Slashdot Mirror
Yahoo to Dump Google
unassimilatible writes "The Wall Street Journal is reporting (paid subscription required) that Yahoo! plans to dump Google as its primary search technology. In a major revamp, Yahoo will also add personalization and customization features to extend the usefulness of searches and expand its use of "paid inclusion." Yahoo news has picked up the story. Might be time to rethink that IPO."
My only question: How will this affect google's searching power?
Yahoo owns both Inktomi and Overture... for them to be dumping Google and moving to the suppliers that they own outright is something that was easy to see coming, the only question was when.
You're kidding me. I can't remember the last time I ever bothered using Yahoo!'s search function. It had to have been sometime back in '98 I'm sure.
Yahoo to Dump Google. [...] Yahoo picks up the story
Yeah, I guess they'd have first dibs on the story, eh?
Is complete horseshit especially when you can find other links. Take for instance this link.
Enjoy the reading fellow /.ers.
-1 Overrated (Too many big words for me to comprehend)
Because of Yahoo? Nah. Google better rethink their IPO because their technology has been broken by spammers. Searching with google used to be a lot more fruitful in the old days. Anything searches that could be construed as porn or is sold on Amazon.com is going to yield tons of useless links.
"...Yahoo will switch from Google to its own technology as early as the first quarter."
If Yahoo is going live with a search engine that soon, why haven't I seen a bot on my site (google page rank of 5, so not obscure) which looks Yahoo-ish? Anyone else spotted a bot you think might belong to yahoo?
Read reviews of shopping cart software
This will hurt Yahoo a lot more than it will hurt Google. Google's search technology is very advanced, once you weed through the garbage links. Yahoo, before they used Google technology, would usually take forever to find any relevant results. Yahoo will go back to being the search engine with huge name recognition and little effective use.
Yeah, I definately think that people at Yahoo should really rethink it's IPO if they're going to drop the only thing that makes it relevant. If they expect to float along with their cheesy messaging and other crapware they're in for big trouble.
by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
use google more creatively, by typing the name of your product and the word "review" or "consumer review"...
or check out the information about digital cameras on photo.net
Might be time to rethink that IPO
You mean because Yahoo are dropping Google? Man, *that* was unexpected, no-one knew that was coming.
Seriously, if that's your reason, then you (or they) obviously didn't do any thinking or research in the first place.
As for Yahoo fighting back, I didn't see *that* coming either.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
It will be interesting to see what this develops into. I'm already a bit uncomfortable with the thought of such a "service." While it may be "convenient" to create a profile of your interests and perhaps an overview of previous searches and marking of what were "good" search results, I don't like the idea of Yahoo! storing all this data in the first place. How do I know that they won't sell this data to marketers? (Most privacy policies are bullshit.) Or give it to government officials looking for terrorists and political opponents and the such? Will I have to give up a lot of personal data in order to get search for information results that don't lead me to sites that try to sell me the product I'm trying to research?
Thanks, but for now I think I'll stick to spending time and effort to get the search results I want, no matter how big of a pain in the ass it is, rather than sell my soul for the same.
People say I'm crazy, I got diamonds on the soles of my shoes...
Why is it time to rethink that IPO? Losing Yahoo as a paying customer will not hurt very much. There will just be another one to take their place. Google makes great search appliances for networks. They are gaudy yellow boxes, but they work very well. There is plenty of money in that. Look at all this other stuff they can sell. They can sell advertising, search appliances, they can let you use their engine to search your site, and they can park domains for you. How will losing one customer on one sector of their business hurt them (badly)? Their eggs are not all in one basket. That would be like everyone saying "Ford is dying!" when someone stops buying their air freshener.
I hate sigs.
I feel exactly the same as you. This commercial pollution has greatly diluted the usefulness of Google when searching for information on products.
I would love to see a way to optionally strip commercial traders from the results.
rm -rf / is the evil of all root
It is as well to bear in mind at this point that while Yahoo started out as a classified directory and became a search engine, the search engine probably isnt such a big deal for them these days. They left it behind when they became a portal. Remember portals?:) Services like Yahoo Groups, Yahoo Mail, Geo5h1tties, Yahoo personals etc etc all join the search engine to make up the greater Yahoo portal. I am guessing that most Yahoo users rarely use it for searching these days.
Oxford Dictionaries Online
Someone mod this guy funny...
I remember back before 'yahoo.com' when they were on Berkeley's server ( I think... I could look it up but the school isn't important ) and I had to rummage around for the address when I wanted to use it... nowadays I'd just google for it and have it immediately. Back then it was actually useful... almost no commercial content, the database was smaller (more accurate checking) and younger (not so full of crap). Nowadays they have everything under the sun, and I'm sure I'm not the only one that finds it useless as a result. Even something simple like a stock price lookup I won't go to Yahoo for anymore, because whatever I want is buried amongst movie times and online games and auctions, etc. To me Yahoo spread its wings too far and they were melted by the sun (or am I mixing a few parables together...)
Yahoo is the only site that I've found that really uses personalization. The "one login" promise that countless technologies were supposed to deliver on has been delivered by Yahoo. Forget LDAP and various XML schemes. I love Yahoo because no matter where I go in their empire, my login is good and the content is for me. I actually enjoy using Yahoo's various properties. In one day, I use their mail (excellent with spam), launch.com (streaming radio), their auctions, their weather, their finance, etc. I've been using the web since before the web, and Yahoo is the only place I've found that really delivers on that promise of personalization, which happens to be worth a lot to me because it saves me a lot of time and headache.
Same post here yesterday.
Now go to your room!
"If I have been able to see so far, It is because I went out and bought a damn binoculars" - Ze da Esquina
Or maybe Google's search results ARE accurate and simply reflect the increasingly commercial nature of the web. I for one think that the Internet is becoming soo hopelessly commercialized that it is becoming next to impossible to find USEFUL non-commercial content about anything, regardless of the search engine used. When 90% of the content on the web is commercial, it is hard to imagine 90% of the search results not being commercial. I think that the next 'killer app' will be a new anonymous file sharing protocol like Freenet ,but faster and with an ability to 'deny' hosting to sites that you do not agree with. Freenet with a way to filter the content your node will host. Not because people want anonymity soo much, but because people want a new forum to voice their opinions without their voices being drowned out by the combined shouting of all the commercial interests that have taken control of our medium.
When Yahoo switched to Google as its primary search engine, it made Yahoo into nothing more than a Google frontend with a lot of wasted bandwidth on its pages. It was just google with a bloated site loaded to bear with ads, as if it was an MSN with a google search bar. Its only real difference in searching was those old directories with all the outdated pages from the 1990s.
Now that Yahoo will be using another search technology, there might be a reason for using Yahoo again. Some useful things that may never show up on Google might show up on Yahoo, so it might make for a useful alternate search engine now, especially if Google continues to slide as it's doing. Then again, we still have old Astalavista for that, as well.
Now I have to sort through page upon page of sites wanting to sell me said item,
Learn to search. Using a search engine properly is a little more than dumping a word into the tiny box.
Google offers pretty good advanced search options, which you can use to great effect to weed out the stuff you don't want, refine the search, offer alternative spellings or keywords, etc.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
"Might be time to rethink that IPO?"
You're kidding me. I can't remember the last time I ever bothered using Yahoo!'s search function.
The issue of Yahoo dumping Google has nothing to do with whether Yahoo sucks or not. Instead, this is an issue of Google's long-term business outlook. Google is partially dependent on large contracts from major portals like Yahoo and Google also faces the potential of losing to another search engine provider.
As wonderful as Google is now, it is in a very risky industry. The fact that search sites like Yahoo, AltaVista, Excite, etc. can go from darling to moribund suggests that the industry has high turnover. And then there is Microsoft which has expressed interest in competing with Google.
Were Google publically traded right now, this news would create a major hit to the stock price. This suggests that any potential buyers of Google IPO stock should think long and hard about the likelihood of expecting more unexpected bad news.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
Wow, how did you find that, Google?
Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
Not exactly. The search engine user just has to be a little more search engine savvy. For instance, if you are looking for information about the 'place' Bermuda, but want to avoid all the advertisments, put "Bermuda -hotel" into google. Shows up with airline ticket ads? Then change it to "Bermuda -hotel -airfare". Basically you can strip down your searches, get through all the chaff and find what you are looking for.
TK
Yahoo! plans to dump Google as its primary search technology.
The word primary is very important here. It implies that Yahoo! is not completely abandoning Google, but is making it second string instead. If they're still letting us access Google, even if it requires a couple of extra clicks, then I can't see this as entirely bad. I like Google and it's my first pick, but I certainly don't limit myself to Google...
I did not see in the article where Yahoo! is completely dropping Google. If it's in there, I missed it.
Be excellent to each other. And... PARTY ON, DUDES!
It's not any better than altavista used to be, back when people complained "When you search for things, you always get tons of useless crap"..
The only good thing about google is that it often lists the official page of something first. But if you aren't looking for the official page, you are out of luck..
Google became popular because it listed extremely relevant results directly on the first results page, but it is in my experience a completely different beast nowadays..
Will code a sig generator for food
I never really understood why Yahoo! switched to Google in the first place. The point is to differentiate. I stopped going to Yahoo! when I saw it was powered by Google - I just went to the "source". Same deal with MapQuest.
I guess I just don't find value in the portal service Yahoo offers. I also don't shop at Wal-Mart. I would rather use my bookmarks bar to go the site I like for Investment tools, another for maps, another for searching, and another for e-mail.
I only came here to do two things; kick some ass, and drink some beer...looks like we're almost out of beer.
You know, I do the "review" thing too, and still get the same sorts of results -- possibly a different cross-section of them, but the same sorts of results, mostly due to the same reason, but also because every e-commerce engine under the sun seems to have a consumer review "feature." Look at this search for Canon ZR65MC review. As you can see, the results still contain the same sort of things. You also get (fairly useless to me, anyway) 10-20 different sites rebadging the pricegrabber or dealtime engines, providing the same exact content with a different HTML template.
I agree that Google needs to do something about e-commerce sites. Perhaps finalize the froogle beta and dump the e-tailers into there where they belong. (Of course I realize that it's very, very easy for me to say this, and extremely hard for Google to implement it.)
In the meantime, I can think of several ways to combat this sort of information glut. This search provides much better results in my opinion, but can be easily combated by the spammers by removing the keywords I'm using as filters.
I don't envy google. Their own popularity is killing their usefulness as a search for retail products. For actual information, such as the governmental structure of Canada, I've found they're still the best engine though.
Michael C. Hollinger
A lot of commercial sites can be cut out by adding "site:org" to the search. For a lot of things that will get you the no-nonsense facts you used to get in the old days. Unfortunately it's a matter of time until all the sleazy huckster sites add a .org alias, and it's already happening. But for right now it kind of
works - take advantage while it lasts.
Most responders don't seem to notice that the article mentions Yahoo's acquisition of two search engines (Inktomi for searches and Overture for paid searches). Yahoo has always used an 'improved' version of google results; the search quality shouldn't be much worse. Yahoo is doing this for the money to be saved (by using their own acquired search technology) and gained (more and smarter paid listings).
The (IMO incredibly annoying) "Do you Yahoo!?" advertising aside, I note that I hear "google" used as a verb far more than "yahoo" (actually, short of the aforementionded annoying commercials, I've never heard "yahoo" used as a verb).
That's not just in conversation with my tech-geek acquaintances; I'm talking about popular culture, too (although I'm pressed to recall which shows I heard it on). The reason it stood out in my mind was that there were maybe two or three separate such usages in prime time the same week.
Granted, it could have been clever product placement rather than sniglet hipsterism on the part of the writers.
Yahoo! could have created an "About" search - a flag that looks for sites indexed as research, not retail sites. Sites that inform, not sell. That would have been a way to differentiate, not throw in the towel.
I disagree that it is Marketing 101 to throw in the towel when you see your competition has a better product. To me, Marketing is about differentiation.
There are core features a product must have to be considered (like a car must be street legal), and the rest is what differentiates the product (like the size of the seets or the HP of the engine).
I only came here to do two things; kick some ass, and drink some beer...looks like we're almost out of beer.
True, marketing is partly about differentiation. It's also about core competencies. This includes knowing when you've been beaten.
Insert offensive troll-style sig here. Please mod or respond appropriately.
stocks move faster than that. Yahoo had announced its intention to split from Google for some time, and signalled it for much longer. (You don't retain your internal search companies, and buy more search IP if you intend to use a 3rd party forever).
Google however is finding a larger market in advertising than it thought it could, and despite your claim makes most of its profit from smaller private contracts.
Yahoo is just about the -only- large portal contract they had. I mean, who else is there? And it was far from their only revenue source.
Yes, when this split happens, it would depress their share price, but I doubt it signals a longterm marketability problem. This is Yahoo prepping their investors to believe the impending split is in -their- best interests - instead of signalling that Yahoo itself can no longer afford to own search companies and still pay for Google.
After all, it's Yahoo that has been in a business tailspin for the last few years. Not Google.
And this won't bother their prospective IPO, as the large financial institutions that would have first shot at IPO shares have analysts that have known this plan for some time.
// "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
You know how when you play risk... and you team up with one of your friends... you have to keep an eye on him to make sure he doesn't get too strong? If he gets too strong he might turn around and start pillaging your homeland... so you have to remain friends as long as possible and then pick the right moment to invade him... feigned disgust notwithstanding.
This is the same thing here... Yahoo teamed up with Google as long as the relationship was substantially beneficial to Yahoo. However... with Google's recent IPO... it is clear to the Yahoo suits that shareholders are going to want Google to "put out". This most likely would include a more full-figured search portal which would very likely ensure that Yahoo loses most of the armies it gets at the beginning of its turn and pretty eliminate any potential for new Risk cards. So Yahoo decided to screw Google first and try to solidify their position as the premier search portal for all the web refuse that isn't already part of the AOL empire.
. SLASHDOT: Home of the vicious nerd.
This means Yahoo's searches are more likely to be relevent when searching for entities and/or products, and Google's is likely to find more hits and be useful for non-entity based searches (ie "Linux ES1371 driver")
So it makes sense for Yahoo to "fallback" to Google once its directory has been searched. This makes Yahoo's search more useful than it'd be if it just searched the Yahoo directory alone.
Now, of course, Yahoo also owns a couple of random keyword based search engines, so a good question is why aren't they doing those? But in this case, the comparison is more like KFC selling Coca-cola (KFC is owned by Pepso) than KFC selling Chicken McNuggets from MacDonalds.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Yahoo news has picked up the story
Yahoo News picked up the story that Yahoo was in the news? Now *that's* some good searching technology! You can bet I'll be using them to search news!
Let's face it, you and I both know the only reason Yahoo went with google in the first place was because they were getting their rears kicked in the search engine business. Using google allowed them to put some proper research into it, take their time, and use their own good engine once they had it built. Thanks a lot google! I finished with you baby, your money's on the dresser! Pablo
http://www.cgff.net/comics.html
Yahoo users were still unable to find the "search" button at Yahoo.com among advertisements, sweepstakes offers, pretty buttons, news headlines, shopping categories, and about a hundred other annoyances.
With Mozilla, you can open links in new windows (or tabs, whatever you like more) with a single click on the middle mouse button. Anytime on any webpage.
Now that Yahoo's decided to switch beyond, maybe it'll be time for Google to improve its database import spiders so we don't see spam in their db. You know what I'm talking about, erroneous results like http://electronic-store.tanks4all.com/ that comes up when you search for 'speaker review car'
All the spam domains I checked into last November came up registered by the same people, too:
Venera Pictures, LLC
Samantha Dayk (samdayk@msn.com)
+1.14107857078
FAX: +1.-
1170 S. Chelton Rd.
Colorado Springs, CO 80910
US
Gateway Traffic, LLC
Sean Der (seander@verizon.net)
+1.4107857078
FAX: +1.-
102 Hunts Bluff Road
Sparks, MD 21152
US
If they add a Bayesian algorithm on incoming pages (comparing link farm pages to ham, and determining it's spam), and keep track of the whois informatin for domains (all the spam domains I found using random search queries led back to those false names in the whois database), Google's results could probably stay non-erroneous for some time.
It's really a tragedy that advertisers feel they can skip paying Google, and instead wreck Google for users and other advertisers, causing people to move on the potentially greener pastures. We've had IM partially ruined by spam, email almost ruined, and places like Google ruined. When will laws be passed so that purposefully attacking online systems is as illegal and easily prosecutable as defacing buildings?
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
Some claim Alltheweb is better than google, but I find its about equal.
Some other experimental engines I've seen have alot of potential, especially the ones who come up with narrowing suggestions and do accurate self-categorization. Teoma is a good example of that.
-
Yahoo is not rocket science, and it sure ain't Google. And Yahoo probably (justifiably) doesn't want to pay Google prices for a feature that just doesn't matter that much to the great majority of their users. Because the great majority likely fall into two camps:
/., then fark, then memepool, etc.
1. Too dumb to use anything EXCEPT whatever search engine they're spoon-fed by Yahoo.
2. Too smart to ever use ANYTHING spoon-fed to them by Yahoo.
I'm a Yahoo user. But even when they switched their search engine to Google, I still tracked over to google.com for all my searching. Google has created a *tres chic* brand, and Yahoo can't appropriate that.
But on to my main point....
Have you people even been to yahoo.com in the past few years?! Suggesting that full-text web searching is somehow a critical Yahoo feature is just silly. Only the most technologically myopic of grandmas and carpenter uncles actually searches with Yahoo.
Yahoo excels at being a ==PORTAL==. My personalized Yahoo page is very convenient. CLICK->categorized personalized mainstream news, weather, basic calendaring, etc.->scan, scroll, scan, scroll->sip coffee->CLICK->on to
Refining searches using the "-" modifier is a good way to cut down on noise but Google imposes a limit of ten words.
Which is a pity because to weed out the guff in a lot of the searches I perform there are about four or five terms I routinely exclude meaning that what I can actually search for is limited (especially when I then find it necessary to refine and thus exclude more words).
It'd be nice if they offered to exclude lists of words according to type of search e.g. !commercial excludes "cheap"; "shopping basket"; "purchase"; "products" etc.
What you and everyone else here is missing is that part of that deal back in 2000 gave Yahoo ownership in Google.
They already own a big chunk of Google equity and it looks like they will be cashing out when Google goes public.
Man Holmes