<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: where Google is vulnerable?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.rebron.org/2006/11/10/where-google-is-vulnerable/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.rebron.org/2006/11/10/where-google-is-vulnerable/</link>
	<description>Every day life - Work - Ironman Training</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2009 10:40:41 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Shrikant Joshi</title>
		<link>http://www.rebron.org/2006/11/10/where-google-is-vulnerable/comment-page-1/#comment-22507</link>
		<dc:creator>Shrikant Joshi</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Jan 2007 05:16:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rebron.org/2006/11/10/where-google-is-vulnerable/#comment-22507</guid>
		<description>It's not haters.

It's simply people trying to maintain a balance. Someone put it beautifully in response to Blake's post (from where I followed you here) Google is MS 2.0. That said, they will never face an anti-trust lawsuit as long as they deliver right and don't redistribute. 

Which is what they seem to be doing more of these days. They claim they are not a portal and yet you see these tiny links that point to 'other Google services.' Oh and BTW this is not a rant, it's just that I find it so hypocritical, and yet I can't escape it. I use their services everyday and I know I can't use anything else now. I see history repeating itself. Except this time, the name's different. 

Or maybe, it's just the damn perspective.

Regards,
Shri.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s not haters.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s simply people trying to maintain a balance. Someone put it beautifully in response to Blake&#8217;s post (from where I followed you here) Google is MS 2.0. That said, they will never face an anti-trust lawsuit as long as they deliver right and don&#8217;t redistribute. </p>
<p>Which is what they seem to be doing more of these days. They claim they are not a portal and yet you see these tiny links that point to &#8216;other Google services.&#8217; Oh and BTW this is not a rant, it&#8217;s just that I find it so hypocritical, and yet I can&#8217;t escape it. I use their services everyday and I know I can&#8217;t use anything else now. I see history repeating itself. Except this time, the name&#8217;s different. </p>
<p>Or maybe, it&#8217;s just the damn perspective.</p>
<p>Regards,<br />
Shri.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Felix Gamanrik</title>
		<link>http://www.rebron.org/2006/11/10/where-google-is-vulnerable/comment-page-1/#comment-22337</link>
		<dc:creator>Felix Gamanrik</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Jan 2007 13:58:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rebron.org/2006/11/10/where-google-is-vulnerable/#comment-22337</guid>
		<description>I love google and very impressed how they inovate on everyday basis and make our lives more intersting. I think they are far ahead of their
rivals and their market is very far from saturation.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I love google and very impressed how they inovate on everyday basis and make our lives more intersting. I think they are far ahead of their<br />
rivals and their market is very far from saturation.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeff Tokarz</title>
		<link>http://www.rebron.org/2006/11/10/where-google-is-vulnerable/comment-page-1/#comment-21022</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeff Tokarz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Nov 2006 23:52:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rebron.org/2006/11/10/where-google-is-vulnerable/#comment-21022</guid>
		<description>Google's vulnerability, despite its pervasiveness, lay in its ability to return truly relevant search results.  As note above, "Relevancy has a lot of leeway and has much room for improvement", and Google's definition of relevance is inconsistent with users of its varied search engines (Internet, enterprise, etc.).  

Google vulnerable ... you bet.  Here come a handfull of vertical search engines that innovating new technologies that welcome and engage searchers.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Google&#8217;s vulnerability, despite its pervasiveness, lay in its ability to return truly relevant search results.  As note above, &#8220;Relevancy has a lot of leeway and has much room for improvement&#8221;, and Google&#8217;s definition of relevance is inconsistent with users of its varied search engines (Internet, enterprise, etc.).  </p>
<p>Google vulnerable &#8230; you bet.  Here come a handfull of vertical search engines that innovating new technologies that welcome and engage searchers.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: arielb</title>
		<link>http://www.rebron.org/2006/11/10/where-google-is-vulnerable/comment-page-1/#comment-20003</link>
		<dc:creator>arielb</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Nov 2006 12:10:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rebron.org/2006/11/10/where-google-is-vulnerable/#comment-20003</guid>
		<description>When I think of Google, I think of the pre-AOL Netscape I used to love. And worry about.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>When I think of Google, I think of the pre-AOL Netscape I used to love. And worry about.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Eugene Parks</title>
		<link>http://www.rebron.org/2006/11/10/where-google-is-vulnerable/comment-page-1/#comment-19689</link>
		<dc:creator>Eugene Parks</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Nov 2006 15:40:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rebron.org/2006/11/10/where-google-is-vulnerable/#comment-19689</guid>
		<description>nice</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>nice</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: MR</title>
		<link>http://www.rebron.org/2006/11/10/where-google-is-vulnerable/comment-page-1/#comment-19266</link>
		<dc:creator>MR</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 11 Nov 2006 01:41:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rebron.org/2006/11/10/where-google-is-vulnerable/#comment-19266</guid>
		<description>I think MSFT or Yahoo should buy NAVTEQ.  Yes...that is definitely the way to go.  At least, the people at Tele Atlas would think so.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think MSFT or Yahoo should buy NAVTEQ.  Yes&#8230;that is definitely the way to go.  At least, the people at Tele Atlas would think so.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gstories &#187; Analysis: Where is Google vulnerable?</title>
		<link>http://www.rebron.org/2006/11/10/where-google-is-vulnerable/comment-page-1/#comment-19238</link>
		<dc:creator>Gstories &#187; Analysis: Where is Google vulnerable?</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Nov 2006 16:36:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rebron.org/2006/11/10/where-google-is-vulnerable/#comment-19238</guid>
		<description>[...] Google is a great search engine, and they are doing a lot of things right. As some people say &#8220;Google just gets it&#8221;, and I agree. Rafael Ebron wrote a piece today analyzing some of Google&#8217;s vulnerabilities, even if Google reps won&#8217;t admit they have any. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Google is a great search engine, and they are doing a lot of things right. As some people say &#8220;Google just gets it&#8221;, and I agree. Rafael Ebron wrote a piece today analyzing some of Google&#8217;s vulnerabilities, even if Google reps won&#8217;t admit they have any. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.413 seconds -->
<!-- Cached page served by WP-Cache -->
