the "changing of the guard"?

When asked:

< It appears to me that Looksmart are not a partner but are simply a client of Google and are using the Google affiliate program as they can’t sell the adspace. >

I REPLIED:

I find your above comment, most interesting. Particularly in view of all I have recently written in relation to where I HONESTLY FEEL, Looksmart are heading and appear to be doing so. I've shown many examples that (I feel), support my expressed beliefs, and would like to point out to you exactly what was said within Looksmart's SEC Filing, (14/11/2005).

Form 10-Q for LOOKSMART LTD

"Overview of the Three and Nine Months Ended September 30, 2005

During the third quarter of 2005, we continued to focus on three primary operating priorities:

• Improving our traffic conversion standards. We continued removing traffic sources from our distribution network that do not conform to quality standards of our advertisers. Our overall match rate, or the rate at which paid listings are matched against search queries, improved by 8% from the second quarter of 2005 to the third quarter of 2005. The match rate is a key driver for our business because a higher match rate means a greater number of paid listings are competing for position in the sponsored links section of search results pages. During the remainder of 2005, we will continue to focus on developing systems and technologies that provide improved advertising customer service.

• Developing syndicated solutions for publishers. We continued focusing on our white-labeled advertising management center, search of a publisher's own archived content, and a tailored version of our Furl online book marking system for publishers. During the third quarter of 2005, we began generating revenue under technology-licensing agreements with Viacom, Ask Jeeves and the New York Times. We currently expect to add more publishers to our network.

• Focusing on our vertical search business. We are leveraging our core expertise in directories, database structures, algorithmic searches and communities by integrating Furl and other LookSmart technologies to provide a compelling environment for both customers and advertisers. We launched 171 vertical search sites in 13 different categories in addition to ten sites launched in the first nine months of 2005. During the fourth quarter of 2005, we will focus on improving our vertical sites to increase audience and improve consumption metrics".

< Good luck with your investment on LOK, for mine, " the company is still stuck grappling with its past as an editorial directory provider and the inroads that Google et al... have made over the last four years into algorithmic search." >

I respect your (above opinion) but it is so far behind the "reality" on current times. And, Whilst I have not read Peter Adam's latest entries (in his blog) it was clear in earlier posts (of his) that his "use by date" had clearly "expired", in his relationship with Looksmart and his lack of understanding about the Verticals (& possible future role) was practically, well, non existant, I felt. And I told him so!

< Can you please explain how this [Google] "partnership" works or point me to some evidence where this is the case. >

There are many, many examples I could post links to, but I won't. No need to.

Partnerships could be said to be like relationships or, a marriage. They can "finish", tomorrow. They depend a lot on that old fashioned, "what's in it for [me] us"? Prior to their recent "get together" Google were said to have been paying AOL upwards of 80% of all revenues generated from the Adsense arrangements, in initially winning that business off of (Yahoo's) Overture.

I do suspect, that if the "network" of publisher/media Co's (newspaper/magazines/TV sites) that appear to be "congregating", (in recent times, within FindArticles/Looksmart's Verticals), then Looksmart's (Google) Adsense programme will become of even stronger "importance" to Google, (both in Looksmart properties, including both US & in it's OS results) and may even get to warrant that 80% (Lion's share of the) "split" I have mentioned (above), as enjoyed by AOL.

I WAS THEN ASKED:

Are you now suggesting

< Google could pay LOOK 80% ?????????? > ………….. What I had said, was …..

“and may even get to warrant that 80% (Lion's share of the) "split" I have mentioned (above), as is enjoyed by AOL”.

What is it that you don’t understand? I have made it quite clear as to what I do feel CAN and WILL HAPPEN !!

Now, HERE IT IS AGAIN with some additional info, hoping the “pennies will drop”, because, this is going to be “painful”, if logic prevails: (please read it slowly barry, you dope!! Lean something!!)

“I do suspect, that if the "network" of publisher/media Co's (newspaper/magazines/TV sites) that appear to be "congregating", (in recent times, within FindArticles/Looksmart's Verticals), then Looksmart's (Google) Adsense programme will become of even stronger "importance" to Google,…”

The “FindArticles in…” search term and the FindArticles brand will get stronger and stronger, as time goes on. Google will even enjoy some increased adsense revenues and retain their existing site search in the many (those) Looksmart publisher/media Co partner sites, PROVIDED they (Google) don’t decide on a “silly buggers” (head in the sand) approach and don’t start to play around with their search results. Of course, Google won’t, they will know better!!

Examples (only):

http://www.google.com.au/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial_s&hl=en&q=FindArticles+in+associated+press&meta=&btnG=Google+Search

http://www.google.com.au/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial_s&hl=en&q=FindArticles+in+Topix.net&meta=&btnG=Google+Search

Continued from previous page ….

What you are “failing to accept” is what was inevitable ….. A changing of the guard!!

Jon Fine in his BusinessWeek Online blog, spelt it out clearly, back in January!! But you failed to comprehend, sadly. Pity you can’t read!!

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

Do some research, IS MY SUGGESTION!! Instead of “trotting out” the usual and ending up with “egg on your face”, as usual. And from within that (above) article …..

“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”.

"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.

And what search Co is already “decked out” waiting to “officially” join in??? - YOU TELL ME?

LOK is a "Strong Buy" !!!!! But, JUST my honest opinion, though.

:)
LC