<?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"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: BBC vs. Google</title>
	<atom:link href="http://groupblog.workasone.net/archives/0035.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://groupblog.workasone.net/archives/0035.html</link>
	<description></description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2008 17:32:15 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: EVC</title>
		<link>http://groupblog.workasone.net/archives/0035.html#comment-215</link>
		<dc:creator>EVC</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Jan 2005 09:14:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://groupblog.workasone.net/archives/2005/01/bbc-vs-google/#comment-215</guid>
		<description>The BBC operates a mix of BBC-owned search and Google-generated results.  Tthe recent public review of BBC Online (&lt;a href="http://www.culture.gov.uk/global/publications/archive_2004/BBC_Online_Review.htm"&gt;the Graf report&lt;/a&gt;) might lend some support for the suggestion you quote.

It said, in part:
&lt;blockquote&gt;
Respondents, in our audience research, could not clearly identify the value of the BBC search engine. Many were content with commercial tools, such as Google. On balance, however, I feel the BBC should retain its search engine. Given that search is becoming such a fundamental part of how the internet is used, it is worth keeping a publicly funded, UK competitor in the market place. The size of the BBC site means that it needs an internal search engine in any event; a condition of also providing a worldwide web search facility should, however, be that it is reorganised to provide a truly independent capability, i.e. not one that favours BBC sites. The BBC should keep its search engine under regular review, in the light of changes in the market and user behaviour.
&lt;/blockquote&gt;

Personally though I wouldn't bank on it unless current seach provision becomes relatively unworkable, even though techies love to dream about what they could do if they ruled the world. It's very expensive, and I'm not sure the licensepayers or the corporation would stand for it.

Elizabeth

Elizabeth</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The BBC operates a mix of BBC-owned search and Google-generated results.  Tthe recent public review of BBC Online (<a href="http://www.culture.gov.uk/global/publications/archive_2004/BBC_Online_Review.htm">the Graf report</a>) might lend some support for the suggestion you quote.</p>
<p>It said, in part:</p>
<blockquote><p>
Respondents, in our audience research, could not clearly identify the value of the BBC search engine. Many were content with commercial tools, such as Google. On balance, however, I feel the BBC should retain its search engine. Given that search is becoming such a fundamental part of how the internet is used, it is worth keeping a publicly funded, UK competitor in the market place. The size of the BBC site means that it needs an internal search engine in any event; a condition of also providing a worldwide web search facility should, however, be that it is reorganised to provide a truly independent capability, i.e. not one that favours BBC sites. The BBC should keep its search engine under regular review, in the light of changes in the market and user behaviour.
</p></blockquote>
<p>Personally though I wouldn&#8217;t bank on it unless current seach provision becomes relatively unworkable, even though techies love to dream about what they could do if they ruled the world. It&#8217;s very expensive, and I&#8217;m not sure the licensepayers or the corporation would stand for it.</p>
<p>Elizabeth</p>
<p>Elizabeth</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
