Slashdot Mirror
New Google Toolbar Brings Browse By Name
Philipp Lenssen writes "The newest release of the Google Toolbar (Internet Explorer only) comes with a Browse by Name feature. It lets you enter keywords in the browser address bar, and when Google decides this is a sure bet you will be directly forwarded to the right page. Is this the return of Internet Keywords?"
I typed in "buggy insecure browser" and it took me here.
So...it goes to the I'm Feeling Lucky link?
FoundNews.com - get paid to blog.,
Thanks, but I much prefer to use my address bar for my google searches.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
Keywords for sale.
Like firefox's address bar already does? Type in a word or phrase and hit enter and you're directed to the equivalent of an "I'm feeling lucky" search on whatever you typed.
I haven't looked under the hood but I suspect it's a glorified I'm Feeling Lucky google search. Doesn't seem very news worthy to me...
Shoot Pixels, Not People!
Anytime I use decent search terms Google generally finds exactly what I am looking for within the first three links.
Honestly I don't know how well "I'm Feeling Lucky" will work for most users. Hell, most people I know have to wade through their search results b/c they never know the right way to word their search terms.
http://toolbar.google.com/bbn_help.html for (a little) more info
So they can get to everybody. An invite isn't something you sign up for, it is something given to you, current users would give it to their close friends and relatives, who are prolly not technical users and know nothing about current tech news and development of something as bland as a new email service, but thus letting people know of how good it is, and making sure the word spreads out that much farther. wow, no wonder google mostly or only employs phd's...
smart aren't they? also, google is still free, and I saw many people say they would be completely willing to pay for it on slashdot just because it is pretty much better than any other search engine that is currently available, and it is so damn fast. But Google doesn't need to slow down their conquest of the internet market, by doing something like making their services fee-based, at least not yet. First something as unimportant as a search engine. then an email service. next an efficient and elegant messenger with most features you need and enough userbase from gmail and google to make it the most popular messenger in the world. then a web browser with all these features integrated into a slick and resource efficient application, along with it a security package guarding your internet experience.
then an operating system.
then manufacturing it's own line of computers. most common type at first, but after maybe making it's own type of a portable computer system.
sounds like Apple, in the way that it is so popular right now with the iPods, but only iPods, and the way their products are so elegant and clean and efficient. ut much less expensive than Apple, currently at least.
Along the way probably Google will make a bad decision or in one of the processes I described something better than a Google's product would be released and would gain popularity and the plan would fall through. but Google probably isn't stupid enough to create a plan that isn't fault-tolerant. the course of this plan may take 15, maybe 20 years, and then Google will control humanity and make a cluster of human brains integrated with computers to find out the meaning of life?
oh wait, that would be evil
I pwn this comment. "The Fine Print" says so.
My first thought was "why MSIE only?" but then upon looking closer discovered that it only seems to be more or less replicating the facility already built into Firefox and Safari.
Not too earth shattering, and just in time to catch a declining IE. Most of the folks who would download and install this are probably competent enough to download and install Firefox.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
I would guess that this is aimed more at your average mom and pop internet users, not /. readers. As such, if they can avoid the whole keyword problem, it will be useful for their target audience. After all, how many readers use IE anyway?
Try "miserable failure"
:)
(yes, it's old... still funny though..
"It lets you enter keywords in the browser address bar, and when Google decides this is a sure bet you will be directly forwarded to the right page."
Google hacking will be really damn funny. Just imagine, say, for 6 months, people get used to typing 'update windows' in their address bar. Then, some google hacker figures out a way to suddenly spike the value of some other site somehow to include 'update windows' as the first choice. Hopefully not to goatse.
other fun things to do with google
Unfortunately, if you enter a single word, it does not check to see if it can resolve the name on your Intranet first. Instead, it immediately does the "Browse By Name."
This caused a lot of issues on our Intranet. Just warning everyone.
RomSteady - I came, I saw, I tested. GamerTag: RomSteady / http://www.romsteady.net
Google put out the toolbar in 2001, long before Firefox became popular. Why shouldn't they release it for IE? Mozilla and Firefox already have Google builtin. They want more people to use Google, this just makes it easier.
Is this the return of Internet Keywords?
In one sense, Google has always been about "Internet keywords" -- accessing information by description rather than name. This simply streamlines the process of going to www.google.com, typing in the search terms, and hitting "I feel lucky" into a single step within the browser.
So why did "Internet keywords" get such a bad rap the first time around? Because, contrary to Google's motto ("Don't be evil"), they were doing it to profit from selling keywords. While they claimed to be delivering information to users, they were really delivering users to advertisers.
Thankfully, Google discovered that there's a sizeable market for honest technology that does what it says. To cite another example, this is also why user-controlled RSS has succeeded where deliverer-controlled "Push" technology failed so spectacularly.
Cheers,
IT
Power corrupts. PowerPoint corrupts absolutely.
Everyone is saying "Not too earth shattering" or "My browser already does this!".
/.?
Who doesn't think google can do it better? Of course this will be a glorified "I'm feeling lucky" but google can probably make big bucks selling keywords, to the likes of movies promoters for new release movies (like AOL).
This isn't the biggest chunk of news ever, obviously, but haven't we all seen something LESS newsworthy on
--
The last digit of pi is four.
Really? I use Firefox myself.
But I know what you mean - the first time I typed text into the address bar ("2008 Olympics" I think it was) and it automatically took me to the best match (in this case here), I was in awe. Now I use it all the time.
fun with google
I do not think for a minute that replicating existing Firefox functionality was Google's main reason for not creating a Firefox version of this toolbar. The simple fact is, Google knows very well that IE, even with its recent troubles, STILL accounts for over 90 percent of all web browsing, and is therefore their primary target audience.
Supposing it had been the other way around... Let's suppose that Firefox had been the one with 90 percent market share that was declining, while IE was rising... Do you seriously think Google would still be taking this course of action?!? Would you then still be saying that Google just wanted to bring IE on par with Firefox? I for one seriously doubt they would do that. And THAT is the point: Google is a business, just like any other. They are not here to evangelize ANY browser; they are here to make good BUSINESS decisions, and if supporting 90 percent of all people who just happen to be using IE is the way to do it, they will. I'd hate to break it to you, but the evidence is crystal clear: If Firefox were the one with 90 percent market share, things would be quite different, and Google probably would not be bothering with IE at that point.
Best thing about this is if you edit SearchURLList.plist, you can include any search engine you like in the search engine list. I think any Mozilla browser will work this way, and there are third party tools for Safari that allow the same thing. I click the search field and I can choose whether to send my search query to Amazon, Google, Wikipedia, Dictionary.com, eBay, Erowid, whatever! Much more useful in my opinion than an "I feel lucky" button.
"idiot president"
Looks like some else already patented this concept: http://www.delphion.com/details?pn=US06101537__
"A universal electronic resource denotation, request and delivery system allows a user to locate information on a distributed computer system or network such as the Internet by knowing or guessing a short mnemonic alias of an electronic resource without the user having to know the physical or other location denotation such as the universal resource locator (URL) of the desired resource."
If you click a link too quickly after it's posted you get the "Nothing to see here" page. just refresh a time or two and it'll come up
A lot of high-mod posts on here are totally missing the point. The point isn't so much that IE is finally getting the equivelant of an "I'm feeling lucky" text box, it's getting one that is (supposedly) intelligent. When Google thinks the "I'm feeling lucky" link is what you want, it will take you there. If not, it takes you to the regular search results. That is what makes this (albeit questionably) interesting.
"Wow, you're like some kind of superhero able to ward off happiness and success at every turn."
-- Ryan Stiles
Mozilla, or at least Firefox, has done this for a while -- it just goes to Google and grabs the first result (i.e. "I'm feeling lucky"). It's neat and I've used it, but I don't really use it a lot.
Errr, this isn't new per say, except for maybe IE. It's been in the Mozilla Google toolbar for a few months now. I personally find it highly annoying.
It's better to burn out than to fade away
And the fact that if u take AOL broad band (even cable) you have to run a bloated software which doesnt run on Linux just to connect. (I tried it bcos they had a 45 days free trial and I was short of money ... but it was useless becos I couldnt use it on my linux machine)
So the grammer/spelling/general annoyingness problem doesn't go away even after you stop using AOL?
4) IE is the best-known buggy and insecure browser.
/., you should learn to pick your battles more wisely.
If you're gonna defend M$ on
You might want to search for "googol" instead, if you mean 10^100 ;)
Just f**king download firefox and enjoy the f**cking google bar already build the f**k in. It's f**king great and I use it all the f**cking time.
Haha, alright man, I'm just f**cking with you. I still like to go to google.com. This article made me realize I should get rid that that f**king google bar. It's just wasting space and that pissed me the f**k off.
Fuck!
In a sense, what Google's doing here is taking what used to happen when you typed a non-domain'ed phrase into IE's address bar, a search at your selected search engine, and declaring that if the confidence score is high enough, equating that to an "I'm feeling lucky" click on the Google homepage.
In a sense, if the PageRank of hit #1 is so far away from the PageRank of hit #2... why bother with the selection screen, just assume that the user wants to see #1 and give it to them.
Options > More > under "Extra search Buttons" > select "I'm feeling lucky"
I don't use that one but I use the "search this site" feature all the time.
Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
copyright violation. click here for sueage.
I pwn this comment. "The Fine Print" says so.
I am curious about the impact on commerce sites who currently use search engine rankings as part of their overall marketing mix.
Why would a search for "Harman Kardon" take me to HarmanKardon.com instead of showing me the Top 10 results which might include discount resellers of Harmon Kardon products? Instead, I, the websurfer, now must wade through informational content and somehow find my way to resellers officially listed at the HK site.
Why would a search for "Grand Canyon" *not* take me to GrandCanyon.com?
If I type in "tshirts" or "cheap tshirts" what would I get (i.e., how it is determined what the "real" website is for a given keyword/phrase)?
I could go on and on, but surely it is readily apparent, if adopted en masse and if keywords/phrases are increasingly populated with a single response, the results could be highly disadvantageous to a wide range of commercial websites (and information sites, for that matter). Many changes at Google have already had the side effect of destabilizing some small businesses who previously relied on (ethical) search engine marketing as a major component of their commerce exchanges (and the many customers who were thankful to have found that commercial site).
Those magically blessed by Google, through a process we do not understand, will be the rare few who benefit.
(In some small way, it reminds me of Microsoft whereby they have all the answer [singular] you need. And only their official channel benefits. Because the mass of people are not Slashdotters who understand how to use a wide variety of tools for a wide variety of purposes. Instead, the masses are funneled through a pre-determined strainer.)
Finally, is there some kind of legal liability if Google directs searches for (something like) "Britney Spears" to the wrong site? Or, perhaps, if they have the technology in place to point it to the right site, but instead show raw search results none of which contain the official site? It seems to me that its a bit problematic to be the One and Great Arbiter of what's the single correct response to a query.
Contrary to some other posts, this type of 'technology' (whether in FireFox or in a Google ToolBar or AOL Keyword) is *very* newsworthy in that it can change the landscape for a wide number of commerical (and non-commerical) website traffic.
Back when Real Names was a business, I was working for a Movie Studio. The Real Names folks almost sounded threatening when they told us that we'd better snatch up our names before someone else did! Thankfully we just ignored them.
Best Buy can have you arrested
1. Go to your favorite web page (say www.nytimes.com).
2. Bookmark it (CTRL-D)
3. Go to the Bookmarks Manager (CTRL-B)
4. Scroll down to the entry you just added and press CTRL-I to edit it.
5. On the dialog that appears, there's a "Keyword" entry field, enter the "keyword" that you want to use for this web page you have bookmarked (example: nyt).
6. That's it!. Next time you enter "NYT" (unquoted of course) on the url entry field and press [enter] you're taken to www.nytimes.com
7. repeat for every web page that you want to create your personal keyword.
Some other suggestions:
1. Drop Internet Explorer and MS-Lookout! ^R^R^R^R^R^R Outlook.
2. Install Mozilla as your primary browser and e-mail client.
3. set your IE proxy to some non-existant internal IP address (10.x.x.x), on the exceptions list, put the windowsupdate page (makes it impossible for IE to reach out any page on the net, except windowsupdate).
FC
Type in "best browser" and you will get to.. http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/
Online backup with Mozy, sounds like Ozzie, but more!
How about adding a "trademark-domain" namespace scheme to Google, like "tm:music-distribution:apple", that finds only pages about Apple records, and not Apple Computers, using the existing trademark system?
--
make install -not war
I hope they've fixed their popup blocker with this new version. It seems like some asshole marketroid has found a way around it to pop ads on the screen with the toolbar running. Yea, that's going to be a really successful ad campaign. Serve popups to people who have taken specific effort to block them. When will these idiots get a clue?
It's called "Local Names," and it allows you to use short names for URLs.
The idea is that you should be able to use short names in:
We can presently use LocalNames in most wiki (any wiki that supports InterLinks,) in WordPress blogs, and in Firefox browsers.
The LocalNames spec doesn't describe what linking syntax should look like, but it'd generally be something like this: [[short name of URL][long text to link.]] So for example, you might write:
Which would render out as:
The names lists support defaulting, so that you don't have to name every URL you like. If someone makes a names list you like, (for example, the contents of a wiki,) you can just default to it.
There is already: a site for keeping your own names list, a web-browser redirection site, and a site for adapting a Wiki's title index into a Local Names list.
Python programmers may be interested in the Python library reference names, which you can use with FireFox to jump straight to any Python module's documentation.
Bloggers may be interested in MooKitty's plug-in for WordPress that lets you use LocalNames in blog posts.
Really, I get a little upset now when I have to look up URL's mid-post. I think, "Geeze, I've got the LocalName for this right on the tip of my tongue; Why do I have to actually resolve it to a URL myself, and then stick a href tags around it?"
Once you start using short names for stuff, you never want to go back.
big deal. firefox is doing this already. type keyword in the address bar, & it directly takes you to a page, mostly harmless ;).
I consider myself pretty damned good at Google search terms, and I'm still amazed how often what I consider really useful is buried a couple of pages down. The top hitters often make sense, but they are simply not what I wanted.
I have no intention of actually running IE to test it out but I assume it's a feature that can be enabled/disabled by the user. If so, making the choice available isn't any big deal. Now, if you can't go back to the default behavior, that's a different story.
All in all, me likes Google. Me wishes me had some pre-IPO shares; would like Google even better then.
- Leo
You don't use science to show that you're right, you use science to become right.
Try searching for failure on google.
- Sogudi allows to do almost the same thing with safari, though it is a bit different. :
For example
goo monkeys : will search google for monkeys
goo site:monkeys : will search the current site on google for monkeys
babfr www.yahoo.fr : will translate yahoo.fr from French to English using babelfish, etc.
All of this configurable, of course.
- Acid Search enhances the Safari's google search button, by adding a drop menu, so you can have more search engines, including Google's "I'm Feeling Lucky" feature.
Alexis 'jeriqo' BRET
1. Type a keyword (or several) into the google toolbar
2. hit alt-enter (shortcut to feeling lucky)
I've experimented with this method and the newer one and I find the older one to be much more useful. The new method is less apt to give you a wrong page, but the old method turns out to be outstandingly accurate.
The newer method never works with obscure websites, but the other one does very frequently. Try "cgnet" by both methods, for example.
Another advantage to the alt-enter method is that you can get to the right internal links in one click. Try "ford explorer" both ways.
BTW, the newer feature has been available since v2.0.113 (2004-07-30), so it's not exactly news.