Friday, October 9, 2009

Saving knowledge from extinction.

There is a lot of human knowledge that is locked away in out of print books. That’s why Google is trying to digitize them and make them available on Google search. Like folk lore, books are  a very important part of humanity’s collective knowledge and cultural heritage. It is in everybody’s interest that we capture this hidden knowledge in a 21st Century format so that it can be used by everyone and be safe from destruction. Sergey Brin’s op-ed piece in NYT included below explains this issue. He quotes liberally from the books that Google have already scanned, proving why it is important that this knowledge gets digitized. The folks opposing Google on this issue are not thinking about the common good, they are acting out of selfishness and greed. These are the tactics that have always set human progress back. Like Santayan said “Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” Hope Microsoft and Amazon can do the right thing about these issues.

Library to Last Forever

By SERGEY BRIN Mountain View, Calif.

“THE fundamental reasons why the electric car has not attained the popularity it deserves are (1) The failure of the manufacturers to properly educate the general public regarding the wonderful utility of the electric; (2) The failure of [power companies] to make it easy to own and operate the electric by an adequate distribution of charging and boosting stations. The early electrics of limited speed, range and utility produced popular impressions which still exist.”

This quotation would hardly surprise anyone who follows electric vehicles. But it may be surprising to hear that in the year when it was written thousands of electric cars were produced and that year was nearly a century ago. This appeared in a 1916 issue of the journal Electrical World, which I found in Google Books, our searchable repository of millions of books. It may seem strange to look back a hundred years on a topic that is so contemporary, yet I often find that the past has valuable lessons for the future. In this case, I was lucky — electric vehicles were studied and written about extensively early in the 20th century, and there are many books on the subject from which to choose. Because books published before 1923 are in the public domain, I am able to view them easily.

But the vast majority of books ever written are not accessible to anyone except the most tenacious researchers at premier academic libraries. Books written after 1923 quickly disappear into a literary black hole. With rare exceptions, one can buy them only for the small number of years they are in print. After that, they are found only in a vanishing number of libraries and used book stores. As the years pass, contracts get lost and forgotten, authors and publishers disappear, the rights holders become impossible to track down.

Inevitably, the few remaining copies of the books are left to deteriorate slowly or are lost to fires, floods and other disasters. While I was at Stanford in 1998, floods damaged or destroyed tens of thousands of books. Unfortunately, such events are not uncommon — a similar flood happened at Stanford just 20 years prior. You could read about it in The Stanford-Lockheed Meyer Library Flood Report, published in 1980, but this book itself is no longer available.

Because books are such an important part of the world’s collective knowledge and cultural heritage, Larry Page, the co-founder of Google, first proposed that we digitize all books a decade ago, when we were a fledgling startup. At the time, it was viewed as so ambitious and challenging a project that we were unable to attract anyone to work on it. But five years later, in 2004, Google Books (then called Google Print) was born, allowing users to search hundreds of thousands of books. Today, they number over 10 million and counting.

The next year we were sued by the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers over the project. While we have had disagreements, we have a common goal — to unlock the wisdom held in the enormous number of out-of-print books, while fairly compensating the rights holders. As a result, we were able to work together to devise a settlement that accomplishes our shared vision. While this settlement is a win-win for authors, publishers and Google, the real winners are the readers who will now have access to a greatly expanded world of books.

There has been some debate about the settlement, and many groups have offered their opinions, both for and against. I would like to take this opportunity to dispel some myths about the agreement and to share why I am proud of this undertaking. This agreement aims to make millions of out-of-print but in-copyright books available either for a fee or for free with ad support, with the majority of the revenue flowing back to the rights holders, be they authors or publishers.

Some have claimed that this agreement is a form of compulsory license because, as in most class action settlements, it applies to all members of the class who do not opt out by a certain date. The reality is that rights holders can at any time set pricing and access rights for their works or withdraw them from Google Books altogether. For those books whose rights holders have not yet come forward, reasonable default pricing and access policies are assumed. This allows access to the many orphan works whose owners have not yet been found and accumulates revenue for the rights holders, giving them an incentive to step forward.

Others have questioned the impact of the agreement on competition, or asserted that it would limit consumer choice with respect to out-of-print books. In reality, nothing in this agreement precludes any other company or organization from pursuing their own similar effort. The agreement limits consumer choice in out-of-print books about as much as it limits consumer choice in unicorns. Today, if you want to access a typical out-of-print book, you have only one choice — fly to one of a handful of leading libraries in the country and hope to find it in the stacks.

I wish there were a hundred services with which I could easily look at such a book; it would have saved me a lot of time, and it would have spared Google a tremendous amount of effort. But despite a number of important digitization efforts to date (Google has even helped fund others, including some by the Library of Congress), none have been at a comparable scale, simply because no one else has chosen to invest the requisite resources. At least one such service will have to exist if there are ever to be one hundred.

If Google Books is successful, others will follow. And they will have an easier path: this agreement creates a books rights registry that will encourage rights holders to come forward and will provide a convenient way for other projects to obtain permissions. While new projects will not immediately have the same rights to orphan works, the agreement will be a beacon of compromise in case of a similar lawsuit, and it will serve as a precedent for orphan works legislation, which Google has always supported and will continue to support.

Last, there have been objections to specific aspects of the Google Books product and the future service as planned under the settlement, including questions about the quality of bibliographic information, our choice of classification system and the details of our privacy policy. These are all valid questions, and being a company that obsesses over the quality of our products, we are working hard to address them — improving bibliographic information and categorization, and further detailing our privacy policy. And if we don’t get our product right, then others will. But one thing that is sure to halt any such progress is to have no settlement at all.

In the Insurance Year Book 1880-1881, which I found on Google Books, Cornelius Walford chronicles the destruction of dozens of libraries and millions of books, in the hope that such a record will “impress the necessity of something being done” to preserve them. The famous library at Alexandria burned three times, in 48 B.C., A.D. 273 and A.D. 640, as did the Library of Congress, where a fire in 1851 destroyed two-thirds of the collection.

I hope such destruction never happens again, but history would suggest otherwise. More important, even if our cultural heritage stays intact in the world’s foremost libraries, it is effectively lost if no one can access it easily. Many companies, libraries and organizations will play a role in saving and making available the works of the 20th century. Together, authors, publishers and Google are taking just one step toward this goal, but it’s an important step. Let’s not miss this opportunity.

Sergey Brin is the co-founder and technology president of Google.

Wednesday, September 23, 2009

Google does not use Meta tags for ranking

Google & keywordsMeta tags are a great way for webmasters to provide search engines with information about their sites. but because of rampant abuse by websites Google does not use Meta tags to rank web sites in their index. See Google does not use the keywords meta tag in web ranking.

Meta tags can be used to provide information to all sorts of clients, and each system processes only the meta tags they understand and ignores the rest. Meta tags are added to the <head> section of your HTML page and generally look like this:

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">

<html>

<head>

<META NAME="Description" CONTENT="Author: A.N. Author, Illustrator: P. Picture, Category: Books, Price: £9.24, Length: 784 pages">

<META http-equiv="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">

<META NAME="google-site-verification" CONTENT="+nxGUDJ4QpAZ5l9Bsjdi102tLVC21AIh5d1Nl23908vVuFHs34="/>

<title>Example Books - high-quality used books for children</title>

<META NAME="robots" CONTENT="noindex,nofollow">


Google does not use the keywords meta tag in web ranking


Monday, September 21, 2009 at 10:00 AM



Recently we received some questions about how Google uses (or more accurately, doesn't use) the "keywords" meta tag in ranking web search results. Suppose you have two website owners, Alice and Bob. Alice runs a company called AliceCo and Bob runs BobCo. One day while looking at Bob's site, Alice notices that Bob has copied some of the words that she uses in her "keywords" meta tag. Even more interesting, Bob has added the words "AliceCo" to his "keywords" meta tag. Should Alice be concerned?



At least for Google's web search results currently (September 2009), the answer is no. Google doesn't use the "keywords" meta tag in our web search ranking. This video explains more, or see the questions below.



Q: Does Google ever use the "keywords" meta tag in its web search ranking?



A: In a word, no. Google does sell a Google Search Appliance, and that product has the ability to match meta tags, which could include the keywords meta tag. But that's an enterprise search appliance that is completely separate from our main web search. Our web search (the well-known search at Google.com that hundreds of millions of people use each day) disregards keyword metatags completely. They simply don't have any effect in our search ranking at present.



Q: Why doesn't Google use the keywords meta tag?



A: About a decade ago, search engines judged pages only on the content of web pages, not any so-called "off-page" factors such as the links pointing to a web page. In those days, keyword meta tags quickly became an area where someone could stuff often-irrelevant keywords without typical visitors ever seeing those keywords. Because the keywords meta tag was so often abused, many years ago Google began disregarding the keywords meta tag.



Q: Does this mean that Google ignores all meta tags?



A: No, Google does support several other meta tags. This meta tags page documents more info on several meta tags that we do use. For example, we do sometimes use the "description" meta tag as the text for our search results snippets, as this screenshot shows:





Even though we sometimes use the description meta tag for the snippets we show, we still don't use the description meta tag in our ranking.



Q: Does this mean that Google will always ignore the keywords meta tag?



A: It's possible that Google could use this information in the future, but it's unlikely. Google has ignored the keywords meta tag for years and currently we see no need to change that policy.



Posted by Matt Cutts, Search Quality Team

Friday, September 11, 2009

The TechCrunch Office live – new media

You can now watch TechCrunch live online.

Live Streaming by Ustream.TV

Maybe you might catch Laguna in the office too. Its been up since May 5, 2009 and shows what a news organization of the future looks like. It also includes a Live chat that viewers can use to engage with each other and the media.

The 24/7 TechCrunch Office Cam Is Up And Running by Michael Arrington on May 5, 2009

Most of you know that, following a somewhat firm request by the city of Atherton, we finally moved TechCrunch out of my house and into a great new office in the heart of downtown Palo Alto.

A few of you have been kind enough to stop by and visit and see us at work. But for those of you who haven’t stopped by, you can now see what we’re up to 24/7, thanks to Ustream. The TechCrunch cam is now up and running (or crunchcam), strategically placed at an angle to show as much of the office as possible. We’ll leave this on as often as we can, and it will double as a security camera at night. Please be patient if it goes down from time to time today, our tech team is busy duct taping the camera to an Ikea lamp that we’re using as a tripod. First class all the way here at TechCrunch.

We may install a second camera with a directional microphone to allow some limited audio. Stay tuned.

Thursday, September 10, 2009

Changing how technology companies are born, bred and nurtured.

Mark Andreessen changed the world with the web browser. Now he might change how technology companies are born, bred and nurtured. He recently announced the launching of his new venture capital firm, Andreessen Horowitz, which has $300 million to invest.

The fund is naturally targeted at “companies in the technology industry”. He and his partner have the experience and track record to deliver on their aspirations.

“Between the two of us, Ben and I have started three companies directly, created many new products and services, run operating businesses at high levels of scale, angel invested in 45 tech startups in the last five years, and served on a broad cross-section of company boards with some of the best entrepreneurs and investors in the industry.

Introducing our new venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz

My partner Ben Horowitz and I are delighted to announce the formation of our new venture capital firm, Andreessen Horowitz, and our first fund -- $300 million in size -- aimed purely at investing in the best new entrepreneurs, products, and companies in the technology industry.

Between the two of us, Ben and I have started three companies directly, created many new products and services, run operating businesses at high levels of scale, angel invested in 45 tech startups in the last five years, and served on a broad cross-section of company boards with some of the best entrepreneurs and investors in the industry. Through all this, we have worked closely together for 15 years, and we could not be more excited to extend our partnership into venture capital.

In undertaking this new mission, our core principles include:

  • Technology and its advancement is absolutely central to human progress. Entrepreneurs who create new technologies and technology companies are improving the standard of living of people worldwide and unlocking amazing new levels of human potential.
  • While broad investor psychology whips wildly between euphoria and depression, technology change not only continues but is accelerating. In fact, we believe that technology change cascades -- each new generation of technology continues within it the seeds for even more profound advances to come. And, technology change creates continuous opportunity to build important and valuable new companies.
  • A technology startup is all about the entrepreneurial team and their vision. Our job as venture capitalists is primarily to support entrepreneurs by helping them build great companies around their ideas.
  • The process of building a new technology company is changing rapidly. For example, many of the best new technology companies require far less money up front to build the first product, but far more money later to scale into today's enormous global market, as compared to historical norms. We intend to not only embrace these changes but drive them forward as hard as we can.
  • Building a great company is a team sport -- including the selection of the best possible set of investors and advisors for a specific opportunity. We have been lucky enough to work with many of the industry's best investors, advisors, mentors, and coaches over the last 15 years, and we look forward to continuing to be a great partner to all of them.
  • Trust is essential to building a great company. Trust requires the highest standard of ethical conduct, which we will strive hard to achieve and maintain.
  • While there are many exciting new entrepreneurial opportunities in fields like energy and transportation, there continues to be gigantic opportunity in information technology -- which is where we will focus.
  • And, while there are many extremely bright and capable entrepreneurs all over the world, there continues to be a special magic to Silicon Valley -- which is where we will focus.

We will hang our hat as a firm on the fact that both of us have extensive direct entrepreneurial and operating experience. We have built companies, from scratch, to high scale -- thousands of employees and hundreds of millions of dollars of annual revenue. In short, we have done it ourselves. And we are building our firm to be the firm we would want to work with as entrepreneurs ourselves.

Here are some more specifics about how we will operate:

  • We have the ability to invest between $50 thousand and $50 million in a company, depending on the stage and the opportunity. We plan to aggressively participate in funding brand new startups with seed-stage investments that will often be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. But we will also invest in venture stage and late stage rounds of high-growth companies.
  • We also have the ability to participate in a variety of investment structures, including but not limited to buying founder shares, investing in public stocks, and contributing to leveraged buyouts. We do not have a goal to do any of these things specifically, but rather we will be maximally flexible to suit our investing strategy to the opportunity.
  • Ben and I will be the only General Partners in the firm, at least to start. We may add a small number of additional General Partners in the future, but we are not assuming that will be the case. We will also build a professional staff to support us in our efforts and to help our portfolio companies in various ways. However, we will not have associates or other General Partner-track junior positions.
  • Ben and I will go on boards of companies in cases where we are investing serious money -- generally, $5 million or more, although there could be exceptions in both directions. We will generally not go on boards of raw startups -- in fact, in many cases, we don't even think today's raw startups should have boards.

Here are some more specifics about what kinds of entrepreneurs and companies we are looking for:

  • Above all else, we are looking for the brilliant and motivated entrepreneur or entrepreneurial team with a clear vision of what they want to build and how they will create or attack a big market. We cannot substitute for entrepreneurial vision and drive, but we can help such entrepreneurs build great companies around their ideas.
  • We are hugely in favor of the technical founder. We will generally focus on companies started by strong technologists who know exactly what they want to build and how they are going to build it.
  • We are hugely in favor of the founder who intends to be CEO. Not all founders can become great CEOs, but most of the great companies in our industry were run by a founder for a long period of time, often decades, and we believe that pattern will continue. We cannot guarantee that a founder can be a great CEO, but we can help that founder develop the skills necessary to reach his or her full CEO potential.
  • We believe that the product is the heart of any technology company. The company gets built around the product. Therefore, we believe it is critical that we as investors understand the product. We are ourselves computer scientists and information technologists by experience and training; therefore, we plan to focus on products in the domain of computer science and information technology.
  • Here are some of the areas we consider within our investment domain today: consumer Internet, business Internet (cloud computing, "software as a service"), mobile software and services, software-powered consumer electronics, infrastructure and applications software, networking, storage, databases, and other back-end systems. Across all of these categories, we are completely unafraid of all of the new business models -- we believe that many vibrant new forms of information technology are expressing themselves into markets in entirely new ways.
  • We are almost certainly not an appropriate investor for any of the following domains: "clean", "green", energy, transportation, life sciences (biotech, drug design, medical devices), nanotech, movie production companies, consumer retail, electric cars, rocket ships, space elevators. We do not have the first clue about any of these fields.
  • We are primarily but not entirely focused on investing in Silicon Valley firms. We do not think it is an accident that Google is in Mountain View, Facebook is in Palo Alto, and Twitter is in San Francisco. We also think that venture capital is a high touch activity that lends itself to geographic proximity, and our only office will be in Silicon Valley. That said, we will happily invest in exceptional companies wherever they are.

Finally, one personal note -- my role as an active Chairman of Ning will continue unchanged, along with my board roles at Facebook and eBay.

If you have read this far, thank you very much for your interest in our new firm -- we will keep you updated over the months and years to come by blog!

Wednesday, September 9, 2009

09/09/09 at 09:09 pm

This morning I noted that it was  09/09/09 at 09:09 am, Currently its 09/09/09 at 09:09 pm, 12 hours later.

09/09/09 09:09:09

Its central time here and the time is 09:09 on 09/09/20009.

090909

Only happens every Thousand years

Others #26

dream the dreamTime, Light, MagicThe timelords have landed in Oslo - no.3The timelord have landed in Oslo - no.1The timelords have landed in Oslo - no.2new ageSoirée nouvelle PS3 et PSP Go au Sony Style

Top 10 Blogging VC’s

In the spirit of Erick Schonfeld’s The Top 20 VC Bloggers (September 2009), Here are my Top 10 Blogging VC’s.

  1. Guy Kawasaki, Garage Technology Ventures, How To Change The World (24,356)
  2. Fred Wilson, Union Square Ventures, A VC
  3. Bill Gurley, Benchmark Capital, Above The Crowd
  4. David Hornik, August Capital, VentureBlog
  5. Brad Feld, Foundry Group, Feld Thoughts
  6. Marc Andreesen, TBD, Blog.pmarca.com
  7. Ed Sim, Dawntreader Ventures, Beyond VC
  8. Josh Kopelman, First Round Capital, Redeye VC
  9. Jeremy Liew, Lightspeed Ventures Partners, LSVP
  10. Seth Levine, Foundry Group, VC Adventure

The Top 20 VC Bloggers (September 2009), by Erick Schonfeld on September 8, 2009

When it comes to lists of top VCs, one of our favorites is the top VC bloggers. Larry Cheng, a partner at Fidelity Ventures, started keeping just such a list last May, based on how many subscribers each VC blogger has on Google Reader. This morning he updated his VC blogger leaderboard. The top 20 are below, all 100 are on his own blog, Thinking About Thinking (No. 71).

These rankings obviously do not correlate with venture returns, but they are one measure of who are the most interesting VCs. Guy Kawasaki and Fred Wilson kept their No. 1 and No. 2 spots on the leaderboard, but Benchmark’s Bill Gurley made a big move from No. 9 to No. 3.  That pushed most everybody else down a notch.  Dave McClure made his debut on the list at No. 13.  And Peter Rip moved up 37 spots to No. 15.  Here is the full leaderboard:

Top  20 VC Bloggers

Rank (Change) Name, Venture Firm, Blog (Subscribers)

  1. (-) Guy Kawasaki, Garage Technology Ventures, How To Change The World (24,356)
  2. (-) Fred Wilson, Union Square Ventures, A VC (21,881)
  3. (+6) Bill Gurley, Benchmark Capital, Above The Crowd (8,897)
  4. (-1) David Hornik, August Capital, VentureBlog (8,037)
  5. (-1) Brad Feld, Foundry Group, Feld Thoughts (7,543)
  6. (-1) Marc Andreesen, TBD, Blog.pmarca.com (5,727)
  7. (-1) Ed Sim, Dawntreader Ventures, Beyond VC (4,162)
  8. (-2) Josh Kopelman, First Round Capital, Redeye VC (4,071)
  9. (-1) Jeremy Liew, Lightspeed Ventures Partners, LSVP (3,512)
  10. (+3) Seth Levine, Foundry Group, VC Adventure (1,569)
  11. (-) David Cowan, Bessemer Venture Partners, Who Has Time For This? (1,526)
  12. (-) Christopher Allen, Alacrity Ventures, Life With Alacrity (1,419)
  13. (new) Dave McClure, Founders Fund, Master of 500 Hats (1,417)
  14. (-) Multiple Authors, Union Square Ventures, Union Square Ventures Blog (1,365)
  15. (+37) Peter Rip, Crosslink Capital, EarlyStageVC (1,107)
  16. (-1) Rick Segal, JLA Ventures, The Post Money Value (1,043)
  17. (-) Mike Hirshland, Polaris Venture Partners, VC Mike’s Blog (1,038)
  18. (-2) Jeff Bussgang, Flybridge Capital Partners, Seeing Both Sides (1,018)
  19. (+2) Mendelson/Feld, Foundry Group, Ask The VC (1,017)
  20. (-2) Tim Oren, Pacifica Fund, Due Diligence (924)

Global VC Blog Directory – Ranked By # of Google Reader Subscribers (Sept 2009)

Posted in Best of VC, Technology, Venture Capital by larrycheng on September 8, 2009

Here is the first quarterly update of the Global VC Blog Directory – originally published in May 2009.  These are the blogs of venture capitalists and VC firms from around the world – ranked by their number of Google Readersubscribers.  Please note, there are many great blogs with fewer subscribers as the number of subscribers doesn’t necessarily correlate to the quality of content.  If I have missed any VC blogs, please leave a comment and I will update the directory no later than the next quarterly update.  To receive these updates, you can subscribe to this blog directly via Google Reader/RSS, email, Kindle, or follow me on twitter (@larryvc).  Alternatively, any of the bulk subscription links below include this blog as well.

Links to subscribe to the Global VC Blog Directory in bulk via Google Reader (RSS/OPML):

Share this directory: Digg, Reddit, delicious or twitter. 

Larry Cheng Picture

Larry Cheng is a partner with Fidelity Ventures. He focuses on investment opportunities in Internet applications, information services, financial services and consumer technologies. Larry currently serves on the boards of Prosper, MFG.com, Cortera, and mindSHIFT. He is also a Board observer on Flock and The New Orleans Exchange. Larry previously led Fidelity Ventures’ investment in Verid which was acquired by EMC. Prior to joining Fidelity Ventures, Larry was a senior associate at Battery Ventures, where he was an early investor in Ruckus Network, OpenNetwork Technologies (acquired by BMC Software) and Ximian (acquired by Novell). From 1998 to 2000, he was an associate for Bessemer Venture Partners where he focused on software investments. Prior to Bessemer, Larry was an associate consultant at Corporate Decisions Inc.

09/09/09 at 09:09

09/09/09 09:09:09

Its central time here and the time is 09:09 on 09/09/20009.

090909

Only happens every Thousand years

Others #26

dream the dreamTime, Light, MagicThe timelords have landed in Oslo - no.3The timelord have landed in Oslo - no.1The timelords have landed in Oslo - no.2new ageSoirée nouvelle PS3 et PSP Go au Sony Style