<?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>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 14 Feb 2010 05:18:46 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</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&#039;s not haters.

It&#039;s simply people trying to maintain a balance. Someone put it beautifully in response to Blake&#039;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&#039;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 &#039;other Google services.&#039; Oh and BTW this is not a rant, it&#039;s just that I find it so hypocritical, and yet I can&#039;t escape it. I use their services everyday and I know I can&#039;t use anything else now. I see history repeating itself. Except this time, the name&#039;s different. 

Or maybe, it&#039;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&#039;s vulnerability, despite its pervasiveness, lay in its ability to return truly relevant search results.  As note above, &quot;Relevancy has a lot of leeway and has much room for improvement&quot;, and Google&#039;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>
