Slashdot Mirror
Honeymoon Over For Google?
scubacuda writes "Business Week has an article on some of the challenges Google faces as it gains popularity. For a while, things were looking good: unobtrusive ads, a hardware search appliance, and the fact that 'google' has become a verb (like xerox, kleenex, hoover, etc.). Now, Yahoo! has dropped the 'exclusive' part of its contract, Overture won a series of key contracts, Verity has announced a deal to purchase Inktomi's assets, and Y! announced it was buying Inktomi's web-search business. And other engines such as WiseNut, Teoma, and FAST now mimic Google's 'popularity placement technology.'"
Hey, Kleenex your grammar!
It still does not change the fact:
People love google
Everyone is now using it - as it is small - light - fast - easy - and good
People have irc scripts that use it - Embed it in their webpages
I for one hope that google lasts - I would even pay a small amount if it would help keep them going
They may start to see more channenges, but by and large people will still "google" things. People who always use google will as long as they remain a great search engine...if they start letting the results slip, then all bets are off.
The honeymoon may be over, but Google is still getting laid.
Want to know why? Press ALT-HOME to find out.
I actually click on Google's ads.
Searchs on google
Yahoo 86,500,000
Google 19,100,000
Altavista 5,480,000
Cruise TT
1. Google has accurate, intelligent search lists.
2. Google does not pollute those lists with advertisements.
3. Google loads quickly and does not attempt to invasively control your machine with javascript or other methods.
If Google changes any one of these three things to make more money based on their popularity, then their popularity will wane and they will eventually make less money.
Note to Google: Don't kill the golden goose just yet.
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
I'm so dependent on Google (professionally & personaly) that it's becoming scary. I don't know what I'd do if disaster struck (they folded, got bought by MS or something similar). As soon as someone comes close to the quality their searches I'll feel better.
Why was wisenut added to this list? Doesn't look like a stable site to me. I'm really sure they're gonna give google a run for their money :P
/index.html, line 14
/index.html
--------------
The page cannot be displayed
There is a problem with the page you are trying to reach and it cannot be displayed.
Please try the following:
* Click the Refresh button, or try again later.
* Open the www.wisenut.com home page, and then look for links to the information you want.
HTTP 500.100 - Internal Server Error - ASP error
Internet Information Services
Technical Information (for support personnel)
* Error Type:
Microsoft VBScript runtime (0x800A004C)
Path not found
* Browser Type:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20021130
* Page:
GET
* Time:
Tuesday, January 14, 2003, 2:27:11 PM
* More information:
Microsoft Support
It's better to burn out than to fade away
I don't see Google going away anytime soon. I've never heard of those other engines and do not have any interest in them.
"The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved." -- John Ashcroft
Trouble for
Hmmm... looks bad... VA should start shopping this jalopy around...
And other engines such as WiseNut, Teoma, and FAST now mimic Google's 'popularity placement technology.'"
Yeah but they don't have those leet google doodles for various holidays and events..
Trolling is a art,
Google has IMHO the best search-engine technology around. However, the time is coming for more intelligent engines--content based searching is around the corner, and I'm sure that development is being done at Google. I want to search for pictures by content (not by filename). I want a larger set of query commands (NEAR, etc). Kartoo has an intuitive (and addicting) interface, and the ties it generates are... cool.
I don't think google losing some contracts will mean very much. Anyone can piggy back off of them, and if they can make a better product, more power to them, but I think google is around to stay.
Any word on an IPO?
Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, dass er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird. --Nietzsche
Is whatever happened to Alta Vista. Remember when they ruled the search engine universe?
:-(
I first heard of Google when I got a semi-hysterical letter from Assembler God Steve Gibson raving about it.
I didn't abandon AV until after their second edition of Personal Alta Vista insisted on using my browser (where the first edition used a little window) and engendered a whole bunch of 505 errors and became useless.
They HAD to add a layer of complexity...
So whatever DID happen to Alta Vista?
It's Christmas everyday with BitTorrent.
If you can't beat em, sue 'em?
Surffast.com is just a meta search engine, the FAST that is meant here is at alltheweb.com.
Google uses (at the last count I've seen) over 50 different factors in deciding what ranking a website should get on a certain search term. Part of their monthly rankings dance is rebalancing the importance of these factors to try to maintain the integrity of the results. Searchking's earlier lawsuit was over the effects of one earlier dance. PageRank is only the most visible of the components deciding a page's score, due to it's ingeniousness and to it being the only quantitative data released about the evaluation process (because of the google toolbar).
Also, don't forget about google's wildly successful Pigeon rank system.
- makes searches simple
- allows them to be complex if you like
- doesn't innundate you with spyware crap
As far as I'm concerned, the other search engines can do whatever they want, but until they provide a reasonable duplicate of the functionality provided by my precioussss Google toolbar, I'm not switchin'."I don't think I ain't" -Thompson's Corollary to Descartes
Competition between search engines spawned Google. Google did a better job, so it became more popular. If someone else can do a better job...that's progress. Google has a lead and name recognition. If they are smart and keep making good decisions they can stay ahead. Otherwise they will fall into the shadows as AltaVista did years ago.
There are tons of "races" like that on the Internet. Google gets to decide the winners. Yes, it is just silly fun, but the point is that the masses accept google as the definitive source.
--naked
Very popular slashdot journal for adul
From the article:
"Building a channel at the low end is miserable. You have to send people to trade shows where there's no carpet and extension chords are snaking across the floor," says Whit Andrews, an analyst with tech consultancy Gartner.
Gee, I'm glad Gartner has a handle on all this business stuff. No carpet... the horror!
Besides, everyone knows the E-flat diminished ninth is the most dangerous chord; you could lose a finger.
I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.
Google's "competitors" are not. Yahoo is now a portal for email and stock quotes. Overture makes money by charging businesses for position in the search results. This is a different approach, because Google's search listings are not compromised. Ads are clearly labeled. Google is wildly profitable too, although Overture breaks a little better than even, hence so much attention by the media. Google has little real "competition", rather "imitators".
Plus, on holidays they have cool little themes for their logo.
And which of these alternatives have something like google's cache?
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
...so I guess the honeymoon's still on! :)
I mean seriously. Googles very good. But it still is hard to find what you need sometimes. Often the best information doesn't come up when you search. I've been sent links with information from friends of sites I couldn't find when searching.
You can't expect one company to stay on top of anything. There are always companies that want what googles got and are gunning for them. Altavista was once king, as was voodoo and a host of other companies that have fallen from the top.
I say good. Hopefully all search sites get better. Maybe better ai will help? who knows.. These search engines are important to keep the web usefull.
and the fact that 'google' has become a verb (like xerox, kleenex, hoover, etc.).
Since when was Kleenex a verb? I have never kleenexed something in my life. Perhaps the submitter meant Windex? I've never heard Hoover used as a verb either.
If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
Wow.. so in other words.. um.. Google is competing with other companies in the search engine arena? Google is fast, has a clean interface, unobtrusive ads, a good signal to noise ratio, the ability to search anything from webpages to news to store catalogs, and a rabidly loyal following. I see no reason why it will be having a hard time anywhere in the near future.
slashdot!=valid HTML
The article is interesting, and it goes to show you how clueless you can be and still be authoritatively quoted in a major national publication.
Is this logical? 1) Create fast, relevant search engine, 2) users flock to your service becuase it is fast and relevent, 3) add discrete, marked relevant ads, 4) advertisers flock to it. Some bozo in the story wants to add ste 5: Add bigger ads, disguise them in search results. He sees step 6, advertisers flock to it, but misses step 7, customers abandon it, and step 8, advertisers leave in droves. Hmmm. Can anyone say "Altavista." The reporter writing this article should have called this out, because it is so clearly misguided. Better still is a comparison to Yahoo.
Well, let's see. Yahoo! starts out as a fast and lean service, everyone loves and uses it. They decide they need to add content. Then they decide to accept animated ads, flash-ads and pop-ups/ unders. Who loves it now? I use it less, myself.
If I'm Google, I see Yahoo!'s trajectory very clearly and vow not to fall into the same trap. The whole concept of adding ads becuase there will now be public investors is ludicrous. Everyone uses Google because it is fast, lean and relevant. The people in the article who discuss Google adding morer paid listings do not understand Google's appeal. Once the paid, undistinguished ads start, users will flock away in droves. Personally, I'm convinced that Google Inc. is too smart to let that happen.
Google I believe looks at the domain entry and uses that to determine your country of origin, more than likely for marketing reasons (yes it's true)
At work we do not have such an entry so it takes me to google.com. Nothing intrusive.
Google does 90% of the non-msn queries, and that's pretty close to controlling the flow of information on the Internet, something that certainly scare the hell out of many folks out there.
To see other companies truly trying to compete with Google is really very good, good news.
cuz yeah, once you ignore how damn good, clean and fast google is, and then if you ignore images.google news.google froogle.google and the big kahuna: groups.google ...
...
...
...
/. only gets excited by the reactionary and the faux-prognostictors. that google has competition isn't news. saying that google is in trouble, and that's newsworthy is insulting to everyone who has a mental capacity (and memory) beyond a fruitfly.
then if we ignore all the featuers built into the googlebar (still shipping for free without bloatware, adware and spyware mind you)
and then if we ignore how tastefully google did the inevitable merge with advertising content. (no pop-ups, no huge flash ads in the middle of the results page : none of that crap)
and then if we forget the reasons that Yahoo, inktomi and teoma botched their first chances (selling rankings, intrusive ads, no other added value, no usenet searches)
yeah - i suppose if we ignore all of this data, we might think that google was in danger.
c'mon - even when they didn't have competition to speak of, in any arena, they were still innovating. but
// "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
there are other search engines?
And I'd like to add to that: they're clean and simple; an epitome of website design.
They're above all easy to use and the results are good. That's really the most important factor, period.
Plus they're innovative and usefull, especially in their field: google images, google news, google answers; those are things which fit so briliantly within a searchengines core business that it's no wonder google does them so well.
I think google will stick around for a while, especially looking at the direction, usefullness and insightfullness of their R&D.
That said: if they start sucking, they're out. But that's life.
-- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
- Absolutely the fastest search, period.
- Relevant results in ~99% of searches (in my experience). Consistently comes up with the most obscure stuff imaginable (and I've checked against other engines)
- Ads look like ads and they're not masqueraded as results (and yeah, everyone's copying that now, whoopi)
- Usenet archive. Heeelooooo!!!
- News meta crawler. Haven't looked at another "portal" since Google News went live.
- Privately held company. No Yahoo-style pressures for revenue.
- The Amazing Browser Toolbar. Also copied by everyone now.
- Excellent site design. Clean, uncluttered, just nice.
- The Zeitgeist (sp?)
- Cool company with a sense of humor.
Wake me up when everyone else (especially "wisenut", which I've never heard about before) gets there.Nor do I ever hear anyone say ... "Hoover up that dirt".
Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally? Because over here, in the UK, it's pretty much replaced 'vacuum' as a verb. People use it uncapitalized all the time. I frequently hear and see "Hoover up that dirt." or whatever. Maybe it's because Hoover was a much bigger brand over here??
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
Wrong. A one followed by 100 zeros is a "googol". That was the inspiration for the name "Google", but they intentionally misspelled the name of the number when naming the search engine.
I think Hoover was a verb in the Great Depression.
Like:
Herbert Hoover: "Prosperity is just around the corner."
Bum: "Hey, Hoover this!"
I like Google.ca, the canadian one.
No DMCA takedowns there.
And I am a US resident..
The law is a weapon of the government, not a protection for the likes of you. Surely you understand that.
The feature I find myself using more and more on Google is its ability to search years worth of newsgroup postings. You can find a wealth of information on there which helps me solve 75% of the problems I run into as a network technician. It's actually made me pretty lazy. How is it that Google obtained this database (I remember news on it years back) and is it possible for other search engines to tap into the database? If not, then Google has it made in my opinion...
how could a company that used Dilbert as a mascot on their logo - ever have their business begin to slip?! :)
Seriously tho - I think Google has a good chance of sticking around just because they have such a large user base - which is mostly due to the fact that A LOT of people who search for "things" don't want to look at a big pile of crap like Alta Vista or Yahoo (although I like yahoo's other features). But the fact remains if I want to look for "fish" I don;t want to a site like Yahoo that has hella ads and flashing images and links ALL OVER THE PAGE. I just want to bring up a page that has a field where I type in what I want and THEN get a page full of ACCURATE links.
I think if google was going to start losing money they could very easily add on a "google-groups" feature and "google - email" and keep a significant amount of people.
Ave Molech Setting
Google has recently issued a cease and desist letter to Gewgle.com. Seems like their humor has run dry as well, as they no longer understand 'humor' or the concept of 'parody'.
I really love google. I remember when AltaVista became a junky, bolated portal loaded with ads and cruft. Google was like a breath of fresh air--light, fast, and accurate.
.NET, 1.5" all stump google), date limits, etc.
The quibbles I have with Google are the lack of more advanced search features. This is a design choice to keep thinks fast.
Here's an idea: a paid subscription to Google (GooglePro?) to allow searches with pattern matching, term proximity, non-alpha characters (C#,
Keep the good and add more real features (more steak for more $, not the AltaVista disaster of artificial sizzle only).
Or, here's a quick link to a Google search of Slashdot Google coverage.
Religion is the opium of the people. Evolution is the opium of scientists.
This seems to me to be a non-issue. So it gives you an Australian version of Google. So what? I went to www.google.com.au, it looks the same as regular Google, by default it still searches the entire Internet.... The only thing that seems to be different is the *additional* option to search only Aussie sites. The ads looked the same too (and if you get ads for services you could actually purchase locally, what's the downside?). I don't get what the problem is. In fact, it's probably better because you wouldn't get DMCA removals and such.
Omnes arx vestrum sunt adiuncta nobis.
"And other engines such as WiseNut, Teoma, and FAST now mimic Google's 'popularity placement technology.'"
That's nice. My family mimic normal people, but most people figure it out after not too long.
And don't you forget catalogs.google.com - although it is in the Beta stages, amazing stuff.
All it would take is hiring a stupid CEO who would turn Google into a portal, or some future buzzword equivalent.
Google is cool because their management have understood what the users wanted, and provided it, in spite of whatever was the "common wisom" among managers at the time.