Slashdot Mirror
A Pair of Google Bits
Vengeance writes "Check out this excellent BusinessWeek story about Google's business strategy and how it can survive without selling out to banner ads. The best line in the article: Google saves money by using Linux :)" Here's a second story about Google's Toolbar Plugin and privacy concerns that it raises (course in this case, it looks like it blatantly tells you what its doing, so if it bothers you, you at least can't claim ignorance. And it doesn't look like a big deal either). It raises an eyebrow, but not my red flag.
Well, they assume that we spend the web searching all the time. That it's natural to put our start page on a search engine, or portal hub.
It isn't.
Most people I know pick news sites, or even something to make them laugh. I search when I need too, and I use different engines for different needs. I use google for something technical like Motherboard BIOS updates, I use Yahoo for something local, I use IE's integrated search for other things. I use Ask Jeeves for amusement...
The point is that why should we dedicate our real estate to a tool that doesn't get all the searching done for us? Where does this business model fit into gathering the millions of users, and a service that other search engines don't have?
And they wonder why the market is crashing, it's because the companies still don't understand the consumer...
fslg503-985-8686503-985-8686503-985-8686503-985-8
--ricardo
sgis ddo ekil t'nod i
This ranking method makes me think of Erdos Number.
You can read in extenso here:Erdos Number Project Homepage but basically there is a graph constructed with vertices for each one of them and edges for co-authored papers.
One such vertex is Erdos and the Erdos number of mathematician C is the length of the shortest path from C to Erdos.
Concerns over where Google is going to make it's money, and the fear current users have that Google is going to change, really only confirms one thing; the interests of customers and the interests of businesses are not compatiable with each other.
An obvious point, I guess, but it is pretty curious, seeing as how businesses exist strictly to perform a service for customers.
Here's hoping Google finds a way to thrive without "selling out" to banner ads or somesuch. I'd love to see conventional thinking get shaken up were Google to manage what most folks consider will be impossible.
One thing I don't think people realize is that slashdot is composed of a couple hundred thousand users. Just because there's a vocal minority against patents and a vocal minority that praises Google for patenting PageRank doesn't mean they're the same vocal minority. In actuality, there might not be a single person that thinks that way, so I don't think it's fair to call slashdot readers hypocritical (there's another reason for that, too, it's called an overbroad generalization) just because two conflicting viewpoints come out on such a large scale. How would you like it if non-citizens of the United States ridiculed us for being indecisive and hypocritical over any of the national issues simply because there are conflicting oppositions?
--Xantho
P.S. Oh wait, they already do...
your first line was "I'm not sure I'd trust Google with this information any more than I'd trust Amazon"
Amazon does not have this information, Alexa does, that is implying that Alexa is Amazon. Alexa does NOT share its data with Amazon.
Did anyone else join the generous Google Affiliates program, and then be disqualified and accused of fraud (resulting in non-payment of commission)?
I work at an ISP that put the google search form on the front page, which resulted in customers doing around 25000 searches for which Google promised $0.02 each.
It would have been much more polite to say "we ran out of money" instead of claiming they were being cheated and not paying up. Then they refuse to answer queries on how they arrived at this conclusion, even though we wanted to continue to promote Google for free.
At 1 cent I'd be paying at least 50 cents a day. That is, $54,325,244.20 canadian.
I'd rather they let advertisers pay for it.
As long as the ads don't slow the page from loading, who cares? (and if they do slow it, you can always use junkbusters or whatever to block the ad).
Um. They're NOT selling your privacy. They're just providing a service where it looks up whatever page you're on on their site, which incidentally has to send the address you're on to them, because it's part of how it works.
RTFA.
--
Obfuscated e-mail addresses won't stop sadistic 12-year-old ACs.
Win dain a lotica, en vai tu ri silota
Hmm, I apologize for the confusion. I guess it would have been clearer if I had said "I'm not sure I'd trust Google with this type of information any more than I'd trust Amazon."
Steven
-- I have marked myself unwilling to moderate-- I don't have other accounts to artificially inflate the karma of
Uh, Google's not a metasearch... it uses its own database...
What is your definition of "non sellout" ? It's easy to say "boo" but how about a potential solution? I guess selling out for you means "earning any sort of revenue" whether for profit or expenses. That said, I disagree and feel you're mixing facts with assumptions.
.sig --
--
Text or portal, it still gives you crappy results.
--
Unselfish actions pay back better
----
Well, I don't want to give away the secret at this early stage, but Google makes most of its money from licensing the search engine itself (like to yahoo), and they hardly make any money off of the main site, www.google.com. They consider the www.google.com more of a demosite for rich inve$tor$ from big, expensive companies.
------------
a funny comment: 1 karma
an insightful comment: 1 karma
a good old-fashioned flame: priceless
this sig limit is too small to put anything good h
Yeah, that's about it. I won't download the thing because I don't want it telling them where I go, even anonymously, but I'm not going to cut off my nose to spite my face and stop using Google as some extremists have suggested (and what, pray tell, in my line of work [research], would be the better alternative?) -- it's simply the best.
:)
I particularly like Google because it sort of picked up where Infoseek left off when it got Disnified... I mean, what else is the Net for but doing research???
Signed, Interrobang,
Wayback Infoseek Fan & Google Convert
I'm not a geek, I'm just a clever script.
Google says it. Maybe you are suggesting that they aren't being honest?
Who's talking about stopping using Google itself? That would be a completely irrational response to a feature that they don't force you to use, in a program that they don't force you to use.
--
Obfuscated e-mail addresses won't stop sadistic 12-year-old ACs.
Win dain a lotica, en vai tu ri silota
RTFA.
The thing that sends the addresses of sites you visit to Google, only does so if you _choose_ to use that feature in a program you _choose_ to download. It even tells you in the install what the feature does, and asks whether you want it on or off.
If Microsoft had made something like this and done it as well as Google, I'd say "Holy shit, they got a clue".
--
Obfuscated e-mail addresses won't stop sadistic 12-year-old ACs.
Win dain a lotica, en vai tu ri silota
If everybody alternated weeks between using google and using a site which pays google (Washington Post) to search, their revenue would probably get a considerable bump. Sure its probably an image heavy way to help, but it's a good way nonetheless.
Yes, there are two versions of the new Google toolbar. Yes, even if you download the advanced version with PageRank, you can easily turn it off.
Yes, it is quite likely that the 23 million search requests that Google handles every day, any of which result in a Google cookie with a unique ID in it generated by Google (assuming you don't already have such a cookie), are not personally identifiable at this time.
But added to these 23 million requests per day, are now the PageRank surfing history lists. These use the same Google cookies. If you don't have one already, one gets set immediately the first time you visit any page after your toolbar is installed with "advanced features" activated.
Most people don't know anything about cookies. Google is well on its way to building the best database in the world on search terms and surfing patterns.
What happens if someone buys Google and changes their current privacy policy?
And consider this ugly little fact:
The PageRank toy on the toolbar is a trick. It's only significant to less than one digit, ranking almost all non-porn sites between 5 and 9 on a scale of 1 to 10. The real PageRank is significant to at least 4 digits, according to a paper by Brin and Page delivered at an April, 1998 conference. You are potentially giving up a lot of privacy for this bogus PageRank toy in their toolbar.
And finally, put this in your pipe and smoke it -- all Google cookies expire on January 17, 2038.
Now I ask you, how does a 37-year cookie help Google improve their customer service? Why not a two-week expiration date? Why not a non-persistent cookie that lasts for the current browser session only?
How long will it be before Google's data gets connected to personally-identifiable information?
Wake up, people.
Check out:
l
http://www.google.com/mozilla/google-search.htm
I'm using it on Linux with Mozilla and Galeon. (Galeon supports the %s thingie described at the end.) It's not as full featured as the IE toolbar.
Let the "Netscape 6" flame wars begin!
i heard that about northernlights, too...about 5 years ago. nobody is objective enough nowadays that you can believe anything anybody says. everybody is going to own stock in a search engine , even if indirectly.
Since Larry Page was touting his PageRank in early 1998, I'm wondering now about the application date on the PageRank patent application. The papers he published while in the computer science department at Stanfard regarding PageRank fall under the "one year rule" for the PTO. From the time of the first such publication (or presentation at a conference), he has one year only to file an application. Otherwise, the patent application is DOA at the PTO.
#3 might be arguable.
Didn't excite use link popularity to rank pages? Maybe Google's is an extension of excite's, but the idea is definitely not theirs.
guess what, an algorithm. Attacking patented algorithms is one of the favorite past times of slashdot and company. While I realize some readers only specifically object to actual abuses, a great many go beyond that by attacking whole classes of patents and people. I simply use this opportunity to illuminate some of the ignorance and fundamental inconsistency of those people. Thats all.
After becoming interested in Google's Toolbar, I decided to download it. Not after I agree to the Terms of Use, that is... Check this out :
You agree not to modify, adapt, translate, prepare derivative works from, decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble or otherwise attempt to derive source code from Google Toolbar. You also agree to not remove, obscure, or alter Google's copyright notice, trademarks, or other proprietary rights notices affixed to or contained within Google Toolbar.
Ugh, apparently the 30 PhDs "who would rather punch code" didn't much care for the whole DeCSS case. Oh well, Google's Toolbar has just lost a user.
-Fred
"Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American Public." - H.L. Mencken
Who cares, as long as I get my Horoscope.
There can't be two diffrent *default* configurations. If you have to disable certian unwanted features after installation, that configuration is, by definiation, not a "default".
Anyone Search the toolbar for 'slashdot' and then click on the first link it shows? The page Rank is only like 4/5ths of the way green. Just Found that a Touch interesting....
WHY ISNT LS WORKING ON MY PC?! well it's ls not LS LS IS NOT WORKING! turn caps off CAPS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH LS!
Call me a cynic, but that sounds more like a dodge framed as a lesson than an actual refutation. Yes, there are many papers on link structure. The issue is whether anyone else (i.e., other than Page and Brin) had come up with something closely resembling PageRank, complete with a "recursive" ranking formula. I'm not up on the research, and I don't know the answer, and it's hardly reasonable to expect every Slashdot reader to do a literature survey to the point of inspecting the algorithms proposed for similarity with PageRank.
If you know of one or two clear examples, then please link to or otherwise cite them--or at least the names of some relevant researchers. Otherwise, dear AC, please keep your FUD to yourself.
Since are always collecting stats on their visitors. At least google is being upfront about it. I'd rather be told that you'll be selling my privacy taher than them putting on a show like realplayer did back a while ago. By being honest, I think google did the right thing.
Yep, I never spell check.
More incorrect spellings can be found he
I wonder who has the AdWord "sex"? Or for that matter, "hintz"? I bet those people got a lot of bang for their buck!
It may look like I'm doing nothing, but I'm actively waiting for my problems to go away.
--Scott Adams
Because privately held corporations have shareholders too. Being publically held simply means that there are MORE shareholders, generally more dollars invested, and that it meets certain SEC requirements.
This is relevant because management has a responisibility to the investors. The founders (or management) can't simply do whatever pleases them; that is not what it means to be privately held. To be more specific, these shareholders are predominantly venture capitalists and they CAN be awefully demanding (sometimes unethically so...I know from experience). Right or wrong, if the founders push it too far they can get fired.
When I first read this, I thought:
2*10^100 bits, whoa, that's a lot!
No jokes about Googlebit bandwidth or Googlehertz beowulf clusters, please... We've had enough.
Those buttons are the coolest things since sliced bread. Highlighting a word and hitting Google search, or hitting GoogleScout on a page to find related pages, is really useful. Guess you can tell I like Google.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
It's unfortunate that we get boggled down first in privacy concerns before discussiong whether the product is a good idea in the first place. I mean, I understand why this has to happen now, it's just unfortunate.
(But I really am interested in people's opinions of the toolbar...)
--
I don't care if it's the Vatican tracking my web suring habits, I don't like it. You could learn alot about me knowing I visit New Gumbrea and then the Jessica Alba page, followed by a trip to Yahoo! to buy a spycam that fits in a kleenex box!!
=-=-=-=-=
"Do you hear the Slashdotters sing,
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Oh bother.
Why does earning money have to play a role?
At no point in time will I begrudge Google from earning money, so long as they keep their priorities straight. If they have to bow to the 'pay-for-top-link' crowd, then make the paid links a different color so we know which link was the commercial link and which was the information link. When the two actually coincide . . . cool, do something special.
The reason I use Google isn't because it lacks banner ads, it is because it gives me good results. The fact I don't have to wade through banner ads is just a wonderful bonus. Let them please make a good living doing this, let Google set the example for other businesses to follow.
This is not the way to build a lasting empire.
Google has already started selling ads a few months ago. Though the cool part is that anyone can buy them online.
BZZZZT wrong - it's a single install, just a different default configuration. You can reclaim your precious privacy after you install it by reconfiguring the toolbar.
Sean
ISTM that using toolbar data to "improve searches" would increase the amount of porn you find on google. Most people don't link to their favorite porn sites from their personal home pages, you know.
--
The shareholder is always right.
If I want anyone targeting ads at me, I would want it to be Google. The "highlight" feature on the toolbar is very useful.
Based on my searches, my guess it that is will not be long before I start to get to see the ads for the embedded perl interperter for the linux OS version of the visor prism.
I assume that the reason that traditional citation analysis doesn't do this is because traditional citations only go one way. You can only cite something that was published at the time that you wrote your work, so you can't cite anything that cites you. This greatly complicates the process, since inherently the recent papers that should have the best grasp of which older papers were most influential can't have many citations yet and hence won't themselves be considered very important. Because publication on the web is dynamic, though, this is not a problem, and bidirectional citation is possible.
The other cool thing about Page Rank is that it isn't just a recursive analysis. Instead it uses a mathematical trick that is roughly equivalent to doing a recursive analysis except that it turns up more data because it can find substantially non-overlapping networks of sites that would otherwise be missed. Suppose, for instance, that you have a topic on which opinion is very polarized (abortion was the one that I've heard this first turned up in). You would tend to have strongly opinionated sites that link almost exclusively to other sites that share the same opinion. In a straight recursive analysis, one side of the issue will have fewer total links and hence less credibility, which then in turn deprives its linked-to sites of credibility, etc. The result is that one side is effectively silenced by the simple analysis. The trick used by Page Rank not only saves computer time, it also turns up the second cluster of sites and can bump them up the list.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
a man who would rather punch code than wield a scalpel
Punch code?!?!? What does this guy think we do, put holes in cards?!!??
I'd say, imagining compex data structures and knowledge representation and forseeing their interactions is far more interesting that "sawing bone".
sheesh!
___________________________
http://www.hyperpoem.net
hyperpoem.net
Sometimes you don't even have enough information to do a well-refined search. You don't even know the proper jargon to look for. In these cases, unranked search engines like NorthernLight or AltaVista are the worst thing you could use. Google is much better at this kind of search, even though your first few searches may just be spent finding out what your search terms should be.
But I agree that NorthernLight is a very good backup site if the eminently qualified Google can't find what you're looking for.
And I have to observe that while I was using AltaVista, I would regularly see pr0n hits, nothing inconvenient, but they were there. But I never see them using Google.
Also, if I know the site but forgot the URL, and type into Google good keywords, Google always brings the site I want up on the first page, generally in the top 1 or 2 hits.
I can see the fnords!
I'm not referring to PageRank itself, nor any part of it, as an actual algorithm. I compare Google's fundamental design (or value) to a worthwhile patentable algorithm insofar as it is a rather fundamental concept, not something that would be properly protected by a copyright or overly narrow patent. [What's more, even if some insist that the concept itself might not be entirely novel, its execution certainly is.] I suggest that if Google's patenting of PageRank is tenable to individuals on slashdot, then so should be the patenting of algorithms in the broadest and most theoretical sense. Unless, of course, they can give a very specific reason. However, the vast majority of assaults against _any and all_ software patents here would also apply to PageRank.
Without getting too entrenched in the details of this matter, I fully realize there are concerns with the actual application of patents (even here in this specific application). My intention is simply to broaden (or challenge) the thinking of some people here, to let them know that not anything that can be described loosely or (possibly) subject to independent re-invention by other individuals should necessarily be denied IP protection offhand. Most users here can appreciate what Google has done, having suffered inferior search engines before Google's existence. I, also, believe most people here can understand why Google might _need_ to protect this with what appears to be a broad patent (i.e., in laymans terms "using links on the WWW to quantify relevance").
Um, i don't think the point was to negate all objections, but rather to keep them on a moderate scale and not go on a rampage. I see this as logical because Google did it in a "good" way; they clearly told the end user exactly what they were doing and why and put a nice, big button to turn it off (according to the accounts posted here). Though there might be some privacy issues with the method of information gathering they are using, there are simply no grounds for objecting to the way in which Google implemented it.
~Kooshman
There is only one version of the toolbar, but two different default configurations. You can enable or disable any of the 'features' after you install it.
Sean
Well good thing I've been using google for 2 or 3 years now. It is just as cool now as it was the first time I tried it. This toolbar is going to save me entire minutes every day :)
Google is currently hiring for a usability analyst. Hopefully they'll smooth out the rough edges.
I started using google long ago, when it was still .stanford.edu. I guess they had only 4 or 5, or maybe even just 2 people at that point. Since then, from my end-user perspective, almost nothing changed (which is, by the way, a GOOD thing - the site's just as awesome as it used to be). So what the fuck do these 100 people (including 30 PhDs) in the research department work on? The only thing that comes to mind is scalability, but 100 people.....
Just why do the companies, even the great ones, think that their headcount MUST grow?
That is seriously wacked up - How the hell did they do that? Don't tell me my idiotic example set off some triggers in their search engine...
Ahh... I see now... Google has been trolled...
Actually, it's rather kinda neat that anyone can put up ads. How long do they stay up there for?
damn, guess I just read your original post wrong. I see where you are coming from. Sorry.=)
Nooooo, it's not because they use Linux that we're not beating the hell out of them (although I am sure that it helps). The key issue here is that they are extremely upfront about what their toolbar program does. In fact, they even present a default config that sends no information to Google. I have no doubt that if they had kept this secret, someone would have found out (let's face it, someone always finds out), and they would have gotten slammed. It boils down to this: If you want to collect information on someone, let them know that you want to, and give them a way to opt out. They have done this with their big warning box and privacy-friendly default config option. Hence, while I wish it didn't send stuff back to Google, they were very above-the-board about this.
49 20 68 61 76 65 20 74 6F 6F 20 6D 75 63 68 20 66 72 65 65 20 74 69 6D 65 2E
I guess that my personal opinion is that Google is an excellent example of why patents exist, and that a comparison with the much blasted on-click shopping patent reveals why one is deserving and the other is not. The underlying logic behind patents is to encourage an inventor who might otherwise keep his invention secret to divulge his idea instead. The patent does this by giving him what he would try to achieve by secrecy- the exlusive right to his invention- in exchange for making the idea available to all after a certain time.
The key is that this implies that to be patent worthy an idea must be not only hard enough to think of that it's worth giving someone exclusive rights to in exchange for revealing it and also not something that is inherently revealed by the process of trying to implement it. The first criterion is the basis for obviousness and prior art restrictions. If something is so easy to invent that it's likely to be reinvented regularly, or even worse so obvious that somebody else has already published it, it's clearly not worth giving somebody exclusive rights to it in exchange for divulging it. The second criterions, which is the real objection to business model and similar patents, is that if you have to reveal your idea to use it, there's no point in granting a patent because there's no need for leverage to force the inventor to divulge it.
I think that Page Rank meets both of my criteria, and one-click doesn't meet either. Page Rank is not an obvious development of standard citation analysis, since it incorporates aspects of citation that are a product of the unique nature of the web. I think also that the fact that nobody had come up with the idea yet despite the fact that people had been thinking about web searching for quite some time is further, indirect evidence that the idea was non-obvious. One-click, though, was obvious enough that other sites were incorporating many of the same ideas (particularly the use of persistent cookies to prevent shoppers from having to re-enter their data every time) into their shopping at about the same time that Amazon did. The revelation side is even more clear. Google could have kept the guts of Page Rank hidden very easily; we only know as much about how it works as we do because they've told people about it. If they had decided just to say that they had a unique, effective new way of indexing sites, the chances are that you couldn't figure out how they were doing it just by looking at their search results. One click shopping, though, reveals itself by its very existence; in order to implement it you have to give people enough of an idea about what you're doing that it would be trivial for anyone to reimplement it.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
Ok, now this I gotta see. Here's yahoo's results:
You might note that Yahoo has recently switched to using Google instead of Inktomi. If you had read the article, you would have noticed that. His friend might have done the search before they switched. That would also explain the mysterious "duplicate the same couple resources over and over again" that you noticed. Just a thought.
Well, I too am a Linux zealot. I just think maybe google deserves a little show of dissapointment from our crowd over using software patents. Google themselves are "linux zealots", they probably read slashdot too - so I'm sure there are many inside their company who could put some pressure on them to avoid abusing software patents.
Maybe knowing their intent is important. If this is a defensive patent (to avoid someone else from using it against them) it would be one thing. But if they intend to use it to pull license fees from other companies - well thats entirely different all together.
One of the most important things about the linux developers is our ability to reverse engineer other technology. Software patents make us unable to do such a thing. Google relies on Linux/free software that only exists because we were able to reverse engineer hardware and software. If they use software patents as a strategy, they are in effect shooting themselves in the foot.
--
Twivel
Based on traditional citation analysis, PageRank has made the search provider an instant hit on the Web,
And I can vouch for having seen in Science mention of exactly such citation analysis, identifying important papers by how many other papers cited them. OTOH, AIUI Google is more complex than a simple citation count, since the contribution from the citing papers is weighted by how important those papers themselves are, based on their own citations... I haven't heard that traditional citation analysis does that. But I don't know that much about the details.
Just one question. How does a comment like this get modded up to a 3? It's not informative, it's providing a link that everyone who went to Google's page could find for themselves. I hate it when the karma whores succeed like this.
With the toolbar you can set your search prefs to only include certain languages.
You *do not* have to disable certain unwanted features after installation. You can choose the configuration BEFORE you install it. If you choose the one you want (and why wouldn't you?) you do not have to change anything after the installation. Sounds like a default configuration to me, but suit yourself.
Sean
God does not play dice with the universe. Albert Einstein
Those who fail to understand communication protocols, are doomed to repeat them over port 80.
Actually, I think the really different thing here is that Google, as a company, actually "gets it" when it comes to privacy concerns.
I feel strongly that most every other company on the internet would just install their toolbar, no questions asked... Microsoft isn't the only evil company in Seattle that does this, so does Real Networks! And so do many others.
What I see as insightful and great about how Google did things is that they felt they could provide a better service by using this information, BUT they realized that they had to ask my permission for that information FIRST, before they went ahead and started taking it from me.
We should be applauding Google, and asking other places to follow their lead... not raising an eyebrow, and much less a red flag...
System Requirements
- Windows OS
- Internet Explorer 5.0+
(sigh) You'd think a company that builds their business model AROUND linux would be a little better about supporting linux.Shayne
Today I didn't even have to use my AK; I got to say it was a good day -- Icecube
Friend of mine works for (large Texas-based computer manufacturer who uses Ask Jeeve's engine as the basis of their online tech support thing, called Ask Dudley or some equally shitty name). According to him it would give "interesting" results sometimes when it was first brought online and it's vocab hadn't been trained/tuned much.
For example: searching for ATAPI.SYS would bring up as one of the options something like "I'd like to know more about EAT PUSSY." (Somehow ATA PI.SYS (space for empahsis) sounded like that to Ask Jeeve's engine.)
Needless to say, that was changed real quick. :-)
--
News for Geeks in Austin, TX
Only if they abuse it like certain organisations.
Of course this glaring omission will be overlooked, these are Linux zealots you're asking.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
And there are also two versions of this article on Slashdot right now. Usually there's at least a few days lag before accidentally reposting identical stories. Someone didn't even check the last few hours of new articles...
Ok. Downgrade me for flaimbate right away because I've got an itch to scratch. You say you only raise an eyebrow at this and NOT a red flag? I have seen this type of attitude over and over and it sickens me. If it were another company divulging information the same way, you would be crowing all day long about the injustice done. It's only because this is a company using Linux that people aren't taking aim at Google on this one. Don't get me wrong. I love Google, but don't defend them on this issue because they use Linux for God's sake. Pretty soon, when they sell out -- and they will --, everyone will be talking about their poor privacy issues.
<BR>
<BR>Get over it. Evil is Evil no matter what it's wrapped in.
SL33ZE - Artificial Intelligence is No Match For Natural Stupidity -
Inktomi sells search, directory, and Having used their services twice (once when I worked on the search engines for snap.com, and again when I wrote the search system for ifilm, I can't help but think that I've seen what google is doing quite a few times before.
They scored a great win when they took over yahoo; plenty of revenue there, and selling access to the search engine for co-branding (via API or whatever) is a great way to rake in cash; but it's not unique!
Inktomi offers news, shopping, and directory (taxonomy) services, but their results stink. We fixed alot of this on the ifilm engine (take a look) but it's nothing like google.
A different default...I sense a contradiction.
I don't mean to distract you all from your ranting, but has anyone noticed that this Google toolbar is really, really cool? It's not just another obnoxious way to make sure you get funneled towards their site (i.e. both IE's and Netscape's "search features".)
Among other things, it can highlight instances of your search terms on a page, instantly transfer you to Google's cached copy of your current page, and search for pages on the same site as the one you're viewing. It also adds an "up one level" button (the web equivalent of "../").
The only feature that has privacy issues is the "PageRank" display, which tells you how "important" the current page is. It's not very useful, and it's easily disabled.
Google also gets points for using all of IE's advanced features properly. Those of you who frequently claim that ActiveX is only useful for trojans should try installing this toolbar, as it's an excellent counter-example.
Nice job, Google people.
MSK
3. Actually not patentable because there's prior art.
Just one simple question: How do you know?Do you have access to a database containing all prior art? No you have not - that's one of the main problems with software patents! You can't make a "complete" search for prior art, so how do you know that there isn't someone which created excatly that feature years ago, but for some reason didn't patent it?
You would have to go through most of what is published on the internet (and more), which you simply just can't.
When the patent office (at least in Denmark, but I believe it's the same practice elsewhere) is searching for prior art, they only search in *their own database*! Most prior art doesn't exist in their database - it is published on the internet and/or elsewhere.
Another problem is that patents is supposed to further innovation by publishing the invention, others should be able to benefit from it, but how often do you search in a patent database for information?
Are patents easy to read and understand? No, they most certainly are not - mostly, they are written i an obscure language, which only patent lawyers understand.
Ps. Sorry if some of this is not clearly written, english is NOT my primary language, and is just a quick comment. Take a look at one of my prior comments here . It contains references to other places for more info, and it is probably more clearly written...
Greetings Joergen
LOL
Recursion is its own reward!
It works with IE and Netscape for Windows, Mac, and Linux, but unfortunately not Opera.
I would take Tucson over Laurel, MD or Delphi, MD any day of the week.
I like college towns. I liked Arizona in general too.
"don't fall into the fallacy of believing that Perl can solve social problems. Maybe Perl 6 can, but that's a ways off"
You can find the google toolbar here .
Computers don't make mistakes. What they do, they do on purpose.
I did a body of research on browsing patterns over the last several years and it is useful information for everyone. The privacy issue though would effect all who have something to hide. You know they are whatching you allready don't you. It does not matter if you have ssh, they already have a kernel level thread hidden in the source that tells the CIA what you are looking at, they have files, warehouses full just on you. So what are a few URLs, they know how much you talk with other users about Apache and PERL, your secret mail to Internet girl (we know you only "talk"), how you know better than MS and AOL about the world of computers (it bought you a cube, didn't it), porn you have in your files, and how you make cybersex. Check it out, when MP3s get turned into stolen goods, you goin' down man. Whitey holdin' you down with all this, knowing the web sites you go to n' shit. Just cause you are not paranoid does not mean they are not comin' after you! Yes, you! You know all that web page making and programming is really sensitive stuff. People might figureout that you like Objects and are not a true C programmer. That you go to the MS page every Friday and try to hack at the webservers. MS will get you when you least expect it. They have there own listening device in the source. They do not even have to bury it since only they see it. Why do they still use dos in Windows 98? Have you done a Hex dump lately to see how they do it, what they are saying. Sure ZDNet says Windows ME is great, but that is what they want you to think, letting Bill own you is the price you pay for being smart and devoted to computers.
I feel for you, I just made my way out of the cube and into a new way. I still think they are after me but I hold on. I talk to kids about computers now. I cannot stay in front of one before it owns me. It is Paranoid Losers for Jesus. We wish we had those people like in Fight Club. That chick wanted it. You woulda' so done her, even though she was bald and dying of cancer. I woulda'. If only there was a chick that offered herself to the group man, we would get so many more chicks after that. So don't let them get to you or you'll end up like me. What are a few URLs
- Kill Yourself, spare us all! -
The fact is there's no easy way to do the pagerank stuff without sending your URLs to Google. (I can think of some funky crypto protocols to do it, but it'd be messy). Given that they have a reasonable use for the data, and they disclose their collection of that data, I have no problem at all with what they're doing.
I turned pagerank off anyway. My main concern is that private internal URLs also go to Google.
PS - the Toolbar is really cool.
Maybe they should have a button that you could click if you would like to give them a micropayment or whatever those are called... :)
--
"No se rinde el gallo rojo, sólo cuando ya está muerto."
$HOME is where the
-- silver_p
(eom)
Blar.
It probably depends on (as the other reply states) how Google treat their patent, and whether they start wielding it aggressively.
It also depends on what they've patented. If it's perceived as being genuinely innovative and useful, then the typical
One thing to note is that they've patented the technique they're using, not the software they've used to implement the technique. It's an algorithm, it's a non-obvious one (in the 'paperclick' style) and it's a bloody good idea - with an exceedingly well created implementation.
I think most people find silly patents comical - it's only when they are used aggressively that peoples' hackles rise. And so far Google have shown a considerable clue level, so if that continues, I think they'll probably get away with having the patent flame-free.
Kudos to them for having easily the best search engine I've ever used.
~Cederic
Not to start a flamewar here, but it's not mentioned in the article that the new, snazzy, make-your-internet-browsing-experience-better-than -ever-before Google toolbar runs only on Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.
Some of us think that approaches to a problem that are both non-obvious and extremely powerful (which, IMO at least, is true of Page Rank) are exactly the reason that patents were invented. This is not a patent that is:
Patents exist precisely to protect inventions that don't fall into one or more of the above categories. It's not so much patents that most slashdotters are angry about, it's patent abuses, and Google's patent clearly isn't abusing the system.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
The likelihood that they would have any more info on your browsing habits than your ISP (who would also have info on email, usenet, scour, napster, etc) is fairly low. Worry about your government.
why does a privately held company have to please shareholders?
tcd004
On to Yahoo! and Lycos he goes, enters the search "black bear". Guess how many porn sites he got back?
i did a black bear search on yahoo and lycos...didn't get a single porn site (at least not on the first page of 20 or so sites).
A bear is sub-culture of gay men. They are typically larger, hairier men, and older men or those who are attracted to them. Typically we simply want to be ourselves and are accepting of anyone. I suggest you look at the informational sight Resources for bears.
There are two versions that you can install ... ...
...
...
One doesn't gather info, but you don't have all of the 'features' either
Guess everything's a trade-off
Back to work
Silpon Designs
Scented Paper Products
Yes, you are right, though it doesn't explain lycos. I was about to slam you for not trying an Inktomi-based search and posting the results.... but I tried to do the same, and it's damn difficult to tell if someone's using Inktomi or not. I found (via google) this out-of-date list. Inktomi has a list of partners, and yahoo's on the list, but it doesn't say what services each partner actually uses. This page at Inktomi mentions that AOL, iWon, MSN, and more (aprarantly 125) are using their search (it's mentioned in the top yellow box on the right side of the page). So, with that in mind, let's give these three a try and see if they product any porn sites with a query for "black bear":
- AOL's results list Condos, T-shirts, AllAlaskanGifts (paid adverts), pages about actual black bears, the B&B, Hunting, Campgrounds (not the nude one from yahoo's present search), wildlife and conservation. Pretty good...
- iWon's results page displays nothing if Javascript is disabled. I gotta get that
javascript popup filtering junkbuster patch installed. For the sake of this slashdot post, I'm turning javascript back on for a moment: hmm, they're doing funny stuff and that link may not take you directly to a results page.... easy enough to do the search, but here's what I'm seeing: page about different types of bears, lodging per state, travel info, photos and articles about american and alaskan black bears, more stuff about american black bears, american bear association, dietart habits of bears, wildlife park, black bear systems (a company, funny that none of the other searches turned this one up in their top results), campground, an inn, web design company named black bear, more stuff about bears and camping. So far one of the best search results in this "black bear" benchmark, and not a single porn site yet (neglecting yahoo's return of a clothing-option campground with black bear in the name), but still one more chance for porn at MSN.......
- and here's MSN's results (damnit, went to MSN before turning javascript back off, going to shut if off right now.. ok), so let's see how MSN did: Univ of Maine Athletics (mascott is a black bear), more pages about univ of maine, info about diff species of bears, research about animal social systems, stuff about yellowstone, miccesota wince shute wildlife sanctuary, even more pages about univ of maine, the sanctuary in minnesota again, and the texas zoo
Ok, three strikes. You're Out!! Inktomi's site claims these three are using it's search, and not a single porn site linked on any of the first-page search results.I did read the original post, and admittedly his point was that his friend tried "black bear" on yahoo 6 months ago and got porn, but for crying out loud, how fucking difficult is it to actually visit the search engine and type in BLACK BEAR and see for yourself if it really dishes up porn links? Ok, not everyone knows HTML to include nice formatting and links in their messages, but it's pretty simple to visit a search engine and actually see if it dishes up porn, instead of posting about how a third party accomplished this feat half a year ago!
(ok, rant mode off, we all know the cronological order and moderation system reward early postings)
I think it's pretty safe to say that one doesn't risk getting linked to porn when searching for "black bear" these days, and I'm skeptical that this condition really existed 6 months ago on yahoo. Some search engines (notably yahoo and MSN) have problems with wasting valuable browser screen space with redundant links, at least in this simple "black bear" benchmark. For a while now I've believe google was the best, but I'm pleasantly suprised to see that other search engines are doing quite well.
PJRC: Electronic Projects, 8051 Microcontroller Tools
Unfortunately the database seems to have returned to normal, and that page is now at number 26 for "sex" - still a reasonable traffic generator.
Danny.
I have written over 900 book reviews
Google is better than engines like Yahoo . . .
Ahh, Yahoo is powered by Google.
THIS SPACE FOR RENT
It is a search result when it's linked to the search word (try searching for 'car'). What I can't figure out is how Google can be titled as "pure" by the geek community when it has ads like that!? You should try http://www.alltheweb.com instead. That is a pure search engine.
I downloaded the toolbar plug in from google last week and there was so much banter about how it sends information back to google and that they have the possibility to see what sites your visiting that you couldn't help but realize whats going on.
Privacy concern? Not really because if you don't like it don't download it.
Are you lonely? Hate having to make decisons? Meetings, the practical alternitive to work.
Yeah, but they're clearly defined as sponsored (colored background), not snuck in to the actual results.
Also, they're just text, so it's not even annoying.
-- Fester
-- Fester
"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows."
Google also started at Stanford? Hmm...1998. Sheesh, that's not so long ago. I can say the same about Yahoo!, and I'm sure plenty of others here can too.
Side topic: you know how most baby boomers remember exactly where they were when they heard JFK was shot? I have that kind of memory for exactly two things: when the Challenger blew up, and when my Yahoo bookmark (in Mosaic) redirected from stanford.edu to yahoo.com. I had already seen the bad side of internet commerce, but Yahoo was when I realized there could also be good witches in the world.
Scroll forward five years. Yahoo is an enourmous "portal" that actually makes a profit. Canter & Siegel have faded away, but their descendants thrive like cockroaches. Where will Google be five years from now?
You aren't a math major are you? They currently boast 23,000,000 searches per day. Let's assume that if you had to *pay* (nevermind the fact that it's only a penny, if you have to go to the trouble to find a way to pay them, it's easier to use someone else) the daily usage will probably fall to maybe 5 million or less. Then they are raking in $50,000/day. 365 days a year, that's over $18E6/yr -- not bad for a search engine, even at the decreased usage rate -- BUT the big thing here is not the money you have to pay -- it's the privacy issue. IF they have a method to log each time I search, and tie that info to some account with which I pay them (maybe every 1000 searches or so), then it's one short line of perl from there to associating *WHAT* I searched for with my account... right now they can of course associate your searching patterns with your IP, but most people are still unfortuneate enough that they dial into a modem pool with a bank of IP's, and thus the association becomes less meaningful. But if you have an ACCOUNT to pay them with, that gets updated each time you search, I would certainly not use google any longer, despite the fact that they are the ONLY engine I use at the moment..
A computer without Microsoft is like ice cream without ketchup.
Ouch ouch ouch. I hope a good number of them are in it 'for the love of the game' or maybe burnt out from some other impression.
I could see how they would be difficult to sustain on 'sponsored links' and selling to netscape/yahoo etc. I wouldn't mind seeing more corporate sponsorship, i just don't want another all-encompassing portal to stare at.
Sorry, what makes Google great for me is the fact that it fetches the results I want, not because of a company or the people who work there. All I care about is "does it get results for me".
"Do you really think that the other search engines are NOT using ranking techniques along the same lines as PageRank? Page and Brin were not even the first ones to explore these ideas. They were not even the most clever ones to have gone there."
Whoa, settle down there. Did I mention PageRank (or ranking techniques) at all? Because I could care less. Companies with web-sites or web-based companies should not rely on the fact that they appear first in a set of search results. To me thats the same as seeing the "AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA 1 Pizza" ad in the phone book. Good advertising, word of mouth and service are what really get people to a corporate website.
Tell you what, show me some search engine that gets the job done better! Prove to me that the "Google Corporation(TM)" is doing nothing in terms of fixing scalability issues, or better yet, show me a search engine that has a viable solution for this problem.
Capt. Ron
crazy dynamite monkey
At least not last time I checked. They rank sites based on several factors (what else links to them, matching search words, etc.) but they don't sell. I have noticed that the top line of several searches is an ad but it is highlighted so it can't be confused as a search result.
Icebox
I just downloaded Opera 5.0 and there is a built in search box to the status bar.
Google is the default search engine.
* "Uncle this droid is malfunctioning" -- Luke Skywalker
PageRank is not prior art because it is based on the concept of citations.
forget the toolbar! for ease-of-use, check out the Google Browser Buttons
this is the greatest thing since sliced bread. highlight a word on any page, click the button, and presto! search results. PLUS it works with Netscape, IE, Opera, etc...
Don't blame me - I voted for Howard Dean. http://dean2004.blogspot.com
Also available is the Raging search engine - basically the Altavista search engine with no ad banners or text ads.
I've been using this search engine for a few months now, especially when I need to find a specific phrase (ie. "Sleep is pain's easiest salve"). --- hiadam
How many of you would be willing to pay to use google on, say, a 1 cent/search basis? 2 cents? 5?
1 cent sounds fair to me. I don't want them going out of business 2 years down the line, just because they don't sell pagerank spots or whatever. I need that search!
My other sig is also a
My fiance is just got her degree in journalism. Like the line in Pulp Fiction, that pretty much made me interested in journalism too. ;-) (We did talk a lot about what she studied, pretty relevant stuff to this modern, media-heavy age.)
Anyway, having pull quotes from a business's competitors (NothernLosers and Astalavista, both of whose search engines I can't stand for the cruddiness of their result sets) is really, really stinky journalism. What a suprise both of them slammed Google! I'm shocked! Google must be a horrible company! :-/ This article must have been written by a high-school intern, as it obviously shows the person looked for The Other Viewpoint, but didn't try to get objective other viewpoints (like, at a guess, from stock analysts who are in theory neutral).
And yes, we did snicker about her getting a BJ on graduation day. (Bachelors in Journalism) :-D She always was at the head of her class...
--
News for Geeks in Austin, TX
Here's a radical proposal. A search engine is like a library cardex. While the library buys the books, the publisher pays for the cards in the cardex.
Have the government financially support one pure research web site, like Google.com, and anyone and everyone who wants to have their web site's pages listed there needs to provide an XML description using a standard XML schema or DTD with links back to their own sites and web pages.
That should take care of mom-and-pop porn sites who don't do any indexing work while the governmental nature of the site takes care of the presence of ads. They don't need the revenue stream to survive.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
I wonder why that little detail has been left out after the stance slashdot already takes on software patents?
Because google is such a great search engine (relavent and without clutter), does that mean we overlook them when they use software patents?
--
Twivel
Yeah, its not like you are paying for their service. All they are doing is using what you give them, for free, and making something that you use, for free, better.
What is the problem? Its like complaining about traffic lights gathering information about how many people cross the road, when, etc. You`re free to cross elsewhere if you`re that sad!
Pardon me for being curious, but enlighten those of us who are not involved the porn-surfing scene. He got porn sites from search for "black bear"? HTF does Black Bear has to do with porn? Last time I heard, there were humans, horses, and goats. But black bears?
Great - now, if they would just help US save money by SUPPORTING Linux, we could all be happy. I like the toolbar, but it only suppports Windows with IE5.
Sean
As for Google losing it's "cool" in the near future? I don't think so, the only thing that could screw Google is if someone else comes up with a better search algorythm and Google does nothing to compete with it, but I don't see that happening in the near future.
Capt. Ron
crazy dynamite monkey
is here.
Jm
You`re free to cross elsewhere if you`re that sad!
That would depend on your location - I understand that Jaywalking is taken a lot more seriously in some countries relative to others (Germany is one such, IIRC).
Besides, having tried walk to/from places in a few US towns (Tucson, DC suburbs) it's at best a challenge to cross elsewhere, if not downright dangerous/physically impossible.
I hate being a pedestrian on holiday. More, I hate being required to drive in order to get from one side of town to the other.
(end of off-topic rant)
"don't fall into the fallacy of believing that Perl can solve social problems. Maybe Perl 6 can, but that's a ways off"
From my memory of Usenet, a bear is a bearded man (I think there was a more specific part to it too - big? uniformed?) - they come in all creeds and colours.
Cashing in on the literacy on some of their customers, I guess could also be "bear-naked black chicks".
"don't fall into the fallacy of believing that Perl can solve social problems. Maybe Perl 6 can, but that's a ways off"
Have the government financially support one pure research web...
What? The government? So, you suggest every taxpayer has to help you pay for this enterprise?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
On to Yahoo! and Lycos he goes, enters the search "black bear". Guess how many porn sites he got back?
Ok, now this I gotta see. Here's yahoo's results:
- Black Bear Cabin Rentals - manages and rents privately owned cabins located in the mountains of North Georgia.
- Big Black Bear Shop - offering plush Teddy Bears and stuffed toys.
- Black Bear Campground - offers camping in Orange County, New York.
- Black Bear Campground - enjoy the sights, sounds and recreation available
in the area.
- Black Bear Camp & Lodge - clothing optional private campground and
bunkhouse for adult men. --ok, but not really porn
- Black Bear Review - international literary magazine for the concerned poet
and artist.
- Black Bear Camp & Lodge - clothing optional private campground and
bunkhouse for adult men.
- Black Bear Diner - offers a sample menu and locations.
- Black Bear Diner - offers a sample menu and locations.
Yahoo seems to duplicate the same couple resources over and over again, not so good compared to their competition.Lycos did pretty well also, here's the lycos results:
- The American Bear Association (ABA) home page - The home page of The
American Bear Association, a non-profit organization dedicated to promoting
the well-being of bears and all wildlife through a better understanding.
- Black Bear...American Black Bear...Michigan Black Bear - GarLyn Farm
ZOOlogical Park now features american black bear. Photo's, information, and
links to more sites about black bear and other animals.
- NEW NABC INDEX - The mission of the North American Bear Center is to
enhance the understanding of the general public of the habits, needs and environment of bears in
North America.
- Wildlife Endangered Species - Black Bear - they are a rare sight in Texas, the black bear is the
most common kind of bear in the United States. Black bears are considered to be endangered in the
state of Texas. Black bears
- An American Black Bear - Fuzzy, weighing in at more than 400 pounds, lives
at GarLyn Farm ZOOlogical Park. Also links to more bear information.
- Black Bear Conservation Committee - Promoting the restoration of the
Louisiana black bear in its historic range, through education, research,
and habitat management.
- Working With Wildlife - Black Bear - NC State University - Notes about
wildlife management of the Black Bear.
- American Black Bear - (Encarta® Concise Encyclopedia Article)
- American Black Bear - Fact sheet from "About the Animals" where information on a large variety of
animals can be obtained, from present day habitat to estimated populations.
- Black Bear Paging Service - Providing local paging service, products and accessories for West
Virginia and southern Ohio. A member of SoutherNet Association of paging.
- Black Bear Lodge - Located on Little St. Germaine Lake out of St. Germaine WI. A four season resort.
They have fishing, golfing, hunting, skiing, and snowmobiling nearby.
- Black Bear Inn, South Lake Tahoe - The Inn is nestled on a wooded acre, offering luxury
accommodations in a rustic, mountain setting. Black Bear Inn's main lodge has five generous guest
rooms, and there are three cabins on the grounds
- Black Bear B&B - Located in the scenic Sunday River Valley, on Sunday River Road, the Black Bear
offers an alternative to guests who appreciate being within two miles of one of the East's
outstanding ski areas, Sunday
- Black Bear Design - Design professional web sites for affordable rates. All artwork is custom
artwork; no clip art is used.
Looks like Lycos is doing pretty well...I also tried google, and their results are pretty good also.
What's amazing is that someone would post such a comment and not even bother trying the search. Come on, it's pretty damn simple.
PJRC: Electronic Projects, 8051 Microcontroller Tools
Alexa also promises not to give out personal information to third parties (including Amazon, as Alexa is independant of Amazon)
I'm Glad that there is a search Engine that doesn't have a 45-90sec. load time for those of us who aren't fortunate enough for broadband.
"The secret of success is to know something nobody else knows." -Aristotle Onassis
OK. They're not collecting personal information here folks. Frankly, if it helps refine the search(es) that I perform, I'm all for it.
Example:
A friend of mine was working at a provincial park last summer. He was working on the park's web site and decided he needed a picture of a Black Bear. On to Yahoo! and Lycos he goes, enters the search "black bear". Guess how many porn sites he got back? Try this search now on google, and you actually get "Black Bear" information. NOT porn. Anything to refine the database is fine with me.
Why make it governmental? Why force every one of us to pay for it? Why make the poor as well as the rich fund it? Why not let private parties fund it, through the medium of ads? It sure seems to be working so far--Google's great.
After I posted I went to try it out. I managed to do one which took 19.36 seconds!
:).
:).
e.g. web url http href +www +a +the john
The more keywords the longer it takes. But it has to resolve to something if not it could return nothing very quickly
But yes they do cache so the next time you do a query - whump, out it comes. Repeating that 19 second query came up with 0.06 secs
I shouldn't do this often as it costs them money in a way. Mustn't abuse generosity.
Have fun,
Link.
You can install the Google toolbar without the PageRank features that transmit URL's back to Google. Those sneaky bastards hid this option behind a huge freaking button that clearly states this.
Sean
Um, check the first post, buddy. I did get it. Not only is it a first post, but it is a logged in first post, using the +1 bonus. The #4 was asking why I don't feel the warm glow of pure benevolent bliss that I have heard so many speak of.
It may look like I'm doing nothing, but I'm actively waiting for my problems to go away.
--Scott Adams
Alexa is NOT Amazon, it is an independant subsidiary. It is run by true geeks (Brewster Kahle), with a kick ass crawl on Linux and FreeBSD.
Speaking of which, DoubleClick made the news today: in this article, DoubleClick is cutting their workforce by 10% and this article mentions their stock being downgraded from "buy" to "hold".
DISCLAIMER: This is not investment advice, blah blah blah, it's just gloating over watching web-spam.com fail.
John
John
Google has to get money to run their servers somehow , doesn't it? How is it selling out by getting money solely from donations? That might work for a small server, or one running as a university project, but for the 'real world' you need to have a stream of income.
karma is for the weak >)
Dude they have already sold out! They already are starting to return paid business links in search results! Now that Yahoo! charges $199 just to submit your site Google won't be far behind. I am sick of everyone talking about how Google is so anti-sellout. It's total BS. Google is just biding it's time to try to cash in when no one is looking. You are an idiot if you don't know this already.
raretshirts.com - cool vintage t-shirts
System Requirements
Microsoft Windows OS
Microsoft Internet Explorer version 5.0 or greater
Your operating system does not appear to meet these requirements.
Your system infomation was reported as:
Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Konqueror/2.0; X11); Supports MD5-Digest; Supports gzip encoding
Install the Google Toolbar
Because your system does not appear to meet the system requirements for the Google Toolbar, installation has been cancelled.
We rabid computer geeks wouldn't worry about Windows would we?
;)
And just who are you calling rabid??
The site google.com runs GWS/1.10 on Linux
Uh guys Alexa has had almost all the same features for 4 years (and they give much information on what they do with the trails the whole time)
But I'd be surprised if that's what the patent covers, since that's NOT what Google uses. In fact, they have a very complicated formula, which they are continually tuning. It weighs those links according to how important/authoritative each of THEM is... and the means for building this rankind is by no means trivial.
To recap: If the patent attempts to cover the obvious, I'll flame away with the best of them. If it seems to be a legitimate "invention"... something which was neither simple nor obvious... then I'll hold off. Abuse (later on) of the patent might re-qualify them for flamage, but in my mind there's nothing wrong with patents themselves.
-- Michael Chermside
?!? I never said Alexa was Amazon. I know they're linked on the business end, but they have their own management. As for it being run by geeks, well, geeks will buckle under either court orders or when they see their kids going hungry after not making any money. Once the information is out of the hands of people I would trust, I am at risk of being spammed to death. Since this archive of user traffic is permanent, and since I can't see the future uses it may be put to, I'd rather err on the side of caution. Even if it means being disrespectful to people who wouldn't abuse my trust if they had another choice or missing out on the latest and coolest toy.
Steven
-- I have marked myself unwilling to moderate-- I don't have other accounts to artificially inflate the karma of
I'd like your reasoning please.
Steven
-- I have marked myself unwilling to moderate-- I don't have other accounts to artificially inflate the karma of
The patent-pending technology, PageRank, is Google's method of rating the importance of Web pages by counting the number of other Web pages that link to them.
So, will Slashdotters (and, more specifically, the editors) jump all over Google once this patent is granted? Or do Slashdot favorites win a "get out of flamage free" card?
They also have to be given credit for being up front about what they are doing, I haven't seen anything change on their site without soem sort of an explanation.
Also, the toolbar shouldn't be a concern for most Slashdotters because it is only available for Windows...or maybe it should, who knows. We rabid computer geeks wouldn't worry about Windows would we?
Icebox
Lycos, Alta Vista, Inktomi, etc. all have had the cool factor and then lost it just as quickly. Whats next - Infrasearch? FAST?