Disingenuous Blogger Misrepresents Bartz

by editor in Faulty

A well-known blogger tries to make a point but has trouble doing it without using misrepresentation.1

Here is the first paragraph from that Writer’s article:

The New York Times has an interview out with Yahoo CEO Carol Bartz where she declares that Yahoo has “never been a search company.” Astounding, in that that[sic] this is not true.

The Writer actually cuts off the quote, thus changing its meaning. We will analyze this in more detail later.

But still, our own reaction is: What difference does it make?

The Writer seems to begin with the same sentiment, saying: ‘Part of me thinks, “Why bother arguing?”’

And then, as bloggers generally do,2 he proceeds to argue nevertheless.

If argue was all he did, we would leave him alone.

In his argument, however, he commits some serious errors of reasoning, perhaps even deception, giving us the opportunity to find fault.

First, let’s briefly think about how you would go about making a reasoned argument that Bartz’s statement is true or false. We think it would take four steps.

  1. Keeping in mind the context, figure out what her statement means.
  2. Determine the truth.
  3. Decide whether the meaning you determined in Step 1 conflicts with the truth you determined in Step 2.
  4. And finally, conclude either that Bartz’s statement is true or it is false.

So far as we can tell, the Writer skips the first three steps and fast-forwards to Step 4.

We don’t demand that these steps be done in a specific order, or that they be labeled the way have labeled them. We do think, however, that you can’t omit the substantive thinking required by these steps.

We at Finding Fault will do the analysis that the Writer skipped.

We think that Bartz was saying that Yahoo’s focus has always been on things other than search. A company can do many things, but “being” a company that does something implies a focus on that thing.

For example, Microsoft has been selling the Microsoft Mouse3 for a quarter century,4 but we don’t think of Microsoft as being a mouse company. (OK, well, it’s possible that the Writer in question does—we don’t know. But most people don’t.)

Before we ask whether Yahoo’s focus was search, let’s digress a moment and look back at the glorious days, long past, of a project called Dmoz.5 It you look at the Wikipedia entry for this project,6 you will note that this project essentially comprised a hand-generated index containing a large number of URLs that grew in size parallel to Yahoo’s index and comparable to it in size.

Hold that thought for a minute—we will come back to it—and let’s now ask what “search” means.

When you look up a word in a dictionary, are you doing a search? You look at the guide words printed at the top of each page, and you end up finding a word after flipping pages just a few times.

Now you could call this a search, and computer science people will tell you that you did something similar to what they call “binary search”,7 but most people would call it looking it up in the dictionary, rather than searching for it in a dictionary. There is good reason for this. When you look something up, you have an idea where it will be found, and you know there is some rule for finding it. Dictionaries are in alphabetic order, so you know that a word beginning with “c” will be found after the “b” words and before the “d’ words. And you know that a word like “blogger” will come somewhere after words beginning with “ba” and somewhere before words beginning with “bo”. And so on. And that’s why we generally say that we look up a word in a dictionary rather than search for it.

Back now to Dmoz. It always was, and we assume still is, hand-generated. So this allowed you to look things up under categories and subcategories. But it’s quite hard to drill down through many categories to find the references one is looking for. To make things easier, Dmoz provided, and still does, a search feature. A visitor could simply enter some words into the search box, and almost instantly get a list of matching Dmoz entries.

And that’s how most people used it, so far as we can tell. As a search engine with its own hand-crafted search database.

But did that make Dmoz into a search engine? Let’s investigate a little.

Here is how the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines “search engine”: “: computer software used to search data (as text or a database) for specified information; also : a site on the World Wide Web that uses such software to locate key words in other sites.”8

There are two slightly different meanings here. First, a search engine searches data. Second, a search engine searches other sites.

The Random House Dictionary tells us that “search engine” means: “a computer program that searches documents, esp. on the World Wide Web, for a specified word or words and provides a list of documents in which they are found.”9

So again, we have two meanings. In the general case, the search engine just searches documents. In the specific case, it searches documents on the web.

Do you see a pattern here? There are two types of search engines: the first type that just searches somewhere, and the second type that searches places on the World Wide Web.

Going back to Dmoz, it’s pretty clear that Dmoz provided the first type of search engine, the type that searched Dmoz’s own data, but not the second type, the type that searches the web.

And this is why, if you do some web searches, you will find that Dmoz was always talked about as a directory, not as a search engine, even though for a period of time Dmoz’s index contained as many as three million URLs.10

So what have discovered so far in our analysis? Let’s summarize:

  1. Finding a word in a dictionary is called looking it up, not searching for it, because we have rules that tell us where we will find it.
  2. A search engine that searches a specific set of data isn’t the same thing as a search engine that searches the web.

There is an important third thing we should note, too. Take a look at Yahoo’s home pages through the years.11 Compare these pages with Google’s home pages.12 We also found a video that plays Google’s home page day by day.13 We have retrieved the respective home pages for Yahoo and Google from The Internet Archive14 for May 10, 2000, and we present them below as thumbnails linked to large images.

Take a look at both, Dear Reader, and tell us:

  • Which one screams “Search!”?
  • Which one yells “Some sort of weird kitchen-sink portal thing maybe you can also do search on it but I think they are like some type of directory where you can look things up and oh hey they’re also doing auctions and mail and shopping and stuff!”?
Google home page 2000-05-10

Google home page 2000-05-10

Yahoo home page 2000-05-10

Yahoo home page 2000-05-10

So now, let’s go back to our four-step recipe.

What did Bartz’s statement mean when she said that Yahoo had never been a search company? We think she meant that to the extent that Yahoo had done search, it had always concentrated more on searching its hand-crafted index, analogous to the Dmoz index, than on searching the web at large. Thus, “search engine” with more of the first meaning and less of the second. And we’re sure she was also referring to the hotch-potch of other non-search stuff that Yahoo has always featured on its home page.

What’s the truth? The truth appears to be that Yahoo at at times certainly tried to match Google, but it has never focused solely or even primarily on the type of search that Google does. When it has done a Google-like search of the web, it has often relied on outside companies to do some or most of the hard work. Its identity as a company always has been that of a catalog or directory, and a portal, not as simple search engine. In recent years, emphasis has shifted from the catalog or directory to the portal.

Does Bartz’s statement conflict with the truth? We don’t think it directly conflicts, but it does stretch it. Although Yahoo has never focused primarily on being a Google-like company with search as its identity Yahoo has certainly tried to chase Google’s search traffic.

So is Bartz’s statement false? We think not, but again, we think she’s trying to stretch the truth.

Does it really matter? We don’t think our conclusions matter very much. But in determining our conclusions, we did manage to find fault quite a bit—always a fun thing to do and our raison d’être—and we also found a few useful and entertaining things. We hope you enjoyed reading about them.

And oh, we almost forgot to mention this. Going back to the valiant Writer who is so indignant at Bartz. Our revisionist Writer does correctly quote Bartz as saying Yahoo has “never been a search company.” But here was the complete quote in the New York Times:

Ms. Bartz places Yahoo’s position in a rather different light. “We have never been a search company,” she said. “It is: ‘I am on Yahoo. I am going to do a search.’ ”

So she essentially said that Yahoo has indeed provided searches, but they were just one of the things that people did on Yahoo. And this matches closely with the images of Yahoo’s home page through the years that we pointed you to above.

But our Writer, in addition to disingenuously quoting half of the thought from Bartz, also proceeds to pretend (starting right at the beginning, in his inaccurate headline “Bartz Claims Yahoo Was Never A Search Engine”) that she really said that Yahoo was never a search engine. And then he repeatedly tries to prove that Yahoo was a search engine, largely ignoring Batz’s words search company. Typical blogger disingenuity.

So who is the greater revisionist here, Bartz or the blogger?

  1. Article “Revisionist History: Bartz Claims Yahoo Was Never A Search Engine” dated 2009-08-07 by Danny Sullivan http://searchengineland.com/revisionist-history-bartz-claims-yahoo-was-never-a-search-company-23725 visited 2009-08-07.
  2. We understand of course, Dear Reader, if you are a blogger, that you are not one of those bloggers, and we greatly sympathize with your indignation that anybody should have mistaken you for one of them.
  3. Web page at http://www.microsoft.com/hardware/mouseandkeyboard/ProductList.aspx?Type=Mouse visited 2009-08-07.
  4. “1983. … Microsoft ships its first IBM PC mouse, retailing for $195.” Article “The computer mouse turns 40″ dated 2008-12-09 by Benj Edwards in online periodical “Macworld” http://www.macworld.com/article/137400/2008/12/mouse40.html visited 2009-08-07.
  5. It still exists, though hardly anybody notices any more, at http://www.dmoz.org/ visited 2009-08-07.
  6. Article “Open Directory Project” by unknown authors in online encyclopedia “Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Directory_Project visited 2009-08-07.
  7. Article “Binary search algorithm” by unknown authors in online encyclopedia “Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_search_algorithm visited 2009-08-07.
  8. Dictionary entry for “search engine” in Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary (2009. edition) http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/search%20engine visited 2009-08-07.
  9. Dictionary entry for “search engine” derived from the Random House Dictionary as provided by Ask.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/search+engine visited 2009-08-07.
  10. Article “The Life and Near Death of DMOZ” dated 2006-12-21 by Jim Hedger http://www.seo-news.com/archives/2006/dec/21.html visited 2009-08-07.
  11. Article “Photos: Yahoo through the ages” dated 2006-05-16 by unknown authors http://news.cnet.co.uk/software/0,39029694,49272965,00.htm visited 2009-08-08.
  12. Web page “Google 10th Birthday” on Google’s website http://www.google.com/tenthbirthday/#start visited 2009-08-07.
  13. Video “Google homepage back” at Youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vgprty39og visited 2009-08-08.
  14. Website “The Internet Archive” at http://www.archive.org/

What Drives Google: Part 1: The Simple Big Picture

by editor in Faulty

Bloggers keep trying to analyze Google, and they keep getting it wrong. They focus on Google a piece at a time like the blind men and the elephant1.

Finding Fault is pleased to give you a more enlightened perspective. We will present our analysis in multiple parts. In this part, we will give you the simple big picture.

The Simple Big Picture

Google states its mission as:

[T]o organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.2

Google achieves its mission, and makes money while doing so, as follows.

  1. Crawl the Internet, index the content, make it available in searches.
  2. Host content on Google’s own servers, index it, make it available in searches.
  3. Buy fame, not advertising.
  4. Sell relevant advertising to make money.

Consider these Google services:

Blogger, Books,3 Code, Docs, Groups,4 Health, Knol, Life Photo Archive, Mail, Newspaper Archive, Patents, Picasa Web, Scholar, Sites, Voice, Youtube.

What do all of these services have in common?

Here’s the answer we wanted you to give us: Content. Specifically, content hosted by Google. Content that Google can index better than anybody else can, because Google doesn’t have to crawl it remotely.5

Some of the services we listed contain include private content: Mail, Voice, Docs, Picasa Web, Sites, Health.

Private content is important:

  • Private content can be included in search results.6
  • Private content can be used for selecting relevant ads.
  • Private content cannot be indexed by competitors.

Now let’s talk about advertising versus fame.

When you buy billboard space and TV ads and newspaper ads and radio ads and web page ads—that is advertising.

Fame is different.

Do you remember the publicity that Google got from Gmail, when it was announced on April Fool’s Day with a one-gigabyte mailbox size? And then more publicity when people realized it was true? And then even more when people begged one another for Gmail invites and bought them on Ebay?

That is fame.

Google didn’t put ads into Gmail until some years later, but the monetization had begun.

You might have seen bloggers claiming that Google doesn’t know how to make money from Youtube.7 Or that Google Docs has failed to replace Microsoft software.8 Or that Gmail, Docs, and other products somehow distract Google from search.9

All this is probably true, in a literal sense, if you miss the big picture. Finding Fault is pleased to set you straight.

The bloggers consistently miss the synergy between Google’s many products.10 These products obviously do compete with one another, because resources expended on one product can’t be expended on others. But there’s a bigger picture.

What if Youtube is just a mechanism for Google to get an opportunity to collect and index and search petabytes11 of content? Then that mechanism is working extremely effectively. Google has access to this content in a way that no competitor is ever likely to match. Everybody else crawls websites that link to Youtube content, or crawls Youtube remotely; Google indexes Youtube directly. Everybody else indexes text surrounding Youtube links; Google indexes the audio within the video.12

Yahoo announced audio searches several years ago,13 but Google has the content.

Youtube as a mechanism for buying fame is working awfully well. Do you know of any other product that presidential candidates publicly use and argue about and, by doing so, implicitly endorse? Not to mention famous athletes and big corporations. Money can’t buy this type of fame.

Is Finding Fault just guessing, or can we verify this?

Finding Fault is guessing—which is our most favorite activity next to finding fault—but that doesn’t make us wrong.

Google made high-resolution videos (first “high-quality” and then “high-density”) available on Youtube, which must cost Google much more bandwidth.14 Google has spent programming resources to provides a Youtube application for the Android platform (hence for G1 mobile phones).15 To make this possible, Google now dispenses videos in mp416 format.17 The upload limit for Youtube vides used to be 100 megabytes. It’s now up to two gigabytes18—taking up up to twenty times more disk space, but providing more content for Google to index. Google is clearly treating Youtube like a valuable property. If Youtube was as big a burden as bloggers would have you believe, Google would not be expending such significant resources, especially in a down economy.

If we recognize Google Docs as a mechanism for Google to collect and index and search more content, then it’s working exactly as it should. Because most Google Docs content is private, no Google competitor can crawl this content and index and search it. And what matters is not Google Docs’s19 market share relative to anybody else, but the total amount of Google Docs content. The more there is, the more there is for Google to index. Plus, any time you share a document with anybody else, you double the opportunity for Google to search the content—for you, and for the person you shared it with. Triple if three people, and so on.

And don’t forget that Google uses optical character recognition to let you search text within images to a great extent. Its Catalog service (now discontinued) consistently did this, and its Patents service has been quietly doing it for some years. Recently, this feature became official.20 The consequence of this is not only better searches, but searches within Google’s growing collection of older printed content that is only now being scanned into images.

Almost every Google service enhances Google’s brand recognition.21

Let’s analyze one Google service that you might naively think is a sure money-loser: Google Code.

If you are an expert programmer who uses Google Code to host his22 project, you will very likely also use Google for all your searches. Because:

  • All your Google Code stuff will show up in those Google searches more reliably than anywhere else. Who among us isn’t a little vain? It’s like looking into a mirror as you walk by one.
  • Google makes it easy to cross over from each of its services to the others.
  • You are using something useful from Google, and you will likely be loyal and stay in the Google world.

But there’s more.

If you are enough of a programmer to be uploading to Google Code, the ten or fifteen people among your friends and family who are struggling with computer crashes, hangs, and viruses, will likely come to your for advice.

Quite likely, your advice will mention Google now and then.

And when you fix these people’s machines, quite likely you will remove those “other” annoying search engine toolbars.

So one Google Code user translates into ten Google Search users.

The bloggers who claim that Google is losing hundreds of millions of dollars on Youtube have no idea how much companies pay for advertising that doesn’t get them a tenth as much publicity. Here are a couple of advertising numbers for the fiscal year 2008.23

  • Microsoft; $1.2 billion.
  • Google: $25 million.

All the content Google now hosts is slowly becoming part of its search results.24

Let’s look forward a little. What else could Google add to its enormous collection of information? Finding Fault is pleased to make some wild guesses.

  • Old movies. Audio indexing and search will come first. Indexing and searching of video images will eventually follow.25
  • Ancient sheet music. Not easy to encode via OCR, but should happen eventually.26
  • Other ancient handwritten manuscripts. Again an OCR challenge.
  • Old source code, retrieved from punched cards, paper tapes, and other media.
  • Old binaries, yes, old binaries. There is a wealth of ideas locked up in old binary-only software. Somebody should collect it and save it so it can be reverse-engineered in the future, long after the original authors are gone and forgotten. Google is the likely candidate.27
  • The Internet Archive and its Wayback Machine.28 An acquisition or a cooperative search agreement.

And, by the way, those of you obsessing about antitrust,29 this is where the problem, if it exists at all, might lie in the long run. Not a search monopoly, but a content monopoly.

Concluding, then:

Google doesn’t make money from Youtube,30 or Google Docs,31 or Google Code.32

Google makes money from content: collecting it, indexing it, organizing it, searching it.

And the key to the simple big picture, Dear Reader, is not the indexing, not the organizing, and not the searching, though they are critically important too.

The key is: collecting the content and owning the copy. Not necessarily owning the copyright, but owning the physical copy.

In a future part in this series, we will give you the simpler even bigger picture.

  1. Article “Five Blind Men and an Elephant” by unknown authors in online encyclopedia “Wikipedia the free encyclopedia” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Blind_Men_and_an_Elephant visited 2009-07-08.
  2. Web page “Corporate Information—Company Overview” on Google’s web site http://www.google.com/corporate/ visited 2009-07-08.
  3. Google has apparently expended significant resources in developing book scanning technology. See US Patent 7,508,978 at http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=wga6AAAAEBAJ&dq=7508978.
  4. Some years ago, Google bought Dejanews, and hence acquired Usenet archives dating back to the late eighties. These became Google Groups. A good place to look for prior art in patent cases.
  5. Some bloggers have claimed that Knol competes with Wikipedia. Why on earth would any for-profit company even want to do that? Wikipedia essentially makes no money. Knol is about generating content that Google can index.
  6. Google Desktop does this today. Finding Fault expects that in the future, links to private content will be included in general search results for logged-in users.
  7. Here’s a typical blogger mis-analysis: “Launched in 2005, YouTube has become a video sharing giant despite a lack of profit as of Q1 2008. Google bought YouTube back in November 2006 for a whopping 1.65 billion (in Google stock) and currently shells out around $1 million a day in bandwidth costs for YouTube alone. With those numbers, it would seem illogical to increase user storage of each file to 1GB. Only time will tell if the move cripples YouTube entirely, or propels it into the next generation of publicly shared videos.” Note terms such as lack of profit, illogical, and cripples. Taken from article “YouTube Cranks Up Upload Limit” dated 2008-10-01 by Kevin Parrish in website “Tom’s Guide” http://www.tomsguide.com/us/YouTube-Media-Uploader,news-2668.html visited 2009-07-12. Here’s another mis-analysis: “YouTube, the video site owned by Google, sells ads but runs at a loss.” Article “It’s Time to Pony Up” dated 2009-07-23 by Daniel Lyons in online periodical “Newsweek” http://www.newsweek.com/id/208163 visited 2009-07-27. Here’s yet another one: “In November 2006, Google (GOOG) bought YouTube for $1.65 billion. There is a fairly good chance that the search company will never get a return on that investment. YouTube has not come up with a model to make money by either selling advertising or charging for premium content, even though it has an a enormous audience and library of content.” Article “The 10 Biggest Tech Failures of the Last Decade” date unknown by Douglas A. McIntyre in website “TIME in partnership with CNN” http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1898610_1898625_1898631,00.html visited 2009-07-27; notice how the author seems to miss the significance of his own words, “enormous…library of content.”
  8. A set of comments that went like the following actually won a $30 gift certificate prize: “Open a Google doc. Paste an image. Oh, that’s right, you can’t Ctrl-C copy, Ctrl-V PASTE an image into a document. … Now insert a table. Now grab the edge of a column and resize the column. Oh wait, you can’t. Now delete one of the columns. Oh wait, you can’t.” Article ‘Comment of the Day: “Google Docs is Chock Full of Fail”‘ dated 2008-02-22 in blog “Read Write Web” http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/google_docs_fail.php visited 2009-07-12.
  9. Article “On2 Purchase Spreads Google Even Thinner” dated 2009-08-06 by Tony Bradley http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/169745/on2_purchase_spreads_google_even_thinner.html visited 2009-08-06. The author claims (in the headline) that Google is spreading itself thin and also claims (in the text) that by developing Gmail, Docs, Chrome, and Android, and other products, Google is “perhaps biting off more than it can chew.”
  10. In “products” will will include services too, for this discussion.
  11. A peta prefix stands for 10 raised to the power of 15, or 1 followed by 15 zeroes.
  12. Article “Google audio search graduates to Labs project” dated 2008-09-16 by Stephen Shankland on website “Cnet News” http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10042536-93.html visited 2009-07-09.
  13. Article “The World is Listening” dated 2005-08-03 by Ethan Fassett in blog “Yahoo! Search Blog” http://www.ysearchblog.com/2005/08/03/the-world-is-listening/ visited 2009-07-09
  14. For example: “But now YouTube has apparently decided that they are ready for the bandwidth shock as thousands and thousands of users default to HD instead of SD—increasing the average amount of bits being sent by a huge amount.” Article “YouTube Increases File Size Limit To 2GB, Now Allows Direct HD Embeds And Links” dated 2009-07-01 by Devin Coldewey in blog “TechCrunch” http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/07/01/youtube-increases-file-size-limit-to-2gb-now-allows-direct-hd-embeds-and-links/ visited 2009-07-12.
  15. Article “Google on Android: YouTube” dated 2008-10-14 by David Sparks in blog “Official Google Mobile Blog” http://googlemobile.blogspot.com/2008/10/google-on-android-youtube.html visited 2009-07-13.
  16. Article “MPEG-4 Part 14″ by unknown authors, in online encyclopedia “Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia”, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG-4_Part_14 visited 2009-07-11
  17. Web page “Learn More: Viewing MP4 files”, on Google’s web site http://www.google.com/support/youtube/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=140497 visited 2009-07-11.
  18. Article “Upload Size Doubles + HD Tips” dated 2009-07-01 by Ryan Junee in Youtube blog http://youtube-global.blogspot.com/2009/07/upload-size-doubles-hd-tips_8074.html visited 2009-07-12.
  19. Apostrophe fiends are going to have a field day with this. Is “Google Docs” plural or singular? We think it’s singular.
  20. Article “A picture of a thousand words?” dated 2008-10-30 by Evin Levey in blog “The Official Google Blog” http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/10/picture-of-thousand-words.html visited 2009-08-04. We hope they can use a better font in the future—it looks cramped and ugly to us right now.
  21. For one estimate of the value of the Google brand (PDF, alas), see: http://www.millwardbrown.com/Sites/Optimor/Content/KnowledgeCenter/BrandzRanking.aspx visited 2009-08-06. Picasa Web and Blogger are the exception to literally including the “Google” name, but Google is still mentioned often.
  22. We use “his” in a generic sense. See our glossary entry for He versus she.
  23. The figure for Microsoft is taken from its SEC “Form 10-K” form for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2008, on the web at http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/789019/000119312508162768/d10k.htm visited 2009-07-10. The form says in the “Sales and Marketing” section: “Sales and marketing expenses include payroll, employee benefits, stock-based compensation, and other headcount-related expenses associated with sales and marketing personnel, and the cost of advertising, promotions, tradeshows, seminars, and other programs. Advertising costs are expensed as incurred. Advertising expense was $1.2 billion, $1.3 billion, and $1.2 billion in fiscal years 2008, 2007, and 2006, respectively.” We did not find any advertising costs mentioned in Google’s 10-K form for fiscal year 2008 ending December 31, 2008 at http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1288776/000119312509029448/d10k.htm visited 2009-07-12. But the article “Microsoft May Rename Live Search ‘Bing’: Massive Ad Campaign Planned” dated 2009-05-25 by Ian Paul in the online priodical “PC World” http://www.pcworld.com/article/165462/microsoft_may_rename_live_search_bing_massive_ad_campaign_planned.html visited 2009-07-08 quotes the online periodical Advertising Age as mentioning the $25 million figure.
  24. Article “Behind the scenes with universal search” dated 2007-05-16 by Bailey et al in blog “The Official Google Blog” http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2007/05/behind-scenes-with-universal-search.html visited 2009-07-09
  25. Finding Fault proposes that the technology to recognize people in movies, when it becomes possible, be called MCR. This means movie character recognition, analogous to OCR which means optical character recognition. “Movie character”—get it?
  26. Imagine clicking on an image of an ancient hand-transcribed composition and hearing it play on your computer. If this ever happens, we suspect Google will do it first, because its competitors aren’t even trying.
  27. As with the well-known book settlement, there might be an old binary settlement in the future.
  28. On the web at http://www.archive.org/ visited 2009-07-27.
  29. See our posting: http://findingfault.idearaft.com/2009/08/01/journalism-versus-blogging/.
  30. Things could change.
  31. Things probably will change.
  32. Things probably won’t change.