Slashdot Mirror
Google Still Ahead In Search Competition
ricst writes "Google is, as we all know, King of the Hill. But Yahoo, MSN and others have come a long ways towards catching up as this International Herald Tribune article describes. The gap between 'best' and 'next best' has narrowed substantially. The good thing is that we all benefit as these guys keep challenging each other."
The important part, do they do no evil?
How is this gap measured? It's all a matter of opinion. All search engines can give you at least somewhat relevent results.
I'm glad I subscribed to Slashdot so I can read articles like this early. Now I need to grep my subscriber RSS feed so it drops me an email whenever Slashdot mentions Google or Gmail. :)
Don't forget A9, which recently added some virtual locality features. I think the fact that it's a subsidiary of another internet behemoth (Amazon.com) gives it some edge as well.
Google: H-yup.
MSN and Yahoo still have a long way to go. I like Google for its simplistic site design and its lack of obtrusive banner advertisements shoved in your face. I use the word simplistic cautiously because as we all know Google is very powerful and keeps getting better every day. Who seriously wants to support Microsoft anyways?
just for giggles, i tried searching MSN for friend chicken and search result number nine was University of North Texas Dining Services' Menu. Not sure how relevant that is, or maybe its relevant to our discussion.... because it is not.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
The main thing I think that keeps Google ahead of everyone else is that they seem to be some nice folks.
They've never gone and done anything nefarious (Micro$haft), and they've never had to switch search engines every other month (Yahoo!). They've just put out a quality product and improved on it continuously.
They've got good tools that are both powerful and unobtrusive. They have very good search results. And they offer free services that make using their software a real pleasure.
Yahoo and Microsoft can try to do what they like, but they just aren't as cool as Google. I seem to recall a previous article on Slashdot that stated that most searches conducted at Micro$haft are done on Google, even over M$N search.
Because of the quality of it's search engine Google has, over time, became a part of speach. How many times have i heard people say "i just googled for it" or "i found this and that after some googling". Internet search is now associated with google, its the mindset of the vast majority and that is going to be very hard to compete with.
In case of slashdotting, the article is also available from the NY Times.
It wasn't a very informative read -- quick summary is that Yahoo and MSN are catching up to Google (they don't give many specifics as to what "catching up" means) and each of these companies is making more money from searches than they have in the past. They allude briefly to Yahoo improving their search technology and Google losing focus somewhat due to management being preoccupied by their IPO.
JAMWiki Java-based Wiki engine
Pretty damn ugly and unreadable. These people need to figure out some basics of WWW before they try to write on the Internet about anything related to Internet.
Webmasters, go check your logs. It looks like MSN is heading for a very frequently updated search engine.
I host 13 websites on my servers, and on some of them, msnbots causes most of the traffic. It's about a crawl a day.
"To google for something" has became part of common language. People have associated the word with the web search concept, plus it does a great job and is quite innovative.
Every once in a while, I'll use yahoo (as I have an old email there mostly) or when google won't find something (almost never).
But don't count on me to use MSN. I think I've already paid far too much microsoft tax (starting to become more and more fed up about these guys), and they really don't need advertizing revenue from me. And the only way they seem to be able to get half decent results - is by using some bots to harvest google results (not completely ethical imho). Plus, I've always seen "MSN" as crap - especially after having seen the IM. Plus their webpage is quite "graphically overloaded" (yahoo is a bit like that too, flash ads are particularly annoying). When I want to do a quick search, I like google simple logo (which changes with holidays) and a simple seach box.
Google works. The results are great, the (text) ads are unobtrusive, they're innovative, and they've earned everyone's trust. Competition is good sometimes, but I'm not about to switch to another search engine.
///<sig
...Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead."
Sorry, Michael, you're no Chevy Chase.
SIERRA TANGO FOXTROT UNIFORM
Google may best a9.com in the search department, but not when it comes to the patent department. Helped out by parent Amazon, a9.com boasts twenty four patent assignments (17 issued, 7 pending), while Google falls short with twenty one (8 issued, 13 pending).
Comment removed based on user account deletion
But had flaws. I knew it would take some time but eventually the COMMERCIAL SPAMMERS got their way with it.
I have tried certain searches in the business fields and have had no luck.
I tried doing a search on science of skin but all i get are skin care companies.
Google is a DUMB technology. Lets look for links instead of trying to understand the request like real human interactions.
I may start my own search engine company. Any programmers out there work for food. I make excellent handmade pizza.
Indeed it's just you. There is a HUGE difference to anyone between google's neat logo and simple text box (and unobtrusive text ads on results pages) and some visually overloaded page with ads all over them - including flash ads, tons of pictures, and 2 pages of text. friend chicken? you're friends with chicken? I don't think we really want to know more...
Natural Language usage of "Ask Jeeves"
As for me, encouraged by "ask a question in natural language", I asked "where to find info about (X)" and was presented with thousands of results "where to find info about (everything but X)".
My reaction was:
"Ack! Jeezzz! This search engine is DUMB!"
Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Just based on the one I had been poking at earlier on google, MSN (or their cache) turns up differnt types of errors/failures.
Its also noticeable that the same searches turn up different reporting sites. MSN seems not to like packetstorm & many others.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
So...? What's your point :-)
I'll just go assume you're an anti-patent zealot, but when the difference is 3 patents, and Google actually has more granted patents, I fail to see what the big deal about A9 would be.
Who cares about Google. They are not God or even close. In fact it's not so much Google is so great but all the others are so BAD.
Google has become incredibly flakey lately turning up worse and worse results, I'm not sure this is all to do with spammers either. Sometimes I have to add about 10 different -this -that to a search to get relevant results. It's very much gone down hill and some of it's page ranking is a nonsense.
The original posting says Yahoo and friends are catching up. Well good. Google desperately needs more serious competition than it has. Things without serious or adequate competition are a monopoly and guess what ? That's bad
It seems that when Google does something innovative, EVERYONE follows suit. For instance, Google video, Google desktop search, Google translator, etc, etc. Some of those were actually there fist in obscure places and google found them and adapted them. Also, the issue with the algorithm in which Google ranks its pages in regular search is still under review, a la Google bomb. Try typing "Miserable Failure" in google and hitting I'm Feeling Lucky. Now, it's not that I dont agree with that statement, its that Google needs to fiddle with their search algorithm a bit. But, I still believe, Google catches the most relevant and the most results of any other serahc engine i've ever seen. And now they're coming out with Google Video, for searching what time your favorite program is on. http://www.video.google.com/ Plus the AdWords problem everyone else has mentioned.
While the author of the article see that Google is increasing its lead, he think it will narrow in the future due to new exciting features e.g. Yahoo has to offer?
:-p Bogged down "portals" with tons of clutter comes into mind.
He fail to mention anything about MSN Search and A9 closing any gaps. And in November, Google increased the searches on sites owned by them with 5.3 percentage units and Yahoo with 1.1. He then goes ahead and speaks of gain in USA, but again fails to mention what they would be.
If he's saying that as long as these companies keep pushing new products, they're gaining a lead, I don't really agree with that. They need to be successful with that first...
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
The good thing is that we all benefit as these guys keep challenging each other.
Right.. even as we slowly lose our privacy?
Pagerank is just a start.. and future compliances towards the Patriot Act. I can't see this being a purely beneficial cause for the user.
When I go to the store I can pick up any box of "Kleenex" - even by a different brand name - without noticing.
But how can you go to "google" something, then type in "www.yahoo.com" (or other search engine). With search engines, far more than with any physical product, the name ties much more directly into use of the product and therefore is far stronger.
Microsoft is trying to head off this tide by making it so easy to search that you no longer need to type in "google" to a browser. But even there Google is one step ahead with the google search bar.
As long as most people get to google via some typing, there will not be the same brand dilution issues that things like Kleenex have.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The only reason I'm posting is because I had just woken from a nightmare. For some reason, I had left my keys in the door lock... and about 10 people who were about to do no good figured this out.
Either way, go search google for "fired chicken" and there's a noticeable lack of .edu results in the first 4 pages.
Just in keeping with the "Funny" (bastard) moderation of the parent, i came across this gem: The Air Farce Chicken Cannon Which caught my attention mostly because it started out with "Royal Canadian"
An edu does turn up on page 5 though. I pity their toilets after they eat "Fiery Pepper Pot Stew"
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
on how nice that three column layout the herald tribune is using is. No registration, nice readable pages.
Surely you can't be talking about the International Herald Tribune. The only clean, elegant, readable news site on the web? It looks great in IE and Firefox; what browser are you using?
Someone obvously put a lot of thought into designing this site. Text is arranged in narrow columns, making it more natural to read, kinda like a real newspaper. Navigation is intuitive; printing and emailing articles is easy. What more could you want?
The Beauty Queen
Functional and substantial... compelling...
The designer is a god among mortals..."
In terms of design, Google:search::IHT:news
if the alternative is having to pay to view content. More power to the "masses" who keep the internet largely free for the rest of us. You may not have noticed this but Slashdot carries ads. If ad-filtering capable software like Firefox (which I use myself, don't get me wrong) become predominant it'll mean more subscription based content. At the end of the day someone has to pay for all this.
s/"stil"/"still"/g
MS will win this in the medium term, they have the most $$ to throw at it, and they can skew the field by making MSN the mandatory default.
Searchengine technology will then suck for a while.
Eventually, a community-based project will come along and challenge MS (maybe a firefox plugin to feed a distributed page ranking system using bittorrent to sync the databases)
Been there, done that (web-browsers, mail client, OS, word-processor etc)
hole in wasky conspiracy theory #1: I live in new york city, and building 7 was not "miles away" as you put it. It was only a few hundred METERS away. It was all part of the same block of buildings (hense the two "twin towers" were buildings 1 and 2, this was building 7).
hole in wasky conspiracy theory #2: (from the video) "Why don't we read hundreds of stories about building 7's collapse and only about the towers?" - maybe because 3,000 people died when building's 1 and 2 fell around ~9am, and ZERO people died when building 7 collapsed much later?
You want to know how I pick my detergent? I choose the one with the most patents, because then I can be reasonably sure that time, money and effort went into researching how to keep my brights bright. (FYI, it's invariably P&G's Tide.)
And I'm not kidding.
don't feed the trolls. they live for this.
In other news tonight, Slashdot falls behind in the Search For Interesting News competition.
Can we just go two days without talking about how google is going to own your mind in 2017 or whatever?
Until the other search engines release competing APIs (hopefully with a higher than 1000 query limit), Google will remain top dog from the POV of /. types.
Neither Yahoo nor MSN provide a View as HTML option for PDFs, it's really useful when you are not so sure if that's what you want and you dan't want to wait a hell of a time for Acrobat Reader to load. Or even worse, to download it and then open it with xpdf for every file that might have some spec about some transistor.
you're right. damn - my bad.
I just love that almost nobody thinks about A9 when you speak about search engines, even though it has been there for more time than MSN.
Does anybody really uses it when you are searching for something?
It's funny how everything in this (pseudo-)decentralized environment keeps naturally migrating towards a single central point that everything else revolves around. Not that I think this is a good or bad thing, it seems that its just a natural part of everything human to form itself into some structure resembling the state (city=net,government=google,citizens=sites), which may be also true of much of the natural world as well (galaxies, for example, are drawn together around a common object, which is similar, although the cause of it is different).
;)), or maybe it's too difficult (maybe it's impossible)...
;)
It's almost as if, given the chance at a total level of equality, we unconsciously back away from it. Maybe equality isn't what we need or want (subconsciously speaking, of course
Perhaps P2P is the answer to this little late-night rant -- the example of a lasting and true decentralized system -- but seeing as how the only real mainstream applications of it have so far been illegal activities, I don't see it replacing the WWW any time soon (ie. freenet).
Does any of this make sense, or am I just really tired?
putfwd.com - 1GB Free file storage with a twist
I have been wondering is that real, or is an AI. But I think that it is real. Bizarre.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
And heck, everyone can tell TiVo is going to die, despite their name being taken in as a verb.
It means nothing.
To be able not to scroll down-up-down-up-down to read the whole article. My laptop's screen is not exactly the size of the paper version. Firefox on Linux, of course.
Interesting! Thanks for the link.
>A company normally goes public because it needs
:)
>the extra bit of investment, right?
Yes, but Google isn't an ordinary company. Google is highly cashflow positive and didn't need to raise capital. I think the main reason it went public was so that there was a market for existing shareholders (like employees with options) to sell shares, and because they reached a size where they needed to disclose a lot of information anyway.
>Do shares continue to affect how much money it
>has once it's gone public?
Typically not -- unless they want to raise more money, or want to issue shares to take over another company.
>If investors don't care about ethics and google
>ignores this, their stock will go down and they
>won't be an attractive investment.
Yes, but since the Google founders have effective control, they might not care.
MyLinkVault - online bookmarks with a fast drag-and-dr
OMG IT REALLY is the 24 seaosn won torent.
u shud downlode it nWO.
YEAH!
Looks great in Firefox?
Um, I shouldn't have to highlight text to scroll it up and down. The International Herald Tribune has one of the most God-awful ugly and annoying page formats I've ever encountered, and that includes the Geocities and AOL wastelands.
Google relies on the browser, and although, as noted, Firefox is already very Google friendly, Google is determined not to let MSFT define the battlefield. Google is big enough to take the battle to Redmond, by taking it to the desktop, starting with GMail and Google Desktop http://desktop.google.com/, then GBrowser (see whois below), then a suite of apps - Photos (Picasa), music (GTunes?), movies (GVideo?), etc. - designed to incease their desktop presence and mindshare. Then who knows, a desktop OS? (GLinux - their own version of Linux)
It's the rational thing to do as the new 900 pound gorrilla. Hence they will hire the best they can find in each area, while still trying to maintain the support of the open source community. How users react will depend on the amount of control Google tries to exert, and how arrogant they are perceived to be.
Whois: Domain Name: gbrowser.com Registrant:Google Inc. (DOM-1278108) 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway Mountain View, CA 94043 Technical Contact, Zone Contact: DNS Admin (NIC-1467103) Google Inc. 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway Mountain View, CA 94043 dns-admin@google.com +1.6503300100 Fax- +1.6506188571 Created on: 2004-Apr-26. Expires on: 2006-Apr-26.
it's good and i'm sure it'll last... as long as search is profitable...
Get your torrents...
-- Try Nuggets from your UK mobile phone.
I wouldn't be surprised if the next competitor for google and yahoo in the searchbiz would come out of China. There are already very decent search engines available in China like baidu.com, sogou.com or zhongsou. Zhongsou (which provides search for china's biggest portal sina) claims that they are ahead of all competitors in the field of desktop search: "We are eight months ahead of all our competitors in terms of technology - at least, thanks to our latest desktop search software," said Chen Pei, president of zhongsou.com, a leading Chinese search engine provider. The competitors Chen referred to include Google, Microsoft and Baidu, he explained. Baidu is the largest Chinese-language searching firm. Source: http://china-netinvestor.blogspot.com/
People don't try a selection of search engines every day then use whichever's best. They find a search engine they like and stick with it.
The competitors are going to have to be considerably better than Google before people will switch in significant numbers. Or they're going to have to cheat... bundling, anyone?
Look at IE versus other browsers: IE has been behind on features for years, but does it make people switch? No, they use what they're used to.
If you believe what the International Herald Tribune has to say, you need to re-think your lives. I've read better news down at the fish market.
I see the Search Engine Watch guy says a bunch of stuff that's really inconsequential. I don't really care about Gmail being available by invite only. I don't care that Froogle and News are still in "beta". It doesn't make google any less of a search engine.
The truth is, MSN and Yahoo are limited. They load a lot slower. I have no idea how they work, what they're return, and I have NO desire to see their advertising. I don't trust MSN as far as I can throw them. Google, at least I understand the results, it's consistent, and I understand that they are going to come up with a text-based advertisement. And, it's BLAZING fast. I read the news. I use froogle on occasion. I quit using Yahoo. Yahoo is selective about who they have in on their site. That's the exact OPPOSITE of what I'm looking for.
Reading this rubbish from the International Herald Tribune leads me to believe that these clowns aren't broadcasting the news, they're assembling a bunch of fiction and selling it to you as a collection of facts.
Thanks for posting this rubbish.
www.jux2.com compares the result sets from google, yahoo, and ask jeeves and you can immediately see what's missing from each
I believe Google is rapidly becoming useless because the top results-- and I mean PAGES and PAGES of results-- for any reasonably common search term are junk. Why should a search that returns 200,000 entries give you the same top results (often from spammers, at that) each time? Randomizing results-- bringing out pages deeper in the stack that may be just as relevent as the top-- would be a great way to level the playing field.
Just disable stylesheets and JS and you'll get a nice clean page.
Although with some graphics on top, but you can disable them too.
gigablast (yeah, at gigablast dot com) also offers xml results if you're willing to pay.
First they say that the gap between Google and competitors is narrowing but they also say that " In November, 51.9 percent of searches were on sites owned by Google, up from 46.6 percent a year earlier. ".
This does not mean that the gap is narrowing, in my opinion, but that it is widening !!
The problem with Google, according to Mr. Sullivan, is that
But trying to diversify their offer may be Google's strenght, not weakness
Parent is not a troll -- this is a reference to a classic running joke on Saturday Night Live, lampooning news coverage of General Francisco Franco's death in 1965.
Presumably this was intended as humorous commentary on Michael's bizarrely editorializing headline, which recasts an article about Google's narrowing lead in the search engine market as a story about its continued dominance -- not to mention stating the obvious.
Nonsense! Things would be much better if the government simply nationalized all search engine companies. The government could publish a five year plan to direct the economy and things would be much more efficient and equitable. I'm absolutely sure that the workers would be much more happier under this system and productivity would increase fivefold.
I choose the one with the most patents, because then I can be reasonably sure that time, money and effort went into researching how to keep my brights bright.
Yeah, because all that time they spent on filing patents sure wasn't wasted when it could have been spent on bettering the product.
Is this a new?
In related news, Linux still free, and water freezes at 0C.
DON'T PANIC
Very true. Infortunately, people doesn't seem to be nice to Google. As an example let's take this "Google file system" from some time ago. As much as I am usually against frivolous lawsuits, in this case I really hoped Google had sued its authors and won. Why? Because this so called "file system" is a classical example of parasite which can only hurt Google. And for what? So its "developers" could have their project posted on Slashdot frontpage? So they could say "look, mom, how bloody 'leet' I am"? But no, Google didn't sue them, even though I strongly advised them to. They are nice even to people who violate them.
But the problem persists. What if one day someone writes a "file system" stealing storage from Slashdot, saving its files in the form of gigabyte first posts filled with goats.ex links and literally tons of uuencoded pornography? This is exactly the same, only much worse, because unlike Slashdot Google has much less intrusive advertisements and no bias and corporate agenda. From every greedy US corporation, Google is unquestionably the closest to being absolutely perfect. And how do we say "thank you"? By stealing their property? By advertising this pathetic thief "file system" on the front page of the most popular website on the north hemisphere?
I just want to remind you that I was strongly against it from the very beginning, explicitly voicing my concerns when it was a "hot" topic, only to get completely ignored by the entire community. But we cannot tolerate such a behaviour, I'm sorry. Google is not another IBM who didn't see anything wrong in helping build concentration camps or Cisco who is perfectly comfortable with building the largest machines of censorship and oppression in the history of human kind.
Google, unlike any other company, is trying to do what is best for us. They deserve our gratefulness and respect. The existence of script kiddies shamefully exploiting Google's services for their own miserable advantage is a precedence not only insulting to our intelligence but a one actually harmful for us in the long run, because that could possibly mean the end of fantastic projects from Google, when they eventually stop to think and inevitably say: "Hey, what's the point of doing no evil? What's the point of being nice guys if people just want to steal from us? Maybe that pop-up pornography ads and paid search results placement weren't such a bad idea after all?" I know I certainly would.
Sorry for a long rant. I just love Google and I hate people who hurt it. I think it is great that Google is still ahead. The question is: how long will they survive in the world of greedy scums like M$N, AO£ and ¥ahoo? Is there a place for nice guys in the world ruled by greedy bastards? I certainly hope so.
Sincerely,
Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
"Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
Personally, when I first started surfing the web (c. 1997) I used Altavista. I don't remember when I first discovered Google. It was a fast change, so much so I just subconciously accepted it's superiority.
Strange though, at some point in the last few months I've created a Search Engine folder my bookmarks and managed to fill it up... now how did that happen?
I still remember the time when Altavista and Yahoo were the kings. Then google came and dominated in a few years. I don't think it would be impossible for the same to happen again, but as long as google remains focused on improving their engine I think it's very difficult for this to happen.
The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
Many slashdotters have remarked that they switched from Altavista to Google. I say that this only happened because Google was significantly better. It had nothing to do with the name. Imagine if Altavista had a short catchy name. People would still have switched to Google because of the then superior PageRank algorithm.
"sweet dreams are made of this..."
I'll still think google is the best, until that "Yahoo Powered" search of sourceforge starts to turn up good results. I find the results that it pulls up to be very bad unless you're searching by the project name. Bad search results are worse than no search results.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
I think that whatever Google deems to do, they will just do it and be successful at it.
And no matter how much they track me, I am more happy with it than with MSN or Yahoo!. I use Google on a daily basis and while it was getting worse a couple month ago to find what I was looking for it has been getting a lot better recently. So whatever I am looking for, they find.
http://blog.klimpong.de
There is no such thing as "fair use" in the UK (and Europe AFAIK).
I doubt that this would really fall under fair use in US as, from what I've read, that applies to re-use of copyrighted works when you have some rights to them already (quoting books, re-formatting musical works, etc.).
This is an adaptation of an original work. It shows the initial artistic work in low quality and therefore infringes not only on the commercial rights of the "artist" but also on their moral rights!
Consider how to prevent people buying a poster and then distributing their own postcards of that poster in competition with the original artist. Sounds like google is doing the digital equivalent.
If copyright laws were strictly followed life would far less of a rich tapestry.
PS: I don't see anything wrong with what google do per se, just pointing out that it seems incompatible with the law.
Its way too hard to maintain, as its entirely manual, but search engines were at their best when Yahoo catagorized everything under their directory. It was so easy to find relevant sites, and it was nice when you did a search, if the page it found wasnt relevant, you could always click the directory link and it would bring you to similar sites without you having to guess what the best keywords to use are. I wish someone would come up with some way of automating something like this.
Am I missing something? go look at Yahoo and MSN, they look exactly like google right down to the colours and ad-placement, all that differs is the search results and that just depends on who has paid you the most money...
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Because Microsoft doesn't have a policy of "don't be evil"? But, I am sure if Google ever acts evil, people will turn on them.
Google spanked Microsoft on their OWN turf - and I am not talking about the internet search. Google Desktop - a tool that users can install on their computer to search for things on the computer. That is a built-in function of the OS, yet Google simply swatted it out of the way like a gnat. Sure, other companies like Yahoo are scrambling to get a piece of the action, but so is MICROSOFT! Talk about lack of innovation. They OWN the desktop market, they produce the OS, yet now they are going to be releasing a tool that does what their OS can't? Why haven't they updated their search capabilities before now? (and I am not talking about "animated dog" innovations) Microsoft shows its true colors yet again, and reminds me why I should not support them - they don't support me as a computer user.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
A9.com's Web Search Results are enhanced by Google. Data provided by A9.com and Alexa Internet is also used for search history and Site Info.
Weird. I wonder if they mean Google's results are added to their own search results or if it's just colorful language meaning all their results.
BytesTemplar.com
I work for a long distance company and I spend a lot of time confirming numbers people dispute on their bill (i.e. I DEEN'T CALL THES NUMBER AN IF YOU CAYANT PROVE I DE-ID, I'M GONE SEEWWW YEW SUMBEACHES).
If we can't find a number using AnyWho, we always use Google next and I'd say 99.9% of the time this resolves the issue without having to verify the call with the term party (i.e. If that lady's daughter wasn't sleeping with my husband, my number wouldn't be on her bill).
When Yahoo first said they weren't going to use Google anymore for their search results, I really didn't believe them. I mean it took them forever to admit what we already knew so the trust factor was a little broken.
It took a while, but gradually the returns from searches did seem to be different or different enough. I'm like well, ok, they're on their own now, but Google still gives more or better results.
Until recently. Lately, searching Yahoo has been like back in the 90's when I first discovered HotBot(R.I.P.) then Google. In the past month or so, I actually have found what I wanted easier and faster using Yahoo. By faster I don't really mean return speed, I'm actually referring more to the relevance of the first items returned.
It's not every single time, but often enough and different enough where now, I don't just use Google by default anymore. I actually make a point to check both and lately Yahoo is gaining on them in turns of generating the results I need and on returning a search that's different enough from Google that's it's worth the extra time to see what Yahoo turns up as well.
Now my searches are for very simple and every day thing. However it seems to me, it's always those small things that cause the tide to turn in the larger pool of profitability in the long run.
I also like the new video search. To be honest, it's cut down my pr0n search time a lot. Uh, at home of course, not at work.
Shareholders "own" the company, but managers control the company. When referring to companies being good or evil, most people essentially mean the managers are good or evil, not the shareholders. Yes, it is very possible for companies to be good or evil if it has good or evil managers.
Microsoft still dominates the OS market.
possibly -- but the only problem with those search engines is that unlike Google and Yahoo, their names just sound like gibberish.
SIGUSR1
(nt)
A company is only as "good" or as "evil" as its majority shareholder.
I wonder if google is another microsoft in the making in terms of monopoly. If you browse the web, you cannot help wonder this because it has got a finger in almost all the pies in the internet arena. You name it, they are a part of it .
/ /veg-recipes,blogspot.como gspot.com
email - gmail
search - desktop search, web search
image software - picassa
advertising - most website carry ads by google nowadays. Including slashdot.org (heh heh)
web blogs - blogger
These are just a few that come to my mind.
ravee
--
http://linuxhelp.blogspot.com
http:
http://thoughts2005.bl
http://favourate_books.blogspot.com
Linux Help
for all things on Linux
I have started using blinkx now and then instead of google. It has some features that make it a good choice for research usage.
What about upstart IceRocket? It's backed by Mark Cuban and has some innovative searches. The design is quite reminisent of google.
My new search engine in a nutshell:
1.One domain (*NO* subdomains) - one webpage. No exceptions!
2. Allow users to 'vote up' useful pages with IP address-based safeguards to avoid/reduce fraud.
3. Simple 'keyword' system via page content. No more keword 'weighting' via HTML context.
As a result:
1. No more 'free home pages' (unless a domain points to it).
2. No more 'spamdexing' by big commercial-driven sites -- see rule/feature 1 above
3. Spammers cannot 'game the system' via 'pagerank' but have to 0wn/use *MANY* different IP-addresses to 'vote up' their spamhausen.
Any comments on this approach?
Actually, corporations that are "for profit" and publicly traded are required by law to make every effort to get a "return on investment" for all expenditures made. They may not, in other words, engage in charity of any sort without effectively stealing this money from the stockholders. This principle has been well established in law since the Dodge brothers sued Henry Ford for trying to reduce the price of his vehicles because he thought he was making too much money. The Dodge brothers were Ford stockholders and won their suit. The implication of this principle when applied to a political contributions is very interesting: the corporation making the "contribution" has an explicit "return on investment" in mind, or that "contribution" is a violation of the fiduciary responsibility of the corporation to the stockholders of that corporation. In plain words, it is a bribe. From the politician's point of view, it is the means that makes possible his employment and power, and thus it is beyond belief when he claims that these contributions are not influencing. Both parties to this transaction are clearly aware of its nature, and encourage it.
This sort of bribery has been going on for centuries in the United States, but reached a "no stopping it" point when Reagan stopped enforcing anti-trust laws. The resulting consolidation of corporate power has left this sector of our society firmly in charge of every aspect of our lives, and it is always for the benefit of the corporations, not ours. No politician can now survive the power of the corporation to slander him, or simply out-spend him.
Some folks are trying to fight this phenomenon in an unusual way, they are trying to push through citizen's initiatives in the 24 states that allow them that "Prohibit the Bribery of Elected Public Officials." They argue that if you can define corporate contributions as bribes and invoke laws against bribery against those who engage in this practice you can break the link that corporations use to control politicians. They just got started a couple of weeks ago, but things are moving right along in Florida, for a start. At this point they are waiting for a legal review of the petition as it was written by one of the members of the group. For more info, go here.
voting system installed in a browser or a program.
I have thought of that too.
The other problem is understanding the question when entered in a search.
These search engines are just looking for words . Therefore spammed words.
For example, I always refer to tissues (unless they're actually made by Kleenex and I want to stress the fact), and I think pretty much everyone here does. Similarly, people generally refer to photocopying rather than Xeroxing, and to plasters instead of Band-Aids.
A few brand names do get used -- Coke is an obvious case, as is Sellotape. Tipp-Ex gets used for correction fluid, though some people still refer to Snopake which is confusing to us younger folks who've never seen it! Ditto biros, which are mostly made by Bic these days.
It's not consistent, though; for example, I'd guess that people are just as likely to refer to a vacuum cleaner as to a Hoover, though I'd be much more likely to hear Hoovering than vacuum cleaning, whatever the actual brand. (I gather that it's the other way around in the US...?)
Of course, some of our common brands are different from yours. We're unlikely to refer to Krazy Glue, for example, because it's not sold here (or if it is, I've not seen it); we call it Superglue instead. The same applies to Jell-O; we use the generic jelly here. (Yes, yes, I know you use that for something different; we call that jam.)
So folk who use brand names a lot should be aware that they don't always travel -- I for one have been confused and annoyed by references to popsicles, Q-tips, Tylenol, dumpsters, Sharpies, &c which aren't sold or generally recognised here. (I expect that some UK brand names would confuse Americans just as much -- except that, as I've said, I don't think we tend to use them as much!)
I don't know why the preference for brand names should differ like this. To me excessive use seems parochial and common; and while at times that can be a useful effect (as used by people like Alan Bennett and Victoria Wood), it's not usually the sort of impression you want to give.
Maybe it's a result of advertising -- from what I've seen, the industry seems much more aggressive in the USA, and maybe Americans are happy to comply. I still don't understand why they're so happy to do part of their jobs for them, though...
BTW, Wikipedia has a page discussing genericised trademarks, though it makes no mention of the geographical variation. Hmm, maybe I should suggest it...
Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.
True, but an intelligent search minimizes this effect. Adding the word "review" or a brief synopsis of the problem usually suffices. You can also specify "anti-keywords" like "price."
I do think google is working on some clustering technology (you can see it in google labs), and if implemented it could possibly provide the least correlated yet still relevant hits - and less correlated would presumably mean "not all commercial."
If they're not working on that, they should.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
Most real reviews have a wrap up section where they recommend or don't recommend an item. I've had better luck getting actual reviews using the "recommend" keyword instead of "review". I submitted an "Ask Slashdot" article several months ago asking what good tricks people had come up with for filtering out sales sites on Google. The editors rejected it even though I'm convinced it's something millions of geeks do every day.
We only benefit today if Google is improving. I don't see much sign of that. We gain nothing from a bunch of also-rans with small pieces of the "market" that are still inferior in technology, whether anyone switches or not.
you had me at #!
Coke rules the world.
Last 3 presidents come from COKE country !!!
http://www.popvssoda.com/
These search engines are just looking for words . Therefore spammed words.
The 'voting' approach and simple keyword approach (mentioning a keword more than once only counts 1 time--the rest are ignored) will keep 'normal' keyword spamming to a minimum. However, it won't do anything for typo-based keyword spamming.... =/
Both do. (for MSN, it's the "cached" link.)
Corporations do not exist to make money. Corporations exist to do what their owners want them to do.
If I am the owner - I am free to require that my corporation does good. You, forbidding my (I underscore: MY) corporation to do anything but money is actually practicing non-economic coersion... just like some hard-core communist.
What a wonderful thought! Yes, and er, No, depending on how you read your question and how you read the state of things here in the UK.
.
:
Yes, there are written sections in Copyright 1988 that reserve the rights i refered to.
No, Crown / Govt. does not imply right of fiat, i.e. any one person's unilateral action.
But there may be some work - arounds, some appealingly subversive, some rather worrying by their preconditions . .
The Govt. has explicit rights in the UK copyright acts, including for public lending. This is referred to as Crown Copyright for historical reasons. I think the Queen Anne act of 1710 might have started the use of Crown to mean Govt. in this sense, though it's late and I'm not up to much research right now.
Rather, I'm afraid, in the sense I emphasised from your post above, the Monarch does little but rubber - stamp acts of parliament.
I get the impression by "IP abusers" you mean aggressively litigant copyright owners? IMO they are best told to shove off in the courts, but that takes time. The UK is sadly lacking organisations like the EFF. We have always been rather poor on such activist issues in comparison with the USA. But courts take time, and there will necessarily be collateral damage.
So in the sense you mean, to stop abuse of copyright rights by commercial interests, no one person quite has the power, and i have not seen a High Court case of a P2P sharer so far. When there is one, this will get interesting, as many Justices (Judges) in the commercial courts are very sharp at throwing out companies who over-reach and over-interpret. Bernie Ecclestone, the F1 racing honcho and many others have found they are spared little consideration, often receiving a real dressing - down in the judges reasoning. If you mean that we need laws to stop vexatious litigation by "IP abusers", i say only that some proper review of the wording of the law would help best with this, as does happen from time to time to occasionally sweeping effect. The Law Lords are feeling increasingly marginalised by and even hostile towards our Labour Govt. which has acted increasingly to interpret the law through statutes. No-one save Franz Von Papen, the fool who traded seats with Hitler in the Chancellery has done as much to make LAW a matter for the state, rather than for the courts, as our dear Mr Blair. So whilst I fairly bet, if he wanted, Blair could issue a statutory instrument to change the law by executive power (i.e. a statutory instrument is drawn up by a civil servant, who are increasingly political appointees) without a debate in parliament, i doubt he's about to bother. But a geeky Prime Minister, with all the new dictatorial powers available, might just agree with you. It would be an abuse, nonetheless. Individual Fiat is not permissable, even if it appears we have to suffer it.
Back to the good part of your idea
Where it could get interesting is should a protected authority, such as a library, open up archives for public electronic access. Many libraries in London carry excellent lending stock of videos music and DVDs, often difficult to find rare or foreign language titles. What would happen if a library ripped its collection to a server? Personally, i think the library would prevail against infringement suits if, and only if, there was a time - limit imposed with some form of DRM, as in using your library number to access a title.
I am surprised that one or more of our notoriously left - wing, even militant left wing city councils has NOT already tried thi
The druids were ancient celtic priests. Their group still exists today in secret, despite the existence of charlatan groups claiming to be free. He simply wants to support microsoft anyways?
Because you are not!
I guess that line of conversation is buggered, then! A joint is a house licensed for the next 2000 years.
Killing for peace is like fucking for virginity.
I guess you worry about google as well.
The sun is the opening at the cached content feature of google: in every other context this feature would have been called breach of copyright.
White people need guns to kill niggers.
Because i'm on the number you want.