Slashdot Mirror


How Google Grows...and Grows...and Grows

orangerobot writes "The latest issue of Fast Company has an article about how Google has managed to survive beyond its peers and develop a culture of openness and innovation. The article also mentions Google memes and spin-offs such as: Googlewhack, Googlebombing, Googleshare, Googlism and Google Smackdown."

79 of 278 comments (clear)

  1. That's because it works by coolmacdude · · Score: 5, Interesting

    When was the last time anyone visited another search engine? I can't remember when I did.

    --

    -You may license this sig for only $6.99.
    1. Re:That's because it works by ergo98 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Indeed. Are we at the point yet where we declare Google a monopoly and start rooting for a competing search engine just because?

      Seriously, though, apart from the barriers to entry (namely having the computing power, storage, and bandwidth to spider the entire web) there are a wide range of ways that Google could be bested. The only reason they weren't before is that the major competitors saw search engines as a money losing proposition, and started throwing all their money behind duplicating Yahoo, making online communities, auctions, etc.

    2. Re:That's because it works by RLiegh · · Score: 2, Informative

      The last two that I can remember visiting are yahoo (which is google with a layer of yahoo on top) and dogpile, which I wasn't satisfied with.

      What I find odd is that I am the only person I know who does use google, and has for some time. My family uses whatever comes with aol, and my ex-gf used to use altavista.

    3. Re:That's because it works by Joe+the+Lesser · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I happened to use Yahoo! earlier today, since they have news on their site, and links to other useful tools like yahoo maps, and free email... It also seems to work.

      --
      "I only speak the truth"
      Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
    4. Re:That's because it works by John_Renne · · Score: 5, Informative

      Google is one of the finest search-engines around but I use several different search-engines quit often. There's Kartoo that has great looks and vivisimo that has the abillity to group results.

      --
      /(bb|[^b]{2})/
    5. Re:That's because it works by garcia · · Score: 5, Interesting

      no. are they forcing us to use it? is Google installed on ALL new computers without the option of having another?

      there is two reasons I use Google:

      1. On my p133 laptop w/Win98 Google loads faster than any other page (I never realized how slow a P133 was until I waited for /. to load as the homepage).

      2. It fucking works. Not in the way that Windows "works". It just works. I type in whatever I am looking for (phone numbers, addresses, names, random things) and it comes up w/what I wanted w/o having to search 10000000's of results.

      It's not a monopoly, it's a good product.

    6. Re:That's because it works by MrScience · · Score: 4, Informative

      Might I point you to what I feel is the superior news.google.com
      and
      the fact that google does maps?

      --

      You quitting proves that the karma kap worked. The most annoying of the whores shut up. --CmdrTaco

    7. Re:That's because it works by will_die · · Score: 2, Redundant

      It was back a few years ago when Alta Vista came up fast, had a better search, and had more pages parsed.
      The fact is Google is the current boss because it is fast and gets you to want you want. If they were to become ad loaded pages, people would be switching to the next best thing.

    8. Re:That's because it works by larien · · Score: 3, Informative
      It's not a monopoly, it's a good product.
      Just because it's a good product doesn't prevent it from being a monopoly.
    9. Re:That's because it works by garcia · · Score: 2, Informative

      the fact that it does phone numbers to address/name mapping?

      my old address and phone number, and the address is wrong, but that was the phone companies fault :)

    10. Re:That's because it works by Draoi · · Score: 4, Insightful
      is Google installed on ALL new computers without the option of having another?

      Interestingly enough, Apple has started a trend by building in a Google search widget into their new safari browser.

      Imagine what would happen if MS tried this tactic and built in, say, AltaVista into the next release of IE. Popularity would skyrocket overnight ...

      --
      Alison

      "It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." - Albert Einstein

    11. Re:That's because it works by garcia · · Score: 2, Informative

      sorry, I even did a "preview".

      Here's the corrected URL

    12. Re:That's because it works by garcia · · Score: 3, Insightful

      but did Google make Apple's OS?

      Did Google FORCE Apple to put that widget on there?

      Did Google FORCE computer manufactorers to NOT put OTHER search engine widgets on the computers?

      No. It's an Internet site that does what it is supposed to and does it well.

    13. Re:That's because it works by UpnAtom · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Does it "work" or do you think it "works"?

      Because you'll get a completely different search singular/plural.

      This is one way in which Google can be improved or bested.

      Since I use Opera, I can search multiple search engines just by typing "s " into an address bar. And the results will pop up side-by-side in separate tiled windows. How much fussing does that take in IE?

      Dave.

    14. Re:That's because it works by k_187 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      well, in IE if you type something random into the URL bar it does a search on MSN already and I don't really think that MSN search is that popular.

      --
      11 was a racehorse
      12 was 12
      1111 Race
      12112
    15. Re:That's because it works by generic-man · · Score: 4, Interesting

      MSN is #3, after Yahoo and Google. As of last October, they had a market share of nearly 10%. While not as large as Google, they still have a significant market share.

      --
      For more information, click here.
    16. Re:That's because it works by generic-man · · Score: 2, Informative

      Google doesn't do maps. It provides you with a link to sites that do have maps. One of these sites is -- surprise! -- Yahoo! Maps. Yahoo! Maps provides driving directions. Google provides links to driving directions from Mapquest and Yahoo! Maps.

      Likewise, Google News is a disjointed mess. Many news searches turn up page after page of 404 errors because most external news sites delete their pages after 2-3 weeks.

      --
      For more information, click here.
    17. Re:That's because it works by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 2, Informative
      It's not a monopoly, it's a good product.

      No. It's a monopoly (I think) and it's a good product.

      There's nothing inherently illegal or immoral about monopolies.

      On the other hand, certain things that some monopolistic companies try to do are illegal, only because they are monopolies; if a non monopolistic company had done it, they'd be fine.

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
    18. Re:That's because it works by AftanGustur · · Score: 3, Insightful


      Just because it's a good product doesn't prevent it from being a monopoly.

      Correct, monopoly is defined as somebody who can block normal competition by financial means or market position.

      And although Google basically "owns" the market, I just can't see how Google could "block" somebody who would want to compete.

      After all, it's the customers who choose every day to go to Google without any manipulation from Google (apart from a good service).

      --
      echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
    19. Re:That's because it works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think MSN is #3 just because everyone who types bad in an URL input it searchs on the MSN website.

      MSN search is a monopoly product.

    20. Re:That's because it works by generic-man · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So? AOL search, which is now Google, used to be #1 simply because AOL has 34 million users.

      Market share is market share, whether the user types in the search engine URL or it's the default.

      --
      For more information, click here.
    21. Re:That's because it works by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Just because it's a good product doesn't prevent it from being a monopoly.


      Just because it's a monopoly doesn't prevent it from being good.
    22. Re:That's because it works by schmink182 · · Score: 3, Funny
      Googles new is a mess. You get the same stories about 10 times on the page, and the same topics covered every day for weeks now. If a human were sorting them, it'd show a bit more...intelligence

      If he minded news being repeated 10 times a day, I don't think he'd be reading Slashdot

  2. Hooray for that little program! by airrage · · Score: 3, Funny

    Somewhere deep in the bowels of the google operating system is a little program -- a small, insignificant ranking program -- who is trying at this moment to break free and interface with his user: google-one.

    --
    "This isn't a study in computer science, its a study in human behavior"
    1. Re:Hooray for that little program! by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 3, Funny

      just you wait!

      when Google's array of computers finally achieves self-awareness we're all in BIG trouble

      smash the spinning Jenny!

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
  3. Googledot dot org by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny
    Welcome to Googledot dot!!!!

    Bringing you every single fucking piece of news about Google you can dig up!!

    Can I be a slashdot editor now?

  4. Spy by sokkelih · · Score: 3, Interesting

    And google information-about-users-surfing-database grows, and it grows... :)

  5. Re:Googlewhack? by Conspiracy+Theorist · · Score: 4, Informative

    A google search of two terms that only results in one hit. Unfortunately observing and documenting a googlewhack on the web usually results in it losing it's googlewhack status.

  6. Don't complain about the lack of options ;) by DarklordJonnyDigital · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Is that all? A dozen comments will give you the most excellent GoogleFight, no doubt. Googleshng deserves an honourable mention. Enjoy.

  7. Is there a point? by hafree · · Score: 2, Funny

    Googleshare The invention of blogger Steven Berlin Johnson. Search Google for one word. Then search those results for the name of a person. Divide the number of results delivered for your second search by those from the first to get that person's "semantic mindshare" of the word.

    Is it just me or does this seem like one of the most pointless ides for a web site ever? Why would you devise a mathematical equation that calculates nothing...

    1. Re:Is there a point? by phrantic · · Score: 2, Funny

      "...If there were 10 sheep in a field and farmer Bob owned 5 of them what would farmer Bobs "semantic mindshare" of sheep be?

      Bonus Question:
      1) What is the proper Unit for "semantic mindshare".
      2) Express this in Hogheads/furlong
      Yeah i agree with hafree this is around as usual as an ashtray on a motorbike.

      --
      --My sig is bigger than your sig--
  8. SIMPLICITY by _PimpDaddy7_ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Google just seems to "get it".

    They took a simple idea and kept it simple, yet making it extremely powerful.

    1. Re:SIMPLICITY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Much like your post.

    2. Re:SIMPLICITY by NDPTAL85 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Thanks to CEO Terry Semel, Yahoo is actually making money again. So in what way did they over-reach?

      --
      Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
  9. Google as a business by totallygeek · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I suppose with all the advertising and being the best search engine they are running well in the black, but I wonder for how long. Yahoo at one time was the only search engine most used (okay, so I used Alta Vista). All it would take is another search engine to crop up for less money that has a better method and Google is out of the limelight. So, I understand them moving into other areas of business. What has this done for their company, and when are they going public?

  10. A triumph for google is a triumph for ethics. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It is interesting to note that Google has been the only major coroporation to be successful while employing an 'ethical' policy. Unlike other search engines their page ranking system is 110% fair as they do not accept 'payments' (read bribes)to increasing ranking scores, they have not adopted widespread advertising (although most people would be happier if they had never allowed advertising on the site at all), and they have released all their search algorithms to the scientific community which has been a boon to people reaearching in Mathmatics/Computer Science.

    Finally they used Linux when most of the other web businesses were running Windows. Their example has shown that a business running linux can suceed, even though it can be more difficult than running windows.

    1. Re:A triumph for google is a triumph for ethics. by shish · · Score: 5, Interesting

      > and they have released all their search algorithms to the scientific community

      but patented them >:-(

      > although most people would be happier if they had never allowed advertising on the site at all

      I've found that google is the only site ever that actually gives useful on-topic ads, and thus the only ads I ever follow are google ones

      --
      I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
    2. Re:A triumph for google is a triumph for ethics. by jkujawa · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Google's patents tend to actually be valid.
      The patent system, as it was originally intended, is not evil. Google's technology tends to be novel and innovative, which is exactly what the patent system was intended to foster.

      They're not patenting things like "1-click".

    3. Re:A triumph for google is a triumph for ethics. by lylonius · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I would hardly consider the google toolbar to have a triumphant level of ethics.

      Not only does google plant an "infinite" cookie (infinite in unix epoch land) to uniquely id each user, but it logs every web site you visit, every GET string from each of those sites, as well as each HTTP REFERER. In terms of contextual user-tracking, that's a fairly significant breach of user-privacy.

      I realize that google makes their disclaimer very clear, but so do most other spyware companies. I also realize that we can all disable sending cookies to google as well. Unfortuneatly most anti-spyware products like spybot and ad-aware do not flag google's behavior as such, leaving many users in the dark regarding google's monitoring. I also realize that many people have personal firewalls, but the toolbar sends its requests to the same IP as each of the www sites at each of Google's 7 data centers... disabling the toolbar monitoring effectively disables your use of their web site.

    4. Re:A triumph for google is a triumph for ethics. by cyb97 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Who the heck wouldn't patent an item that drives their complete business?

      Car manufacturers?
      IBM-compatibles ?

      There are loads of examples of companies making almost single products that doesn't patent their work. Patenting stops growth, the PC wouldn't have taken of unless other companies were allowed to start making IBM-compatibles (though it weren't completly IBMs will ;-)

      Look at the compact disc, the only successfull cross-media medium for the last 20 years, why ?
      It was a standard not a patent and sony shared it with who ever wanted to use it...

    5. Re:A triumph for google is a triumph for ethics. by ceejayoz · · Score: 2, Informative

      You'd have a valid point if Google didn't make you read this page prior to downloading the toolbar. They couldn't have made it any clearer, IMO.

      "By using the Advanced Features version of the Google Toolbar, you may be sending information about the sites you visit to Google."

      "Google will not sell or provide personally identifiable information to any third parties."

      "We understand and respect your privacy concerns. By selecting this option, you will not have access to advanced functionality. However, no information about the sites you visit will be communicated to Google."


      Hell, you can even install it without the monitoring - no need to block it with a firewall.

    6. Re:A triumph for google is a triumph for ethics. by PurpleFloyd · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Google's toolbar sends data on the sites you browse only with the advanced features turned on. These advanced features are things like the ability to view Pagerank, or "Pagerank voting" - you can click a plus or minus button, and have a very slight effect on a page's Pagerank. I don't see how Google could implement either without sending a query to their servers containing the URL of the current site.

      The privacy implications of these features are laid out very clearly in the configuration page, in plain English, right next to the button that allows you to disable them. I don't know of any spyware that will give you any information on what you have unwittingly allowed them to monitor outside a near-incomprehensible EULA, and I don't know of any spyware that will allow you to turn off its monitoring "features" easily.

      The only thing I can really fault Google for is its treatment of the Scientology search-blocking issue, but it seemed to me they were only trying to follow the law and not get burned themselves; the issue was more the DMCA's fault (to keep your rights as a common carrier, you must remove materials which are alleged to be copyrighted immediately upon notice).

      Regarding the GUID, Google keeps track of users' clickthroughs and uses that as a Pagerank modifier. The GUID prevents someone from simply querying Google and clicking through to their own page lots of times - basically stuffing the ballot box. Slashdot does something similar for its poll-voting code; it tracks the IP (which is as close as you can get to an Internet-wide GUID) and I don't see you complaining about that. Google isn't perfect, but they don't act like Microsoft either.

      --

      That's it. I'm no longer part of Team Sanity.
  11. Re:Googlewhack? by Conspiracy+Theorist · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Replying to my own post, I know, I know...

    But anyway, as an example of a googlewhack:
    placating counterbombardment is currently a googlewhack. As soon as this page gets indexed by google, it will cease to be so.

  12. When your company name becomes a verb... by path_man · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When your company name becomes a verb (google): to search for something; I'm going to google for that computer part you know that you're onto something.

    Google has survived the dot.com bubble burst because they offer a great service that people want. The natural thing for most companies (brick and mortar or otherwise) is to spin-off and leverage the successful business model into something that will grow their company.

    --
    The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us. -- Calvin & Hobbes
  13. Anti-Google by totallygeek · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Interesting that no one has purchased Fuck Google yet. It has been for sale for a while.

  14. uh oh by Joe+the+Lesser · · Score: 3, Funny

    Google believes that users' productivity begins to wane after 0.2 seconds.

    I must have problems, since it takes me at least 5 times that amount to decide what to search for!

    --
    "I only speak the truth"
    Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
  15. It's pretty self-explanatory by shayborg · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Any simple search engine that has become basically a cultural icon has to be special. You don't search for anything any more, you google for it.

    Google was a good search engine in the beginning. It gained popularity, which made it a better search engine, which let it gain more popularity, which made it an even better search engine, ad infinitum.

    It's not an exaggeration to claim that, right now, Google has earned itself the enviable position of becoming the first (at least nearly) definitive search engine.

    -- shayborg

    1. Re:It's pretty self-explanatory by adzoox · · Score: 2, Interesting
      It is infinitely and easily helpful (much more so than Yahoo or Infoseek, etc, etc) to my research for my eBay items that I sell. It also helps me find out scam artists. One of the best features about Google is typing in an email address and seeing if that person has a residence or business or what they are involved in. I do this with everyone on Yahoo auctions that I bid or buy from. Try it with your own email address and see what it comes up with.

      --
      Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
  16. Is this a first? by bunyip · · Score: 3, Funny

    Wow - we've had a story up about somebody's website for at least 10 minutes and we haven't slashdotted it yet. Am I the only one who's noticed?

    Alan.

  17. Googlewhack? by Noryungi · · Score: 4, Funny

    You mean... You mean... a Google just for pr0n???

    Oh, you mean that googlewhack!

    Erm... Hem... Uh, never mind. Carry on.

    --
    The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
  18. Re:All Search Engines are doomed to fail... by DanDwig · · Score: 2, Insightful

    To the best of my knowledge google has never altered their search results to Rank Up advertisers. They do head the page with a couple of sponsored links, and more down the side, but the results themselves are clean. I don't think that's likely to change even if they do IPO. I don't mind a few ads, especially since they are usually on topic, and since they don't interfere with the search. (Suprisingly companies do have a right to try to make money.)

  19. didn't mention google's legal goons, though by slashrot · · Score: 2, Troll

    Funny that the article didn't mention the fact that Google's lawyers recently asked Paul McFedries to remove the word 'google' from his excellent wordspy lexicon. A company that 'gets it' indeed.

    1. Re:didn't mention google's legal goons, though by will_die · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Same way as kleenex,xerox and hormel(spam) have done.
      All done for the reasons that want to keep the word for business use and don't want thier competitors to be able to use thier brand name as something else.
      In the case you mentioned they had/have Google down as a synonym for search, a verb which cannot be protected. If Google did not protect their name they would have no more rights to use the word then Yahoo, or alta vista would to use the word.
      IIRC, they finally solved the problem by mentioning that Google was a protected word of the Google corporation.

    2. Re:didn't mention google's legal goons, though by dissy · · Score: 5, Informative

      > Funny that the article didn't mention the fact that Google's lawyers recently
      > asked [linguistlist.org] Paul McFedries to remove the word 'google' from his
      > excellent wordspy [wordspy.com] lexicon. A company that 'gets it' indeed.

      Erm, thats odd, because that never happened. Did you just make that up on the spot or did it take you a while to prepare?

      Google asked them to change their definition of 'google' from "To search for something" to "To search for something using the google search engine"

      But they never once _DEMANDED_ that they remove the word google.

      The wordspy.com listing was clearly incorrect.
      Google simply corrected them.

      So no its not too funny that the article didnt mention lies and FUD. Its a refreshing change actually.

      What I _do_ find funny is you even link right to the article that proves me right and your own statements wrong! Did you even read it?

      Direct quote from the article you linked:
      > we want to make sure that when people use "Google," they are referring
      > to the services our company provides and not to Internet searching
      > in general.

      The email then ends with:
      > We ask that you help us to protect our brand by deleting the definition of
      > "google" found at wordspy.com or revising it to take into account the
      > trademark status of Google.

      Hell, even keeping the clearly wrong and incorrect definition would be OK with google if they simply added a (TM) mark after the word Google from how their email reads!

    3. Re:didn't mention google's legal goons, though by Gorgonzola · · Score: 2, Informative

      That still makes perfect sense since common usage of the term spam to describe unsolicited bulk e-mail only would dilute Hormel's Spam trademark if their product involved any form of e-mail. Since their business is processed pork and thus has no connection with e-mail whatsoever it is quite easy for them not to object to the usage of the term 'spam' for unwanted e-mail.

      Sometimes I wonder what's so bloody hard about trademark law that the slashdot geeks almost always get it wrong. Of all areas in law it has the most straightforward logic and one would suppose that it would be relatively easy for geeks to grok it.

      Remember this: from a legal perspective trademarks are about the ease of laying a connection between the product and it's producer in the consumer's mind. As long as consumer's won't be confused or won't be likely to make such a connection anymore, there is nothing the owner of the trademark can do about it (apart from intimidation through threatening with lawsuits).

      So Hormel's 'liberal' approach to spam and Google sending in the 'goons' are equally sensible approaches to completely different problems.

      But I am afraid I have spent too much time on the soapbox already, the slashbots are as likely to get it as the average pointy haired boss is likely to really grasp an technological issue.

      --
      -- Spelling and grammar errors tend to be a sign of erroneous thinking.
  20. Just a Shill-Puff Piece? by Montgomery+Burns+III · · Score: 3, Insightful
    With all due respect to the good people at Fast Company, I was alomost made ill as the writer gushed over how wonderful
    EVERYTHING at Google was.
    Being just a bit cynical, without being a a conspiracy theorist, I wonder why. Does google plan on a big advert prgram with Fast? Does the writer want a new job? hmmmm.
    --

    'ta
  21. THE FIRST THING YOU SEE by Syncroswitch · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I was just wondering how many people use Google as their home page. It seems to be the sight I use the most when I am trying to finish real work. ( I spend more time on Slashdot, but that dosent make it useful... its like taking the newspaper, or LJ to the bathroom...) Does anyone know of a listing or poll of homepage settings. Would slashdot like to run one...

  22. intersting results by MrSkunk · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Very pointless, but yet somewhat entertaining. Someone set up a site where you can quickly perform a googleshare calculation on terms. Here are some of the results that I found kind of intersting.

    'microsoft' has a 24.44% googleshare of 'anti-trust'

    'linux' has a 62.64% googleshare of 'open source'

  23. What the hell is Google? by teamhasnoi · · Score: 3, Funny
    I hear all this talk about it, but there is no link in the story.

    Is there a good search engine I could check to see what this 'Google' is?

  24. niche search engines by blinder · · Score: 4, Informative

    I use google, but I find using niche search engines to be much more useful. Google is great for getting a bajillion returns, and the first 2 or 3 pages worth are mostly relevant, but for specifics I use some of the niche search engines. A good one is diysearch and sites like Outersound for finding indy music and other resources.

    Yeah, it takes a bit more work to find these niche search engines/resources, but they are out there, and the noise is much much lower.

    Just my $.02

  25. Google News by Jaguar777 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm beginning to wonder what percentage of new Slashdot stories deal with google. Google seems to be a topic just as active as Microsoft. Maybe it is time for a Google section?

    --
    Maybe you should educate the morons of tomorrow so they'll stop believing the leaders of tomorrow. - Dogbert
  26. Put enough smart people together and ... by kinnell · · Score: 4, Funny
    So Google got rid of the managers

    I hope this is an idea which catches on. Think what mankind could achieve if engineers were free to be creative, unhindered by the mindnumbing shackles of management and beaurocracy.

    --
    If I seem short sighted, it is because I stand on the shoulders of midgets
  27. Try Googling it. by Hell+O'World · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Have you tried putting "search engine" in a search engine?

    1. Re:Try Googling it. by Bombcar · · Score: 2, Funny
  28. Google grows from the roots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    In 1945, Vannevar Bush wrote an article for the Atlantic Monthly called "As We May Think", detailing the first account of a hypothetical hyperlinking system. In it, he writes of a system that keeps track of where a user surfs (not the terminology he uses), and the user is able to make comments about connections about different pieces of media. The more a user traverses the same path of connections between two documents, the heavier the link becomes, so to speak. I just reread this article a couple of weeks ago and was shocked at the parallels with Google; particularly how they use established links to figure out the ranking of a page, and then thinking about how they bought Blogger (presumably, so people could make comments about connections on the web). Perhaps Google's success comes because they have created a system that so successfully mimics the way that we think collectively.

  29. Searching on Amazon.com to find Amazon.com by Hell+O'World · · Score: 4, Funny

    From the article: ...without alienating neophytes who type in "amazon.com" to find . . . Amazon.com. ( Yes, people really do that. Google doesn't know why. )

    I have watched users do this, and it is pretty obvious why. To the neophyte, there are just these boxes where you type in stuff. It is not clear that one is part of the browser and one is being generated by a web page. Advertisers take advantage of this same misunderstanding when they have ads that look like dialog boxes. Which reminds me, I don't know how to tell you this, but, your computer is not optimized for downloading!

    1. Re:Searching on Amazon.com to find Amazon.com by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 3, Funny

      I don't know how to tell you this, but, your computer is not optimized for downloading!

      Yeah, I know. It's because too much of my bandwidth is being used up by my PC broadcasting an IP Address to the world.

  30. One Thumb Up, One Thumb Down by Snork+Asaurus · · Score: 2, Informative
    I just gave them a quick spin. Here's my highly subjective eval based on 2 minutes of use:

    Vivisimo Light google-ish interface. "Clustered Results" is neat idea and may be quite useful. Seems a little light in the hits department, but so is every new search engine. Time will tell.

    Kartoo Ugly. Requires Flash - bad move - game over.

    --
    Sigs are bad for your health.
  31. No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Can I be a slashdot editor now?

    Not a single misspelling in your post. Sorry.

  32. intesting use of google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Go to Google's home page, and search for "French military victories". Then, hit the "I'm Feeling Lucky button.

    I think you will not be surprised at the results.

  33. Suggestions for Google by NigelJohnstone · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Yeh, Googles great an' all, but that doesn't mean it can't be better.

    All the main keywords come up with heavily text focussed sites because text is what Google can index properly. They need to be better at rating image sites and annimation sites.

    Then there's the 'multi-domain' spamming - sites set up across multiple domains pretending to be different but all being basically the same, simply for the link bonus.

    If Google detects that several domains are really the same site, then it should treat all links between the sites as internal links in a single site, and all the sites corresponding pages should get the same PR value, since they *are* the same page, just on different domains.

    At the moment it seems to assign the PR to one of the sites and drop the PR on the others. I can understand that they don't want a big cluster of sites dominating the index, but shouldn't it simply treat the sites as one great big site and return only 2 entries from the whole group?

    Also how about using geography & time to detect when weighting the value of a link?

    Suppose 2 DNS entries are registered at roughly the same time by the same person in the same address those sites are more likely to be the same site so links between them should have a lower rating.

    Now suppose 2 sites are registered by different people, but in the same town. Links between those two sites should be downgraded slightly, since there is a slight probability of collusion.

    Same with domains that cross link at and were created at the same time but in different locations by different people. Much more likely that those people would be looking to link exchange and so the links would be less about content and more about exchange.

    So the maximum weight would be given to a link that came later on as a site became more popular, from a site that was registered at a different time from a different person in a different location. In this case the chance of collusion would be very low so the link could be trusted more - its much more likely to be done for content reasons.

  34. Appeasing WHO?!? by sniser2 · · Score: 2, Funny

    'bush' has a 13.53% googleshare of 'hitler'

    'saddam' has a 7.7% googleshare of 'hitler'

  35. Toot Toot! by Whatsthiswhatsthis · · Score: 3, Funny

    from Googlism:

    cmdrtaco is getting married to the fine woman this website is run by
    cmdrtaco is still known to post hoaxes or wild
    cmdrtaco is gay
    cmdrtaco is brilliant
    cmdrtaco is nothing more than a perl script
    cmdrtaco is lame
    cmdrtaco is my hero
    cmdrtaco is the one that is laying on the purple couch with the notebook
    cmdrtaco is a torvelian
    cmdrtaco is an idiot

    And my favorite...

    cmdrtaco is psychic

  36. Google not a monopoly, part of an oligopoly by bmcent1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I LOVE Google! I thought it was the best search engine out there from the day I first saw it in beta. It is fast, clean, and the results returned are usually right on the mark. They used comodity computing hardware and Linux (I think, or BSD) to get the most computing power for their dollar. What worries me, because I have recently come face to face with the status quo, is that Goodle, and FAST/AllTheWeb/Inktomi (possibly including LookSmart) virtually OWN the entire web seach business. There are two or three corporations now that run the backend seach engines for the top 20 web search sites. That alone would not necessarily be a problem. But have you tried to get your site listed in a seach engine lately? Google and AllTheWeb now tell you to expect 4-8 weeks to be listed. On most you can pay money for an "expedited listing." Back in my day, the search engines WANTED URL submissions and they would crawl your site quickly because there was a lot of competition to build the biggest indexes on the web. That doesn't seem to be the case anymore. Google, and other search engines are incredibly important to the web. When search engines started out, they didn't accept pay for placement or expedited listing for a fee. Serving such a central role on the web, this trend is not the direction I'd like to see search engines taking.

    --

    "Hey Albert, Good luck exploring the infinite abyss."

  37. Why Google is successful, really by Animats · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Fast Company doesn't get it. Google is successful because they live within their means. They started as a low-cost operation, and they didn't pour money into "expansion" until they had actual revenue to cover it. Compare, say, VA Linux, with that huge IPO for a dinky company.

    Stock market hype types keep talking about Google "going public". They're more likely to go private; the founders may buy out the venture capitalists.

  38. Re:what's with googlesyndication? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Apparently Google is now selling the ability to have their text ads pop up on other web sites. Now you can buy advertising through them on other places.

    Now their purchase of that blogging stuff makes a bit more sense, huh?

  39. Here's why to search for Foo.com by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 2, Insightful

    From the article: ...without alienating neophytes who type in "amazon.com" to find . . . Amazon.com. (Yes, people really do that. Google doesn't know why. )

    I can tell you why. Because I have done it. (Well, maybe not to find amazon.com. But typing a URL in the Google search box.)

    I wanted to find the google cache of an article that was slashdotted.

    I had hoped that Google's interface would be clueful enough to include pages whose URL was an exact match for the search string - bringing up the index page with a link to the cache.

    No dice.

    The google front-page interface doesn't give an obvious way to get from a URL to the cache entry without knowing the content of the page you're trying to find. And cache links themselves include magic numbers, which implies that you can't just come up with a default conversion of a URL into a google cache link.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  40. Re:All Search Engines are doomed to fail... by Saint+Stephen · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Y'all can mod this as a troll all you want, but that's totally not my intention.

    These are the facts (who knows why):

    (1) Google usually takes you to the information you want.
    (2) Few months back, last time google got lots of big press, for about two months my searches stopped taking me where I wanted to go and started to take me to more dubious places. Around this time there was a whole lot of press about google monkeying with the Page Rank system, how they wouldn't discuss it, etc. All I know is, during that time, the quality of my searches decreased dramatically.
    (3) After a while, the quality of my searches went back up. Again, who knows why.

    When I say "quality of my searches went down" I mean that instead of going to the DEFINIITIVE source of some information I searched for (unless I was extremely specific, like you used to have to be pre-google), I was much more likely to be taken to some large-scale commercial and less-definitive source of information. It might not have been google doing it specifically, but whatever, I came damn close to saying google has "jumped the shark."

  41. I need to use the different engine when... by ledestin · · Score: 2, Interesting
    ...I'm looking for local (as of country) things, because this engine understands Russian word conjugations.

    While in English we just have "japanese" I have counted 4 conjugation forms for this adjective in Russian. These forms differ by suffixes, so, google isn't the easiest choice for such searches.