"i'ma believer" - the monkeys"

Where could Looksmart be heading from here?

It was from within Jon Fine's blog in BusinessWeek Online (January, 2006) that a reasonable "clue" was given, as to where Looksmart may very well be heading from here. And maybe a few "hints" were given, if we now look a little closer?

Early in the articles was written:

< A Content Consortium would wreak havoc with the Web as we know it in its bid to restore the role of content owner as gatekeeper. It could
shrink some opportunities for lucrative targeted search ads à la
Google's AdWords or Yahoo! (YHOO ) Search Marketing, applications that
seriously rankle more than a few media executives. >

A "Content Consortium" with millions of quality articles on many topics could be made available and ads could be sold around it and in effect, all network "partners" could even be "sharing" those (their own) important "users", (being the daily visitors to each of their individual sites), with each others. Afterall, additional "eyeballs" would ensure more advertisers and any search for (it), this, their (now) "shared" content could provide that much needed additional ADS revenues resulting from all ensuing 'click throughs'.

And it was this further comment, (within this article - Link below) that got me thinking:

< "FOR THE LIFE OF ME, I CAN'T IMAGINE why they haven't done it," says Tom Curley, CEO of Associated Press. Here's one reason: Doing it would require spinal implants for intimidated media barons. But the notion
that some pushback is pending is not far-fetched. Curley says he is talking with potential partners about setting up subject-specific Web packages -- say, for travel or basketball -- that will include content from multiple media. Once partners are on board and packages are finalized, search engines will be invited to bid for that traffic. >

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_04/b3968031.htm

It is almost as if Looksmart have been delveloping it's business (under new & vibrant Ceo David Hills) along this path. Some may even say it's current total of 181 Vertical Sites is "ideal" to "house" the many articles that could be provided, for any real move, in this direction.
And it's established FindArticles site (a repository of many FREE articles) has been seen by some, to be growing in article "numbers", in recent times. From this juncture, the many articles that can constantly be "fed" into F/A's, can then be "sliced & diced" (David Hill's own
words used) into those special (type), "topic only" Vertical search sites. Many articles? Well, is it just coincidental that Tom Curley's own (Associated Press) have a considerable total of it's own artices, already indexed into those Looksmart's sites.?

http://www.google.com.au/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen...

Looksmart are known to have already established "relationships" with BIG (Yes, Tier One) Publisher/Media Co's in Viacom (CBS Local sites), The NY Times and IACI's Ask Jeeves. And just recently, it appears that
a confirmation of a further partnership could be 'on the cards', as another "content provider" (Topix.net), very much looks to be a latest development.

Most interesting??

:)
LC

ps; Hey Quik .... I think LOK will (in time) prove to be, "a friggen classic"! - With an average of just on $4.6140 (for my long termers) they are currently over 44% in front!! But my "traders" have been bought at higher levels in recent times. Had I have bought SOT (& I nearly did, @ $1.50c) I'd have been losing plenty!! SOT closed "sub" $0.90cps yesterday, I believe. And yes, as you say .... "There's winners and losers" .... Go LOK !! lol !!