google pulls snippets out of sites and displays them, and it's good at answering questions that way. If you want to know the date of some event, the MPG of a particular car, convert yards to metres, there's probably no need to actually click on any of the results.
When there is no click-through Google should be required to pay per-word to the sites they quoted on the result page. It would probably completely fund wikipedia if they were required to do so.
Are you sure about that? I would say that when the information is included in the burb, it is probably included in a large number of the result blurbs. Meaning the information is common knowledge and the market value approaches zero.
The blurbs are good for trivia - What's the escape velocity of Mars? Who won the 1987 World Series? The value is not in the information, but in locating it.
On the other hand if I want any sort of substantial information, the sort of thing that might actually be worth paying
If it's included in the web page that Google links to, it's probably copyrighted. Google can 'summarize' if they want, and avoid the copyright violation.
Copyright is not a brick wall - in the US at least, quoting a couple lines almost certainly falls under Fair Use.
You're right though - if they could accurately summarize or paraphrase they could completely sidestep the already minuscule legal issue. But do you think that would actually shut up the content companies? They're already looking to change the law anyway. Maybe we could get another attempt at a misbegotten explicit link tax?
Of course (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure. Half the time you do a Google search you get so much advertising crap you have to add terms and search again.
Of course it's getting worse.
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually the reason is that Google is too good. It often gives you the answer you need, so there is no need to actually go to the source.
Google pulls snippets out of sites and displays them, and it's good at answering questions that way. If you want to know the date of some event, the MPG of a particular car, convert yards to metres, there's probably no need to actually click on any of the results.
Re: (Score:0)
When there is no click-through Google should be required to pay per-word to the sites they quoted on the result page. It would probably completely fund wikipedia if they were required to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you sure about that? I would say that when the information is included in the burb, it is probably included in a large number of the result blurbs. Meaning the information is common knowledge and the market value approaches zero.
The blurbs are good for trivia - What's the escape velocity of Mars? Who won the 1987 World Series? The value is not in the information, but in locating it.
On the other hand if I want any sort of substantial information, the sort of thing that might actually be worth paying
Re:Of course (Score:1)
If it's included in the web page that Google links to, it's probably copyrighted. Google can 'summarize' if they want, and avoid the copyright violation.
Re: (Score:2)
Copyright is not a brick wall - in the US at least, quoting a couple lines almost certainly falls under Fair Use.
You're right though - if they could accurately summarize or paraphrase they could completely sidestep the already minuscule legal issue. But do you think that would actually shut up the content companies? They're already looking to change the law anyway. Maybe we could get another attempt at a misbegotten explicit link tax?