Slashdot Mirror
Wired Reports on 'Googlemania'
Decaffeinated Jedi writes "As a tie-in with its March 2004 cover story on the search phenomenon that is Google, Wired has posted its Complete Guide to Googlemania. Written before Google delayed its IPO earlier this month, the feature nevertheless offers a series of interesting articles focused on the search engine giant. Particularly interesting sections include Googlemaniacs (in which 'superusers' like Matt Groening and Garry Trudeau discuss how they use Google on a daily basis), a look at how blog comment spammers have taken advantage of Google's PageRank system, and a gallery of hypothetical interface redesigns by a group of artists and graphic designers."
The beauty of the present Google interface is that it contains absolutely nothing unneeded, and the search box is the main focus of the page.
All four of the artists that came up with proposals for Google redisigns totally missed that concept. One wants Google to provide needless information nobody asked for, one wants to remind people of conspiracy theories on every visit, one's trying to bring color onto a page that you don't usually spend time admiring, and one's suggesting brand extentions that'd end up cheapening the original Google brand.
Google's power is in its function. Needless art on the homepage just distracts from that... There's a reason why artists are only allowed to work with the Google Doodle on rare occasions and they're not welcome to mess with the rest of the home page.
First things first, google: Change your technology to get rid of all those fucking domains-with-all-the-words-youre-looking-for-or-il l-find-another-search-engine.
They forgot the class currently being taught at the University of Washington (which I am taking at the moment). It looks at Google from a wide variety of standpoints-- including looking at Google as a 'Ravager of Worlds'-- and is definitely a nice departure from the traditional "learn how to Google stuff" class.
"Microsoft will eventually integrate a search engine into Windows just as they are going to integrate an anti-virus product and have already integrated MediaPlayer. It's just a matter of when."
....
So? That doesn't mean they'll kill Google. What will kill Google is if MS's search engine is better. I don't see that happening for a couple of iterations.
"If Google really was offered $10 billion by Microsoft and turned it down, then they were stupid."
10 billion? With a b, billion? Why on Earth would Microsoft spend half of their money on a search engine?
Guess that's another one to submit to Snopes.com.
"Derp de derp."
I, for one, welcome our ...reigning... Google overlords.
True story.
Google has improved my sex life, tightened my abs, and brought me closer to God.
- Lloyd Grove
Any other Google out there that I am not aware of?
Free XBox, PS2
If Google was bought out by Microsoft, and you prefer not to use Windows, would you have to install Windows just to use a decent search engine?
I, for one, hope that Google stays the way it is. Simple, fast, powerful, and reasonably free.
Google needs an interface redesign like fish need a bicycle.
Nathan
Are we going to see Google balloon up to what Altavista used to look like, then to fight a competitor slim back down to what Google (and Altavista) is like now? Then have it balloon back up as new stuff comes along?
Just curious. It reminds me of a management cycle that Scott Adams wrote about once. "We need to decentralize to be more efficient!" Then, a few months later "We need to centralize in order to focus on our coure strengths". Then, repeat. heh.
"Derp de derp."
I think if it was good, integrating an antivirus product into Windows would be damn responsible...
hell, the antivirus industry is almost completely their fault anyway...
MICROSOFT GIVETH, MICROSOFT TAKETH AWAY...
Google management: Please read this, and don't change your page designs.
Google Mail is an interesting subject, and it did not say anything on how it was going to attract users. MailRank algorithm anyone? If there are 99% accuracy spam filters, ala the recent slashsdot article, Google better have them. They built a better search engine and they came. If they build a better spam filter, even more will come.
Microsoft is providing a fact search thingy in Longhorn. I hope Google has one soon, or else they will not survive. (As a student, I think the fact search thing will be invaluable, and is practically worth buying Longhorn.)
I hope Google can survive, but Microsoft is here, and Bill has not lost. Yet.
Mod Wisely.
How does one get to be a Google superuser? Does one get special privileges like banning enemies from Google and altering search returns for certain users? Hmm, maybe I just need to get my search count up...
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
Lately a few people on alt.religion.scientology have been tracking an increase in cookie-cutter mass-produced pro-$cientology blogs. Could it be that $cientology found that blog comment spamming no longer worked, and are now creating actual throw-away blogs to see if they can gimick the results again?
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
I fear that the Google IPO, if the ever get around to it, will mean the end of Google as we know it.
Right now, the owners of Google seem content with the profit that their company is making, and are not efforting to squeeze every possible penny out of their site. The Google homepage has to be the most seen single page on the Internet, yet they have refrained from putting a banner ad on it.
A public company doesn't have that luxury. It has a fiduciary responsibility to make as much money as posible for the sake of its minority shareholders. They'll feel pressure to put ads where there were no ads before, and to curtail research projects that aren't going anywhere profitable in the near future.
In short, could the IPO kill Google-as-we-know-it?
So? That doesn't mean they'll kill Google. What will kill Google is if MS's search engine is better.
sometimes being better doesn't mean anything. Was IE better than Netscape during the browser war? or was it just because MS preinstalled IE in all Windows, and Windows happens to be one of the most used OS?
and nowadays, Opera, Mozilla etc must be better than IE? but are they taking over IE's market share?
None of the page redesigners proposed this:
Google
_________________________________
Google Search / I'm Feeling Lucky
I mean, we could lighten the interface from graphics so that it loads quickly...
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
" Was IE better than Netscape during the browser war? or was it just because MS preinstalled IE in all Windows, and Windows happens to be one of the most used OS?"
Yes, IE was better than Netscape. It wasn't at first. It was lacking in many ways, and as a result, people flocked towards Netscape. When version 4 came out of both apps, Microsoft had gotten their act together, and suddenly Netscape wasn't such an interesting browser anymore. They just weren't doing enough to make their app better.
Microsoft didn't win because IE was preinstalled, it won because it was a better browser. If what you were saying was true, then Netscape would never have had half the marketshare.
"Derp de derp."
Sorry but Microsoft has already done this - currently searches in IE, bad domains, and failed DNS lookups go to Microsoft Search. The problem is the search experience is SO POOR that users still prefer Google. As far being stupid for a 10 Billion dollar offer, Google knows the public markets hold much more money for them. Bill was undoubtedly offering a stock swap deal, not a cash buyout. Investors will see much more money in an IPO. Keep this in mind, Google's revenue is well over 1 Billion annually. (According to my sources 1.2 or so.) The margin on search is quite high so they undoubtedly highly profitable. They have no need to go public other than to pay off their initial VC. As the article points out, going public has it's own pains. A Google IPO where they float 20% of the company is probably a 20 Billion dollar event. You do the math, still think they were stupid to turn down Gates. Nope.
Thalasar
Wrong (and right). IE won because it was a better browser. But the only reason it was better was that it was preinstalled. Featurewise, both browsers were about equal... but IE was already there, and it was good enough, so there was no reason to download Netscape.
To within half a percent, pi seconds is a nanocentury. -- Tom Duff
" But the only reason it was better was that it was preinstalled. Featurewise, both browsers were about equal... but IE was already there, and it was good enough, so there was no reason to download Netscape."
Wrong. IE 4+ didn't crash when you looked at it the wrong way. They couldn't even get Netscape to be stable while running in Linux, can't blame Windows for that.
There's a reason the term "Nutscrape" became quite prevalent in the net culture.
"Derp de derp."
Search for "Google Backwards" and hit "I'm feeling lucky" - very cool (sorry if this is "so last week," but I just found it myself yesterday...)
You're right... IE 4 didn't just crash, it exploded spectacularly, and took down your whole desktop to boot.
To within half a percent, pi seconds is a nanocentury. -- Tom Duff
On the matter of choosing a UI design for Google, it is of course just downright stupid to build any appearance into a website. The markup should be standards compliant and structural. Websites should obviously provide a default set of stylesheets and images, but the user should be able to apply any stylesheet they want. In the world envisioned by the W3C, there's nothing stopping you from applying any appearance you want to the web, rather than the other way around.
Join Tor today!
What kind of crack are you smoking? IE gained popularity because of two things:
1) They pre-installed the browser with the OS.
2) They fucked around with browser implementation standards.
IE wasn't better. Microsoft included their own tags and "VB script" that would make it's browser do things that Netscape couldn't.
When web site developers foolishly started using these proprietary tags, web site viewers realized that half the sites they were going to didn't work "properly" in Netscape, and Netscape lost marketshare.
Netscape didn't get the nickname "Nutscrape" from users who know what they were talking about, it got the name from people who preferred the glitz and galmour of all the cool, new, RFC breaking features that IE provided.
"You do not associate with us because we are different. We do not associate with you because you are stupid."
Google is damned cool. It's definately the best thing out there right now. However, it could be better.
What is missing is a simple regex interpreter: it would drastically increase the efficiency of searches. Boolean stuff is cool, but it is by no means powerful: we've had boolean searches since, what, 1995, 1996? It's incredibly limited to AND OR NOT logic.
If MS's search engine attempts were to have such regex features, it would likely replace google for many of my features, provided it wasn't overly intrusive (which I doubt as even a remote possibility, actually). Google really needs to get with the times, so to speak.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers