Slashdot Mirror


Google Local, Definitions, & Registrar

A few Google bits in the bin this morning starting with Philipp Lenssen writes "Google Local has now moved to the Google homepage. The service, while still in beta, has been around for quite a while as one of many Google tools in the Google labs." Mr. Anonymous noted that "In the past, when you clicked the [definition] link after a Google search, you'd be taken to the Dictionary.com page for the word. Now, Google has jumped aboard GuruNet's Answers.com, which not only provides definitions, but encyclopedia articles, etymology, medical defnitions, legal definitions, and word translations all on one page." And lastly, several folks noted that Google has moved into the Domain Registrar Biz which we mentioned monday.

218 comments

  1. I'll buy a Google Domain by IO+ERROR · · Score: 0, Troll
    Google registering domains? Sounds good, but only if they can help me search for that elusive domain that isn't already taken! Or better yet, get my old domain name back from that asshat squatter.

    Google Local is also pretty useful for finding things which may not necessarily be on the Internet, though you'll have to actually leave the house and go to the location on the map to complete your search. Don't forget, when you perform this type of search, that showering and wearing clean clothes are quite beneficial in the social situations you're likely to encounter.

    Oh, and if you see your mom this weekend, be sure and tell her Dupe! Dupe! Dupe! Dupe! Dupe!

    --
    How am I supposed to fit a pithy, relevant quote into 120 characters?
    1. Re:I'll buy a Google Domain by chris09876 · · Score: 5, Informative

      I could swear I read somewhere recently that at the moment, Google didn't plan on offering domains for sale. Instead, they were going to use the information they got as a registrar to help their PageRank data. For example, they could reset a domains PageRank when the domain changed hands.

    2. Re:I'll buy a Google Domain by KillerDeathRobot · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oh, and if you see your mom this weekend, be sure and tell her Dupe! Dupe! Dupe! Dupe! Dupe!

      Um, it's not exactly a dupe when they say "as we mentioned earlier" with a link to the earlier article.

      --
      Thinkin' Lincoln - a web comic of presidential proportions
    3. Re:I'll buy a Google Domain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, when Taco first posted this story, the summary treated it as a brand news item. I'm sure I'm not the only one that reported it'd already been done, and a short time later, the wording was changed.

    4. Re:I'll buy a Google Domain by Saeed+al-Sahaf · · Score: 1
      Google registering domains? Sounds good, but only if they can help me search for that elusive domain that isn't already taken!

      Try whois.sc

      --
      "Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
    5. Re:I'll buy a Google Domain by gclef · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The other reason they may want to be a registrar is to avoid what happened to panix a few weeks ago.

      For those that missed it, panix.com got hijacked because a domain re-seller (melbourne IT) didn't check that their customer (the supposed recipient of the domain transfer) had the proper authorizations in place to request a registrar move for panix. Panix had (apparently) forgotten to request a registrar lock on their domain, and their registrar didn't protest the move, so the request went through, moving panix to a new registrar. Once it was moved (changing ownership in the process), changing the authoritative DNS servers for it was easy...hence, hijack.

      If google were their own registrar, they could enforce their own registrar lock for google.com, as well as setting up automatic refusals for any attempt to transfer google.com.

    6. Re:I'll buy a Google Domain by KillerDeathRobot · · Score: 1

      No! Taco is infallible! ;)

      --
      Thinkin' Lincoln - a web comic of presidential proportions
  2. Slashdot 3 Google by TedCheshireAcad · · Score: 4, Funny

    I swear, we're gonna see it on Slashdot when Google's HTTP header changes.

    1. Re:Slashdot 3 Google by Leroy_Brown242 · · Score: 1

      Bob in accounting was 5 minutes late to work today. Google work force losing that drive to succeed?

      Yeah, google is hot news I guess. People just love to know the stupidest stuff.

    2. Re:Slashdot 3 Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Well, one thing I haven't seen on Slashdot (although it's possible that it was reported and I missed the story) is that Google changed the way they do links. It used to be simply a direct link to the page or item. Now, it's a Google referral link that looks like this:

      http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start=1&q=http:// ww w.skyloop.org/cals/rebuttal/01-4-Have-I-Built-Anyt hing-JEA.pdf&e=7152

      What's wrong with that? Well, the above link is a PDF. If you click it, it opens in your browser. What if you want to save the PDF for later use? You used to be able to right click the link, click "Save Link as..." and save the file to your desktop. (That's using Windows OS and IE.) Now, doing that gives you a little text file with the link inside. There's no easy way to download a copy of the file vice opening it in the default application.

      And before I get a crapload of suggestions, keep in mind that I'm at work, on a government computer. I'm not allowed to change the default behavior of Adobe, install wget or Firefox or any other programs, and I'm certainly not allowed to change the OS. If there's an easy way to grab the file on a locked down machine, please point it out. If not, is there a search engine that returns just straight links? I download product manuals and similar documents fairly regularly, and it's now become a PITA to do.

    3. Re:Slashdot 3 Google by pointerweb · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Ever wonder what happens when you drop a Google ad? Your sites completely disappear from the Google search results.

      Is there a Googopoly game to reflect their monopoly status yet? I'll bet Google determines the rules.

    4. Re:Slashdot 3 Google by zemoo · · Score: 2, Informative

      Take a look at google's privacy policy:
      http://www.google.com/privacy.html under "Links".
      Google reserves the right to use these tracking URLs.
      In practice, I read somewhere (I forget where), this happens about 1/10 searches. So if you get one of these, try refreshing the page or coming back later.

      And about Acrobat Reader -- there's a "Save a Copy" button in the menu bar.

    5. Re:Slashdot 3 Google by justMichael · · Score: 2, Informative
      Ever wonder what happens when you drop a Google ad? Your sites completely disappear from the Google search results.
      I don't know if that's true. We ran ads with Google for a while and decided that there are changes that need to be made on my end to make that a profitable choice.

      We have always ranked very high for specific product name searches first page if not first result, until a recent tweak on Google, now they are around page 4. The generic terms for us are pretty competitive and we haven't focused on those yet, so we basically don't exist there.

      Now I do list on froogle, but I doubt that has anything to do with it.

      Of course with anything controlled by a third party, Your Mileage Will Vary.
    6. Re:Slashdot 3 Google by Colm+Buckley · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Ever wonder what happens when you drop a Google ad? Your sites completely disappear from the Google search results.

      This is totally bogus. Google advertising per se doesn't affect the search results at all - this is stated over and over again in the AdWords terms of service and I can personally attest that it doesn't happen. It's possible that the added popularity of a site advertised in AdWords could affect a site's search ranking if other people started to refer to it, but the effect certainly wouldn't be immediate.

      "FUD" I name thee!

    7. Re:Slashdot 3 Google by pointerweb · · Score: 1

      Stated in the terms of service!?!? You believe everything you read, do you?

    8. Re:Slashdot 3 Google by pointerweb · · Score: 1

      It might have been nice if you had acknowledged that you work for Google. Otherwise, keep up the good party work.

  3. All these rumors.... by SlongNY · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I can definally see google hosting happening now... So many other rumors like the VOIP and the "GooGLeOS".. The hosting one seems it could be legit, expecially now since they are domain guys now.

    1. Re:All these rumors.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      sounds interesting..
      looks like google wants to be a one stop shop for all their services. think about it.
      a)You buy a domain and a site from google.
      b) The site runs on GoogleOS
      c) The customized firefox browser (GBrowser) has direct hooks to the different services google provides.
      d)uses gmail as your hosted mail service and directly intergrates with Gbrowser.
      e) Could have a file store directly integrated with Gbrowser.
      f) Charge 9.95 for the package..

      In the end they could capture all your information and still make it look like its yours.

    2. Re:All these rumors.... by narsiman · · Score: 1

      Google has VOIP plans in UK

  4. US Only by dorward · · Score: 4, Informative

    It looks like Google Local is still US only ... and they keep ***ing redirecting me to the UK site so I can't even see the link to click it. (I'm not planning a trip to American in the near future - but I might have been).

    1. Re:US Only by Fr05t · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's there for Canada.

    2. Re:US Only by IO+ERROR · · Score: 1

      Try this (not sure if it will work, but you might get lucky): Goto http://www.google.com/ncr and then click the Local link found there.

      --
      How am I supposed to fit a pithy, relevant quote into 120 characters?
    3. Re:US Only by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Funny

      So, the U.S., and the U.S. Annex?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:US Only by Leo+McGarry · · Score: 1

      Just America and America Jr.

    5. Re:US Only by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Me too. I'm from Germany and I tried entering google.com in the adress bar just to end up on google.de. BAD CHOICE if you ask me, I mean, I could have been an Englishman in Germany or something.

      After clicking around a couple of times I noticed that there was a link on the front page saying "Google.com in english". However, it only seems to work if you have Cookies enabled.

    6. Re:US Only by adeydas · · Score: 1

      On the bottom right hand site there is a link called Go to Google.com. Click on it and you will be taken to the Google.com US homepage despite your country.

    7. Re:US Only by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not just the US... Canada as well. I have a question though - how do locate where I am? I searched for "tanning" in Calgary, AB (a good sized city) and they brought up a map showing a 10 block radius of my building! I'm putting on my tinfoil hat just to be safe.

    8. Re:US Only by bulliver · · Score: 1

      You jest, but really: if North America were a prison you guys would be our bitch. Why? Because we're bigger, and we're on top...

      --
      Support the mob or mysteriously disappear.
    9. Re:US Only by dave1g · · Score: 1

      And you thought you were joking.

      Annexing Canada

  5. Google isn't going to register domains by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    They're going to use the expired domain information they'll receive as a registrar to cancel previous pagerank.

  6. Google Local Has Been Great by Laivincolmo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I have used google local for a while now, and I have to say that it has performed great, usually giving accurate results. There was this one time however where it gave a wrong location, and I was prepared to walk about a mile or two to get there, before I called the actual place and confirmed it. Google's stuff, even when in "Beta" has worked great 99% of the time for me, especially gmail.

  7. google betas... by dAzED1 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    there's another google beta product called "gmail."

    I, and many other folks, recently got set to having 50 invites left. While before it was already close to true that anyone that wanted one could find one, it is now REALLY true.

    Seems their "beta" stuff works better than the first, or even second revision of released code from some other company...

    1. Re:google betas... by xtracto · · Score: 1

      Oh well, thanks, I noticed this 50 invites this morning, and *grin* posted a story (which of course was rejected) in slashdot.

      Maybe Gmail is coming out of beta at last??

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    2. Re:google betas... by jxyama · · Score: 1

      speaking of invites... why does google keep on moving that invite notice back and forth? i've had mine for about a year now and it switched from being on the top, then to the left column, then back to the top, now back to the left column. granted the latest change is actually nice because you can directly send an invite by putting in an address, but still. why fuss and move it so often?

    3. Re:google betas... by xtracto · · Score: 2, Insightful

      why does google keep on moving that invite notice back and forth?

      Well, that is the price to pay for a "beta" service/software. Maybe they are looking for the less obstrusive way of puting there, btw I also like it as it is now.

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    4. Re:google betas... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And to un0ldstinkt@yahoo.de

      Thanks in advance!

    5. Re:google betas... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sent :-)

      I only had 4 actually, but I still want to get rid of them...
      And with their new UI for invites, it's super quick to send mails. You no longer need names, etc.

    6. Re:google betas... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Done!

      I wonder if Yahoo actually receives those or just eat them. I think they've been known to not like Gmail invites? Check spambox if they have one.

    7. Re:google betas... by lucabrasi999 · · Score: 3, Funny
      and *grin* posted a story (which of course was rejected) in slashdot

      Slashdot REJECTED a story on Google? Is the world coming to an end?

    8. Re:google betas... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. They moved it right into the bulk folder. I find that pretty funny, actually. :)

      Thanks again!

    9. Re:google betas... by christopherfinke · · Score: 1
      i've had mine for about a year now
      You've had gMail for a year already? Pretty impressive, considering it wasn't publicly available until April 25th of last year...
    10. Re:google betas... by dr_d_19 · · Score: 1

      Seems their "beta" stuff works better than the first, or even second revision of released code from some other company...

      Well, "beta" is also another way of saying "we can do what we want, and you have no rights".

      As with gmail, you cannot be certain that the service still will be available next year, next month or even next week. Your mail, contacts and whatever might not exist after midnight for all we are promised.

    11. Re:google betas... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sounds interesting..
      looks like google wants to be a one stop shop for all their services. think about it.
      a)You buy a domain and a site from google.
      b) The site runs on GoogleOS
      c) The customized firefox browser (GBrowser) has direct hooks to the different services google provides.
      d)uses gmail as your hosted mail service and directly intergrates with Gbrowser.
      e) Could have a file store directly integrated with Gbrowser.
      f) Charge 9.95 for the package..

      In the end they could capture all your information and still make it look like its yours.

    12. Re:google betas... by jxyama · · Score: 1
      i guess not. i don't really keep track.

      that makes my point even worse - they mucked around with this invite thing more often in shorter period of time then.

    13. Re:google betas... by pilkul · · Score: 1

      Yes, but if they really deleted people's mail it would cause a massive PR scandal and would seriously hurt their business. They're not stupid enough to do something like that. Being "beta" gives them a cover for things like occasional downtime and unexpected featureset changes. But come on, you don't need to worry about actual data loss.

    14. Re:google betas... by Momoru · · Score: 1

      I've said it before and i'll say it again...if its a feature thats is widely accessable it shouldnt be beta! Don't be such wusses google, just make it freakin' release. If there are still things you want to add, make it version 1.0 or something. Google has more of a fear of commitment then i do.

    15. Re:google betas... by generic-man · · Score: 1

      No, if they deleted people's mail then people would simply say, "It's beta. You shouldn't trust beta software with your private data."

      Come on, Google. Release something. Hold yourselves accountable for something.

      --
      For more information, click here.
    16. Re:google betas... by pilkul · · Score: 1
      No, if they deleted people's mail then people would simply say, "It's beta. You shouldn't trust beta software with your private data."

      Yes, they would say exactly that, and then they would follow their own advice and stop using gmail.

      Gmail is probably staying invitation-only for this long because they're steeling themselves for gigantic server loads when it goes public. It's not because they don't want to be "accountable".

    17. Re:google betas... by Leo+McGarry · · Score: 2, Funny

      I, and many other folks, recently got set to having 50 invites left. While before it was already close to true ...

      Okay, look, I'm not deliberately going out of my way to be a jerk here, but when you typed that, a thousand English teachers cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.

      A piece of advice, particularly for those who don't speak English as their native language: Stick to simple sentences. Noun-verb-object. It might not be as florid, but you're way more likely to be actually understood by your audience.

    18. Re:google betas... by Cigarra · · Score: 1

      Gmail is probably staying invitation-only for this long because they're steeling themselves for gigantic server loads when it goes public. It's not because they don't want to be "accountable".

      Of course. It's easy to provide 1GB of space when you have just a few users.

      --
      I don't have a sig.
    19. Re:google betas... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More on google "betas"...
      http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog /050131-1313 18

    20. Re:google betas... by pipingguy · · Score: 1


      ...posted a story (which of course was rejected)...

      I still have one story submission "Pending" from October 23, 2004.

    21. Re:google betas... by Chris84000000 · · Score: 1

      Here's what my friend postulated on the invite thing: if they go to a policy of many many invites to the point where normal people will never run out, but still keep it invite only, then keep track of the invite chain, they have an advantage over spammers. If an account is spamming you can suspend just it at first, but if one account keeps on inviting spammers, suspend the root of the spam tree.

      --
      Please stop misusing Catch-22 to describe chicken-egg problems or other paradoxes that are not Catch-22.
    22. Re:google betas... by dAzED1 · · Score: 1
      gosh, and here I thought I was just making a post. I didn't realize that I was to be held to anything other than informal rules of writing.

      What part of "I, and many other folks, recently got set to having 50 invites left. While before it was already close to true..." did you think was not "understood by [my] audience?"

      Lets see...noun, verb, object? Like, "Run Spot, run" (sarcasm...) or the like? Or how about "I [noun] recently [adverb, modifying the following verb] got [a terrible word I would only use when I don't know that 1,000 english teacher's lives are in the balance....but an intransitive verb none the less, whose existence is justified by the lack of there being a proper way to say something was altered in the past...at least in informal writing] set [a verb] to [preposition]..."

      There is after all more than just subject-verb-object. There are all sorts of things that are then taught the second week of kindergarten...

      Would you actually prefer that all informal dialogue be as you described?

      I dislike post.

      Post run home.

      They gave invites.

      I have invites.

      Microsoft blows goats.

      There, that better? OOPS!! I mean, "There, IS that better?"

      BTW - next time you try to be a grammar nazi, try not using 1,611,512,781,332 too many commas. That, and don't say things like "noun-verb-object," since the object *just might be* a noun too, ya know. Not a very descriptive thing to say. "You take you" is noun-verb-object, yes? Perhaps "subject" might be a better word to use there, so that you are actually understood by your target audience. The rest of us are, after all, pale in comparison to your blazing intellect. We might miss things that you consider to be obvious.


      A piece of advice, particularly for those who don't speak English as their native language: Stick to simple sentences. Noun-verb-object.

      How about "A piece of advice, particularly for those for whom English is not [we're not "speaking" here, after all] their native language; [that's *semicolon*, not colon] stick [keeping the "s" an "s" instead of "S" since "stick" is not starting a new sentence, nor is it a proper noun] to simple sentences with a subject, verb, and object. Much better - would you disagree?

      "...but you're way more likely..." Way? No way! Rock on, dude! Righteous!

      You'll need to stoop down a little so that we can pick up some of those rays of sunshine your happiness exudes.

      Not to be a jerk, but grammar nazism has no place in informal writing...esp a forums-type place like /. ; )

    23. Re:google betas... by Leo+McGarry · · Score: 1

      LOL. The part where you tried to diagram your own sentence and completely imploded cracked me up. Satire at its finest!

      "I [noun] recently [adverb] got [verb] set [verb] to [preposition]..."

      Hilarious stuff! Seriously, man, you should write for The Onion or something. You've got a real future in comedy. I only wish you'd kept going, describing "having" as yet another verb or something. It would have been even funnier.

    24. Re:google betas... by dAzED1 · · Score: 1
      Where you inserted a bazillion extra commas, and capitalized things in the middle of a sentence, likewise amused me. This especially since I made no claims to the remotest attempt to be grammatically correct, yet in your very post attempting to correct me, you had multiple flaws. That is what us wee folk call "hypocrisy." Note that I clearly stated I was using what is referred to as "informal writing," and not making any attempt to write an essay for my high school English teachers (if they're still teaching).

      I only wish you'd kept going, describing "having" as yet another verb or something. It would have been even funnier.

      "..or something." Well, at least you admit to not knowing anything other than "noun-verb-object." I'm going to take you up on the challenge though, just to further expose your fraud..that, and you wished for it, and I want to make you happy. I'm a nice guy like that.

      Lets look at the sentence in question: "I, and many other folks, recently got set to having 50 invites left."

      I - the subject. You called it "noun" instead, yet really...in this sentence it's a pronoun. "I eat" is valid enough, yes? Do you allow for the subject to be a pronoun, or must it be a noun? BTW...you do know that a sentence can have just a SUBJECT and a verb, and no object...correct? Like: "I laugh." No object at all! Craziness.

      , and many other folks, - in this situation, this serves as an appositive. I'm making the claim that not only did this happen to me, but (amplifying it) it happened to many other folks as well. Before you question "folks," look it up - "folks" refers to a class of people.

      recently - an adverb, modifying the verb that follows it (got).

      got - past participle of "get," in this situation (search for it in the page) used as a verbal auxiliary (for set). The dictionary gives "got caught" as an example...which really, structurally speaking, is pretty damn close to "got set." It sounds bad, but isn't -wrong- per se.

      set a phrasal verb, when combined with the following prepositional phrase.

      to - preposition.

      having 50 invites left - a gerund phrase. Sorry that the "having" confuses you, but...its not a verb here. The phrase in its entirety becomes the object of the preposition "to." Gerund phrases are not all that uncommon. Try reading a book sometime.

      The fact that you won't answer the questions asked, and instead respond with snide remarks, is very telling. I challenge you to crack open your English textbooks prior to the next time you try to correct someone. And really...don't bother. THIS ISN'T FORMAL WRITING. I did not claim it to be. You, however, stepped into the realm of grammar nazism...and while so doing made several flaws yourself - some of which I bothered to correct. Can you defend your flaws? No. Did I claim mine had none? No. What does that make me? A person writing an informal post in an internet forum. What does that make you? A hypocrite who doesn't know squat about anything other than "noun-verb-object," which is, all by its self, one of the more...interesting... "corrections" you made.

      Just accept it, anyone that tries to be a grammar nazi on Slashdot and can't bother to proofread their own post while doing it...*they*, at least at that point in time, are the one with the smaller penis. It doesn't even matter if they're responding to a *girl* at that point, they still have a smaller penis. I know you thoroughly enjoy correcting us wee folk from way up in the stratosphere where you reside, but...we don't need it. This isn't a textbook, it is a forum. My audience, and even you, fully understood what I was saying. Come on, dude...if you're not trying

    25. Re:google betas... by jacksonj04 · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I've got to do this.

      *Coughs*

      *Stands on chair, applauds and cheers dAzED1*

      That was a putting down of a grammar nazi like I have never seen before, excellent and I hope to see more!

      --
      How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
    26. Re:google betas... by dAzED1 · · Score: 1

      I do so wish they'd stop. I mean, really...this is just slashdot. If I'm not directly claiming perfect grammar, nor publishing something and thereby claiming it indirectly, then people should back off. Especially when they're *wrong*. "Got set to having," as I used it, was grammatically correct. So bah on him :P

  8. Google has jumped aboard GuruNet's Answers.com, by Donny+Smith · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    >Google has jumped aboard GuruNet's Answers.com

    Of course they did - Google's own Answers are pathetic.
    A bunch of cheap losers looking for expert advice. After more than a year they've only got 500 exeperts.
    http://answers.google.com/answers/

    1. Re:Google has jumped aboard GuruNet's Answers.com, by arr28 · · Score: 1
      A bunch of cheap losers looking for expert advice. After more than a year they've only got 500 exeperts. http://answers.google.com/answers/
      Or maybe writing "500 experts" would have been more helpful?
  9. And why is that useful? by solafide · · Score: 0

    Make Suggest the homepage, and take off the locals part. Who cares if it is local on the Internet, anyway?

    1. Re:And why is that useful? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's searching for results that are local in real life. *gasps*

  10. Not impressed with answers.com by Catullus · · Score: 0, Redundant

    It's yet another straight rip-off of Wikipedia that adds adverts. Why on earth didn't they just link straight to Wikipedia? Oh yes, that's right, answers.com uses Google text ads so they make a profit there. Grrr.

    1. Re:Not impressed with answers.com by cyngus · · Score: 1

      Ummm, GuruNet (the people behind Answers.com) was around well before Wikipedia even started. I used their product like five years ago under Mac OS 9 (maybe it was 8.x?). So they didn't look at Wikipedia and go, hey, let's see how we can make money off of it. They were there first and they had great information before Wikipedia.

    2. Re:Not impressed with answers.com by lucabrasi999 · · Score: 1, Insightful
      Why on earth didn't they just link straight to Wikipedia?

      One of the reasons not to link to Wikipedia is the fact that it is simply not a reliable source of information. Anyone can make changes to a definition at just about any time.

      I am not trying to defend Answers.com using Google ads, I am just trying to point out the huge weakness with Wikipedia.

    3. Re:Not impressed with answers.com by grassy_knoll · · Score: 1

      One of the reasons not to link to Wikipedia is the fact that it is simply not a reliable source of information. Anyone can make changes to a definition at just about any time.

      Doesn't this also mean that anyone can correct erroneous information? Not that there is a requirement to do so, of course, but at least the possibility exists.

    4. Re: Not impressed with answers.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The last time I checked, the ads on Answers.com do not come from Google. They're Kanoodle ads. Google isn't making any money from this... yet.

  11. Local by wombatmobile · · Score: 4, Funny

    Google local looks good for people who live in Poughkeepsie New York.

    We have a lot of pizza here in "Australia" but Google local doesn't seem to get it.

    Unable to understand address australia. Please try another address.

    Maybe it's just me and my stubborn reluctance to relocate.

    1. Re:Local by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 2, Funny

      I only got one irrelevent hit when I tried "vegemite" and "Las Vegas, NV" on Google Local.

      I guess that's fair.

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
    2. Re:Local by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you're right i DO live in Pok, NY, and googld looks good to me

    3. Re:Local by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      I tried every form of my address I could think of, and it just said "Unable to understand".

      It needs a help page saying what its valid address types are and what countries/states it covers.

    4. Re:Local by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I feel your pain....

      Suche: Das Web Seiten auf DeutschSeiten aus Deutschland

      Geschenkideen zum Valentinstag? Finden Sie bei Froogle.

      Werbung - Unternehmensangebote - Alles über Google - Wir stellen ein - Google.com in English

      ©2005 Google - Suche auf 8.058.044.651 Web-Seiten ....uh...yea...

      Thank god for that "Google in English" link. In a sad attempt to learn German during a weekend, I forced myself to use Google.de - I gave up pretty quick. I'm into history and architecture, so, I tried "Roman Baths" - which Germany has a lot of.

      First hit:
      The Official Roman Baths Museum Web Site in the City of Bath - [ Diese Seite übersetzen ]
      The Official Roman Baths Museum Web Site in the City of Bath, Somerset, United Kingdom,
      includes detailed information on Roman Britain, the Thermal Springs and ...
      www.romanbaths.co.uk/ - 40k - 1. Febr. 2005 - Im Cache - Ähnliche Seiten

      Thats a pretty long drive if you ask me.

      As for pizza:
      Welcome to Pizza Hut! - [ Diese Seite übersetzen ]
      Order Online for delivery or carry out from Pizza Hut today! Find great pizza deals and the Pizza Hut restaurant nearest you. ... 2005 Pizza Hut, Inc. ...
      www.pizzahut.com/ - 19k - 1. Febr. 2005 - Im Cache - Ähnliche Seiten

      Domino's Pizza - [ Diese Seite übersetzen ]
      International chain. Includes menu, international locator, and employment information.
      www.dominos.com/ - 15k - 1. Febr. 2005 - Im Cache - Ähnliche Seiten

      oh - how I miss the US - 24 hour stores that are open on Sundays...

    5. Re:Local by Sam+Ritchie · · Score: 1

      Yep, I got "Unable to understand address Perth, Western Australia". We might have to settle for the much-maligned sensis.

      --
      This sig is false.
    6. Re:Local by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Much-maligned?? What's good about Sensis?

  12. Cell Phone analogy by digitalchinky · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's almost like google want to be the central repository of all knowledge. I'm no expert, but could this lead to 'problems' down the line similar to the way Microsoft have cornered the PC market.

    Total information domination. Might lead to the 'all information has a cost' thingy people shout about from time to time.

    Paid for services - no money, no info.

    1. Re:Cell Phone analogy by AtariAmarok · · Score: 2, Insightful
      "I'm no expert, but could this lead to 'problems' down the line similar to the way Microsoft has cornered the PC market."

      "Have" has been corrected to "has" in the above sentence. Last time I looked at PCs being sold, many were Dells and "E", but none were Microsoft. Unless you want to count the Xbox as a mutant PC, they don't even sell PCs, let alone corner the market.

      You are right about Google. If they fixed their bogus result problems, I'd never have to use another search engine again.

      Google has a problem of returning many results that do not even contain the phrase being looked for. See "miserable failure" for a famous example. 3 of the top 10 results for "to be or not to be" do not even contain the phrase. Altavista, while it has fewer results, worse ads, and no cache, has no problem getting 100% relevant results for both searches. It's a bad bug when you search for phrases containing a phrase and the results do not even contain it.

      --
      Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
    2. Re:Cell Phone analogy by unapersson · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's not a bug, it's treating the linked text of links to a page as additional metadata. Which is a very useful feature if the page is about a subject yet hasn't used that exact keyword in its content.

      For example you might search for "horror author" and a page on Stephen King comes up, even though the page itself calls him a "horror writer".

    3. Re:Cell Phone analogy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try searching for it as a phrase, since that is what you're looking for...

    4. Re:Cell Phone analogy by dema · · Score: 1

      Male Nibblonian: For a thousand years, the evil brains have been constructing the giant Infosphere, a giant memory bank twice the size of three ordinary memory banks.

      Fry: What's so evil about that?

      Female Nibblonian: They plan to collect all the information in the universe and store it in the sphere.

      Fry: So they're trying to learn things?

      Female Nibblonian: Right.

      Fry: Those bastards!

      Nibbler: Being brains, they feel compelled to know everything. And soon they will.

      Fry: I'm as mad as I've ever been.

      Male Nibblonian: Once their task is complete, they will ensure no new information arises in the only way possible: by destroying the universe.

      Fry: Now it's personal.

      Yanked from here. Gotta love Futurama (:

    5. Re:Cell Phone analogy by AtariAmarok · · Score: 1
      "Try searching for it as a phrase, since that is what you're looking for"

      I didn't outright say (other than put quotes in my description of the problem1), but the phrase searches were done with quotes. That is how you search for a phrase.

      --
      Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
    6. Re:Cell Phone analogy by mr.newt · · Score: 1

      "Have" has been corrected to "has" in the above sentence.

      There was nothing wrong with the post author using "have" in that sentence. The word "Microsoft" refers to a company and is classified as a collective, or group noun. In American english, collective nouns may be treated either as singular or plural, depending on whether the statement refers to the body as a unit, or the individual members of the unit. Thus, saying "Microsoft have cornered the PC market," implies that the individual employees at Microsoft are responsible for said cornering, and is grammatically correct. On the other hand, in British english, the collective noun may be treated as singular or plural, solely at the author's discretion. Thus, the poster was correct regardless of context.

    7. Re:Cell Phone analogy by slamb · · Score: 1
      Google has a problem of returning many results that do not even contain the phrase being looked for. See "miserable failure" for a famous example. 3 of the top 10 results for "to be or not to be" do not even contain the phrase.

      Usually, this is because pages that link to it contain that phrase. Maybe not always, though. I searched for my name recently and was unable to account for the top link (lamblion.net). A search for link:www.lamblion.net scott showed no matches. Maybe there used to be a page that had "scott lamb" in a link pointing to lamblion.net...but I don't know why there ever would have been. It's odd.

  13. Translation... by oliana · · Score: 5, Funny

    There's no Google Local link on my Bork, Bork, Bork! language page.

    I feel slighted.

    --
    In Soviet Russia, asses suck this joke.
    1. Re:Translation... by AceCaseOR · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yeah. It's not on my Klingon language page. I'm going to Quo'nos this weekend and I'm looking for a place that serves good gagh.

      --
      Zagreus sits inside your head, Zagreus lives among the dead, Zagreus sees you in your bed and eats you in your sleep.
    2. Re:Translation... by Leo+McGarry · · Score: 2, Funny

      No more calls, please. We have our winner in the "world's biggest nerd" contest.

    3. Re:Translation... by MadMoses · · Score: 1

      Google sez:
      Unable to understand address Quo'nos. Please try another address.

      --

      Do not be alarmed. This is only a test.
    4. Re:Translation... by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      It's spelled "Qo'noS" you fool!

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
  14. Google's 2005 Plans by corporatemutantninja · · Score: 5, Funny

    Here's the inside scoop.

    --
    Actually, I was trying to be Insightful, not Funny.
  15. mondays don't deserve capitalization by tbase · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    *Insert biatching about moderators here.*

    --

    666-607: 6th floor apartment of the beast
  16. I don't understand how it's a rip-off by benhocking · · Score: 1
    • As far as I can tell we can't add/edit entries.
    • They don't have entries for ispative and idiothetic, so I know they're not just copying Wikipedia's entries carte blanche.
    • It doesn't have Wikipedia's look and feel.

    Granted, these are not necessarily good things, but I don't see how this is a rip-off of Wikipedia any more than Wikipedia is a rip-off of other prior encyclopedia cites.

    --
    Ben Hocking
    Need a professional organizer?
    1. Re:I don't understand how it's a rip-off by Catullus · · Score: 1

      Possibly rip-off is a bit strong. To be precise, what I mean is that they have taken (some of) the content on Wikipedia, which is provided for free by a large number of volunteers, and they're making money off it. Of course, they're perfectly within their rights to do so, but it still leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

      Wikipedia doesn't copy the content of previous encyclopedia sites. This does.

  17. More breaking Google news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Today Pete Smith who is the janitor at the Google offices stubbed his toe as he got out of bed.

    Expert industry analysts agreed that was a significant evolution in Google's services.

    1. Re:More breaking Google news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      6 more weeks of winter!

    2. Re:More breaking Google news by generic-man · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, but Google Employee Bed is a BETA service. You simply can't trust it yet. Nevertheless, it is the best bed I have ever used and I plan to use it daily despite these early hiccups.

      --
      For more information, click here.
  18. Hit Men = Attorneys by waynelorentz · · Score: 5, Funny

    When I put in "Hit Men" in the search box and "Chicago, IL" in the location box it gives me listings for attorneys.

    Looks like it works!

    1. Re:Hit Men = Attorneys by frankie · · Score: 1

      Sadly, waynelorentz was only making a joke. The actual search for hit men in Chicago, IL returns a grill at the ballpark, local theater, a PR firm, etc. The only actual hit man on the list was a 66 year old former mobster, now retired.

      However, I give Google an A for effort. They even offer a friendly spellcheck: " Did you mean: hitmen ".

    2. Re:Hit Men = Attorneys by waynelorentz · · Score: 1

      Actually, I was serious. I put in "Hit men" not "Hit-men". They give different results. I just tried it again and at the top of the list was this:

      Show only: Attorneys - Theaters Live Productions

    3. Re:Hit Men = Attorneys by frankie · · Score: 1

      Ah, you meant search for Hit men, not search for "Hit men" (almost identical to Hit-men). Quotes are significant characters in Google search.

    4. Re:Hit Men = Attorneys by FuturePastNow · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, when I searched for "voters" in "Chicago, IL" no cemetaries were returned in the results.

      Guess that's why it's still beta.

      --
      Give a man fire, and you warm him for the night. Set a man on fire, and you warm him for the rest of his life.
  19. Re:News to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Yes. Now Google can track where you live in addition to what you buy, what you look at and what's in your mail.

    Great news indeed.

  20. One Step Closer... by redivider · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...Googlezon is imminent

    It's all part of the Google Grid.

    --
    Sinch
    1. Re:One Step Closer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I for one welcome our new Googlezon overlords

  21. Guru.net vs Wikipedia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It seems to me, that the most interesting information in guru.net come from wikipedia.
    Why not just go to wikipedia then?
    The only problem about wikipedia, though, is their engine search.

  22. Answers.com uses wikipedia. by ilyag · · Score: 1

    Interestingly, if you search for the Lebesgue Integral in answers.com, you get an article from Wikipedia.

    Now, the question is whether this is good for Wikipedia (more people see its contents) or bad (fewer people even know that they could/should improve Wikipedia)?

    1. Re:Answers.com uses wikipedia. by pilkul · · Score: 1

      Good. Definitely good. Honestly, Wikipedia is running one of the world's most popular websites (80 million hits/day) on a shoestring donation-based budget, and mirrors like this help them save bandwidth and server power. Most people who would be inclined to seriously contribute to Wikipedia have already heard about it anyway.

    2. Re:Answers.com uses wikipedia. by AxelBoldt · · Score: 1

      Cool that they aren't even afraid to include Wikipedia's vulva picture.

  23. damn - slashdotted. by flacco · · Score: 5, Funny

    does anyone have a mirror of google they could post?

    --
    pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
    1. Re:damn - slashdotted. by Bertrum · · Score: 1

      Try this

    2. Re:damn - slashdotted. by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 3, Funny

      Did you try the cached version?

      http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:www.google.co m/ ;)

      BTW: Seems like Google no longer says it isn't affiliated/responsible for the content of its own page. :)

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
    3. Re:damn - slashdotted. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what prevents the cached versions of websites from being catalogged by other search engines?

    4. Re:damn - slashdotted. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why dont you search for it in google ;)

    5. Re:damn - slashdotted. by GraemeDonaldson · · Score: 1

      Sure thing, here.

      --
      I think, therefore I am. I think?
  24. Google Local not the best by digidave · · Score: 1

    Google Local seems to work in Canada as well as the US, but I don't find it the best way to find a local business. Rather than offer a complete listing of businesses it looks for other sites referring to that business. While the technology is remarkable in how it takes something like an online forum post and turns it into a reference for that business (check out the list of references after clicking on a business name), if I'm looking for something in my hometown I probably want ALL listings like the yellow pages.

    For instance, I do my business searches for southern Ontario from 701.com and while 701.com is usually a reference on Google Local, 701 has listings that Google doesn't.

    Google Local looks like a case where the technology used is more impressive than the product.

    --
    The global economy is a great thing until you feel it locally.
    1. Re:Google Local not the best by technomancerX · · Score: 1
      "if I'm looking for something in my hometown I probably want ALL listings like the yellow pages."

      The yellow pages don't list all businesses, you have to pay for an add.

      This informational message brought to you by:
      --
      .technomancer
    2. Re:Google Local not the best by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree. I think yahoo local results are better. There are more ways to organize and refine your results. ie. looking up restaurants you can sort by price and refine by category. There are even reviews. Google does a lot of things well and is a market leader but this is one case I think they are playing catch-up.

  25. I have a non troll question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why is everyone so hard up for Google?

    IBM has a lot of cool technologies, so does Apple. Yet there is more press on Google than on the Iraq war.

    Is Google really God?

    1. Re:I have a non troll question by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1
      Is Google really God?


      Yes!
      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    2. Re:I have a non troll question by 0racle · · Score: 4, Funny

      Not yet. Google God is still in the labs, but I assume that it should move to Beta soon.

      --
      "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
    3. Re:I have a non troll question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well.... not a real G_d... just the God of search engines...

    4. Re:I have a non troll question by RebelWithoutAClue · · Score: 1

      Well, we dont all get to try out IBM's or apple's cool technologies for free everyday !!

      --
      "However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results" - Winston Churchill
    5. Re:I have a non troll question by SmokeHalo · · Score: 0

      So where's your non-troll question? ;)

      --
      I'm not good in groups. It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent. - Q
    6. Re:I have a non troll question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ray, when someone asks you if your search engine is a god, you say YES.

    7. Re:I have a non troll question by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 1

      This seems especially true if you use Google news to find out what is getting the most press. ;)

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
  26. why not suggest? by digitalgimpus · · Score: 1

    IMHO "suggest" is the coolest thing to come out of google labs in some time. I know everyone who saw that seemed pretty impressed, myself included. I found it very useful.

    I'd love to see that make the homepage.

    Then again, I'm still waiting for firefox and thundebird support for google desktop.

    1. Re:why not suggest? by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think at the moment, putting the suggest on the main front page would put a large strain on the system.

      Granted its a strong network, but its certainly not invulnerable. gmail has knocked itself out a few times, and recently the DOS and associated splattering in the media took them off the map for a day ("clicky, "is it back up yet?", "dang! no", clicky, clicky, clicky, "nope, still not working")

      I guess one or two of the PHDs at google have crunched the numbers and found out how much bandwidth would be required/wasted for this very nice feature.

      There is also the thinking that using a dictionary search will increase hits on those sites listed in the keywords at the detriment to other possibly more relivant sites.

      I think the best compromise at the moment is the "did you mean xyz" suggestion for possible spelling errors after a search.

      For you, just change your homepage, then you get it always.

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    2. Re:why not suggest? by solafide · · Score: 0

      G desktop works fine with FF as default browser, it just doesn't index the history of FF or Tbird. Just a little problem - just a little nuisance. I got rid of it for those reasons, since I don't need to search for anything else.

  27. Google personal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    How about this? google personals... mostly for gurus (and slashdotters).
    Ehy... that is not bad.. do you think I can be hired in google now?

    1. Re:Google personal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      .. with the search results for that person under their profile? Hmmm.....

    2. Re:Google personal by kertong · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and I think they should call it the G-Spot.

  28. Does anyone else remember by arethuza · · Score: 1

    This first answers.com?

    1. Re:Does anyone else remember by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No

    2. Re:Does anyone else remember by lord_paladine · · Score: 1

      These guys probably do...

  29. local been available for a while by milgr · · Score: 2, Informative

    For the past several weeks (if not months), you could access google local via any google web search.

    For example, to find Pizza parlors in zip 10023, search for:
    pizza, 10023

    Hit the first link which is "Local results for Pizza near 10023".

    --
    Where law ends, tyranny begins -- William Pitt
    1. Re:local been available for a while by Dan667 · · Score: 1

      I did this and it does not find one of the best places in Austin, TX (using my zip) ... Manga Pizza. It needs more work, that is really, really important to get right.

  30. Wikipedia is lame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I went to that site and hit the edit button and typed in some garbage text and lo-and-behold it appears on the page like its good information. THerefore I will never use that site since the information cannot be trusted. Unless every statement is sourced.

    1. Re:Wikipedia is lame by Chuq · · Score: 1

      Congratulations, you learned how to use a wiki. Your edit would most likely have been removed shortly afterwards. Tell us which article you vandalised and I can check.

      --
      - Chuq
  31. Google Local versus MS Search by MrWa · · Score: 3, Informative

    It is about time. The other day when the new MSN search launched, I noticed that the Near Me button already knew where I was. Looks like Microsoft got this feature better - the results are initially based on your IP address which, in most cases, can be backtracked to your physical location. Of course, this can be changed via cookies as Google does it but it is quite impressive to make the local search work right, mostly, without being told.

    1. Re:Google Local versus MS Search by AxB_teeth · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Let's be clear about which feature Microsoft got better... Yes, they discovered my location accurately. However, any local searches I do on msn return absolutely useless results. I live in Nebraska, and the first result I get for "pizza" is a radio station from northern Alabama? Where's the sense in that?

      I'll admit that my location is relatively rural, and that Microsoft may not want to bother with indexing businesses in a community of ~40,000, but apparently Google had no problem doing it, with their beta.

      --

      However,
    2. Re:Google Local versus MS Search by Jugalator · · Score: 1

      Yes, I was just thinking this might be search engine competition at work. Seems a bit of too much of a coincidence that MS introduce their web search with local searches just days before Google introduce theirs. However, I believe MS is actually doing a better job at local searching, since it had working news search for my country, which news.google.com lacks, and also a yellow pages feature that worked very well for me too. Meanwhile, Google's thing don't really even work internationally.

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    3. Re:Google Local versus MS Search by ral315 · · Score: 1, Informative

      I live in a city of about 500,000 in Michigan. Yet, my IP address corresponds to a city of about 77,000 FORTY MILES SOUTH of my house. Google does it right.

    4. Re:Google Local versus MS Search by dema · · Score: 1

      I live in Toledo, OH and msn serach "Near Me" puts me in Southfield, MI which is 67 miles from me, hardly "near."

    5. Re:Google Local versus MS Search by ezzewezza · · Score: 1

      67 miles? I live in Virginia... MSN search put me in San Jose, California... 2797 miles away! (according to maps.yahoo.com)

    6. Re:Google Local versus MS Search by MrWa · · Score: 1
      It is obviously a best guess based on IP address provided by your ISP. You can change that - just like on Google - if it got the location wrong. As I said: when it works, it is nice, but it is easily changed to work manually.

      I realize that given Microsoft credit for anything is difficult on /. but they do know how to improve (i.e. embrace and extend) upon existing ideas. That is why they are where they are today.

      Take a look at the News site as well: what comes to the top will be based on what you read.

      Google has rested on the past too long. The search results are filled with junk and the key feature (speed) is easily imitated.

    7. Re:Google Local versus MS Search by roger6106 · · Score: 1

      I like Google's because there is the ability to change it without going to a new page. MSN thinks I live in a city 350 miles from where I actually live.

  32. Google Searching for a Bubble? by Sundroid · · Score: 3, Informative

    Speaking of the Big-G, CNET is reporting that Google, now with a market value north of $56 billion, is equal to Starbucks, Nike and Southwest Airlines combined! I have the link to that article on my blog at: http://sundroid.blogspot.com/, in case you haven't checked your portfolio lately.

    1. Re:Google Searching for a Bubble? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hmmm Big-G... is it somehow related with the G-Spot?

  33. Domination and Citizenship by fm6 · · Score: 2, Insightful
    You raise an important issue, and one that people don't pay enough attention to. However, it doesn't begin with Google. For a long time we've been seeing media conglomerates monopolize print and broadcast channels by buying up independent providers. They tried to do the same thing on the web by buying search engines and turning them into "portals". Fortunately, this attempt was a total disaster; unfortunately it destroyed some perfectly good search engines through mismanagement and loss of credibility. One reason Google took so long going public was their desire to avoid that kind of takeover.

    I'm not too worried about Google becoming the Microsoft of the Web. They've been good online citizens, and they've focused on facilitating access to other people's content rather than trying to create their own content monopoly. Still, it's only reasonable to keep on eye on their plans, and not assume that they'll always do the right thing. But for now, I find their entrance into new markets (and their astonishing financial success!) quite reassuring.

  34. My hope for Domains and Searches... by 955301 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I sincerely hope that google breathes new life into the locality domains for the US. The use of domains such as computers.boulder.co.us or flowers.boaz.al.us would do a lot for partitioning the flood of information that now exists on the Net.

    Imagine the possibilities of the supporting searches such as "pizza site:atlanta.ga.us". And actually getting pizza places in the area? Top that with a simple UI on Googles page and the ability to add your local to firefox's url box (typing pizza tries pizza.atlanta.ga.us first)

    If this becomes or is already a part of their plan, I'd pay a premium. The flattening of the DNS namespace is to me the second most tragic side effect of the Internet's adoption. The first of course being spam.

    --
    You are checking your backups, aren't you?
  35. I'll stop reading /. when... by bennomatic · · Score: 1

    we start seeing VH1-esque celebrity profiles of Page and Brin.

    --
    The CB App. What's your 20?
  36. google local sux by OglinTatas · · Score: 5, Funny

    I did a search for horny Asian wives in my town, and it found squat.

    1. Re:google local sux by Leo+McGarry · · Score: 2, Funny

      You found Squat? Man, you're in for a treat. She's great.

    2. Re:google local sux by pipingguy · · Score: 1


      I think that's a physical sex position (true intent of which could be disgusting), not a girl.

  37. You Can Also Text Google by ras_b · · Score: 4, Informative

    you can get definitions and local listings (and a few other services) by sending a text message to 46645 (GOOGL on most phones). Not totally worthwhile but i've used the definition feature to settle stupid debates with friends over words when no dictionary or computer was nearby. got my reply within like 30 seconds.

  38. The interesting bit is why... by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I don't imagine this has anything to do with MS putting a local search ("Near Me") on their new search.msn.com, would it?

  39. Happy 100th, Ayn Rand! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    In celebration of this momentous anniversary, I'm going to bake a cake and not share it with anybody!

    She would have wanted it that way...

  40. Google local is very useful by bigberk · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I don't even live in a particularly large city, and I have been regularly using Google local to find businesses. If you're not really sure what it's for, here is what I have used it to find: nearest branch locations, taxi services, pizza order lines, etc.

  41. Google: Size doesn't matter? by xXunderdogXx · · Score: 4, Funny

    When will we know Google has gotten too big?

    1. Wal-Mart and Google merge to form a new country
    2. Google's CEO buys Canada
    3. Google employees start wearing more bling than most rappers
    4. Google TV starts broadcasting the Google main page 24/7
    5. When wearing Google underwear stops being cool

  42. Google local + Keyhole? by cbrichar · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I'm still interested to see how Google makes use of Keyhole, a satellite imaging company that Google aquired a while ago.

    It'd be fairly slick to see those street maps generated by Google local make use of actual satellite imagery, wouldn't it?

  43. World domination? by SethS · · Score: 1

    Is anyone else worried that Google is trying to take over the world? I'm not saying that a world run by Google would be a bad thing... I'm just concerned that they're going to outgrow themselves too quickly. They are very good at what they do right now (web searches, web mail). Will they continue to be the best at everything they do, or will they start stubling?

    I'd hate for the existing services to start falling behind in their quest for a hand in every market.

    Just my $0.02. Take it or leave it.

    --
    If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention!
    1. Re:World domination? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, the signs started about 1.5 years ago. They are now WELL on their way to being the nets full time Big Brother.

      This is probably the REAL reason that Echelon was shut down, Google made it redundant!

    2. Re:World domination? by deviq · · Score: 1

      Yeah I am worried!
      The thing is : I think Google is expanding tooo much too fast. History is littered with corps that tried to expand too fast and were squatted out like a fly.
      Although I dont think this will happen with Google.
      But I think u r right! The quality of their core services WILL decline over time, ironically when they are really facing competition.
      dEV
      ironic that FireFox doesn't display slashdot.org correctly!

  44. no problem by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 0, Redundant
    --
    Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
  45. Size doesn't matter...Google Underwear? by Mr+Guy · · Score: 3, Funny

    If you have to do that much searching in your underwear, perhaps you should look into some of that stuff the spammers are pushing.

  46. Serial Experiments: Google by MsGeek · · Score: 1
    Is Google really God?

    Ask Eiri Masami that question.

    --
    Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
  47. gmail-o-matic by me+at+werk · · Score: 3, Interesting

    When I saw my 50, I started handing them out to the gmail o matic, its easy, paste the address, invite, repeat. no fake name creation or clicking 'invite another', just keep pasting and hitting enter. its nice.

    eventually everyone will have one and they'll launch gmessenger.

    --
    For context, click Parent.
  48. People talking about google by SteveX · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I put together this site a while ago that tracks blog postings (for all major services that ping blo.gs), tries to parse out nouns, and then displays the top 100 nouns encountered in the last hour scaled by frequency.

    Google is almost always a big one.

    http://www.stevex.org/longtail/hottopics.aspx

    1. Re:People talking about google by SteveX · · Score: 1

      Google and God are usually fighting for prominence; I see God is winning at the moment.

    2. Re:People talking about google by Randym · · Score: 1
      and then displays the top 100 nouns encountered in the last hour scaled by frequency. Google is almost always a big one.

      Funny .... I thought "google" was a verb .

      --
      DNA is a Turing machine. You, however, being dynamic and emergent, are not.
  49. A related thought for Domain Names by Roger_Wilco · · Score: 1

    Since there are a relatively small number of memorable domain names, most of which are only applicable to a small physical area, I'd like to see a local-forwarding service. This system would know your physical location, or have a decent guess from your IP, and forward domain name requests (or more likely just do a HTTP redirect) to the registered "local" version.

    For example, Moe's tavern in Springfield could register moestavern.springfield.usa.global, which is annoying to remember or write down. It would advertise as being at "moestavern.local", or some such. Going to "moestavern.local" would cause a database lookup for the closest appropriate site, and redirection by CNAME or HTTP redirect.

    So if I was in Boston, the local dive called "Moe's" could also advertise "moestavern.local", but when browsing there I would be redirected to moestavern.boston.ma.usa.global.

    Some search facility would be required, for cases when one was searching for a site in a different city.

    Thoughts?

    Help me get a free Mac Mini, and get your own.

  50. Will we see a .goog domain sooner or later? by momus_radar · · Score: 1

    --
    Don't mind me, I'm just thinking out loud.

    1. Re:Will we see a .goog domain sooner or later? by SmokeHalo · · Score: 0

      Perhaps .ggl?

      --
      I'm not good in groups. It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent. - Q
  51. google.us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yea, it's really dumb to put a local service on an international .com site when it only covers the US. Might as well email all their international users to tell them they don't matter.

    Maybe google could talk to those folks in its new Domain Reg. dept., and figure out what TLAs are. Or what a full rollout should be, for a global, net-based company.

  52. I don't get it by HeghmoH · · Score: 1

    Why would it give you a listing of targets?

    --
    Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
  53. Shame... by generationxyu · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I just renewed my domain Tuesday. I'd have done it with Google if I could have.

    --
    I mod down pyramid schemes in sigs.
  54. It's potentially a good thing by tepples · · Score: 1

    Now, the question is whether this is good for Wikipedia (more people see its contents) or bad (fewer people even know that they could/should improve Wikipedia)?

    The results are always labeled as being from Wikipedia, which should increase awareness of the WIKIPEDIA brand, prompting Google searches for Wikipedia, and then people would find the English Wikipedia main page and learn what it's all about. In addition, at the bottom of the article:

    This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Lebesgue integration".

    The second link goes to the live article on en.wikipedia.org.

  55. Google Local RSS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't worry. I'm sure they're planning Google Local RSS, so every geek in your area can "Buddy Pounce" her as soon as she appears...

  56. GOOGLE the next big ISP??? by bigjon.exe · · Score: 1

    It seems google has been very interested in alot of new fields. We have seen acticles detail there interest in mozilla, dark fiber and they have a growing Gmail system. With all the investment cash they are sitting on, could google be building the foundation for there own isp. I would go with google over AOL any day.

  57. No change by extra88 · · Score: 1

    While the link you provide works (would it have killed you to make it a link?), when I do a Google search, Google does *not* use redirecting links, the links are direct to the document.

    1. Re:No change by generic-man · · Score: 2, Informative

      Depending on which Google machine served your search results, you sometimes get tracking URLs. Google uses them to keep tabs on what people find most useful in the search results, and they're a great way to get rid of search engine optimizers that flood listings with PageRank-friendly but useless links.

      --
      For more information, click here.
  58. The google-branded browser by glassesmonkey · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Anyone notice that some of the google spiders report like Mozilla User Agent strings. Could it be that Google plans to shift some of the marketshare through it's bot army?

    1. Re:The google-branded browser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you have an example of the browser string?

  59. Google is not selling domains by Netsnipe · · Score: 1
    According to Datamonitor

    :

    Google said in a statement sent to reporters: "Google has become a domain name registrar to learn more about the internet's domain name system... we believe this information can help us increase the quality of our search results."

    Hopefully this will reduce the number of domain parking portals that end up in their search results from now on. One idea put forth is that Google intends to use its new capability to help more accurately index second-hand domains that exploit the ranking of the previous owner's site.

    --
    -- "I can't tell the future, I just work there." -- The Doctor
  60. Never been useful at all by AtariAmarok · · Score: 1

    Una Persson? Great nick. I'll mark you friend (despite the disagreement on search results!), just as I did "Gaf the Horse in Tears". I have never found it useful, as I only search looking for pages containing what I asked for. The "horror author" turns to "horror writer" sounds like an even worse case of sloppy irrelevant results!

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
  61. Forget Google by theycallmerenda · · Score: 2, Funny

    Home page is way too crowded now. Switching back to yahoo.

  62. Google Underwear is awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's a big "Feeling Lucky" button in the middle.

  63. Probably, but you won't pay for it. by Morphix84 · · Score: 1

    I suspect you're right. I suspect Google wants to have a monopoly on the Network experience, so that your whole information life lies in their borders. But they won't charge you to use it. They'll charge companies to advertise to you while you are using it.

  64. Beta? by kaustik · · Score: 1

    Why is something that is still in "Beta" on their homepage?
    Google tends to do this sort of thing a bit too often...

    1. Re:Beta? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps they should take some time, polish up and officially release some of their existing beta services instead of coming up with a new feature every week.

  65. answers and image search by adpowers · · Score: 1

    It seems Google has been linking to answers.com for a little while for select users. Over the past few weeks, I was occasionally sent there. It appears to have started in January, judging from the Alexa data.

    They are still experimenting with putting Google Image search on the front page. I experienced this last night when Google showed me this page.

    Finally, I don't really like the new Google invite text box, I think it makes the interface a little ugly. And why must they switch it every month? I swear, that is like the dozenth place I've seen it.

  66. Yahoo Local is pretty good too by linuxlover · · Score: 1
    Comparison search: Bakery in San Mateo,CA I like the little javascript trick Yahoo does when moving the mouse over a result, the location is highlighted on the map.

    Pretty close features I'd say.

  67. gmail by neilsly · · Score: 1

    They've also made some changes to the gmail interface in regards to invites. Instead of showing along the top of the page invites are now in a seperate box to the left of the mail display under the labels section. As an aside my gmail invites have suddenly been bumped to 50.

    see for yourself at sly.us/images/gmail.png

  68. Re:US Only - nope by g0at · · Score: 1

    Not true at all... works great for Canada.

    For example, my company is the second result here (at least as I type this).

    -b

  69. Trying to get traffic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Rather than linking to your blog, why not link directly to the article?

  70. I did some normal searches and I see what you mean by benhocking · · Score: 1

    Searching for "Mona Lisa" or "King George III" both returned a Wikipedia subsection. On the bright side:

    • They do cite Wikipedia appropriately, from what I can tell.
    • There is additional information - not just Wikipedia stuff.

    As for Wikipedia not copying the content of previous encyclopedia sites, I'm sure some if it does, since there's weak editorial control. However, I believe you are correct in that most of the content is not copied from other sites.

    P.S. In case you were wondering what "ispative" means, it's my misspelling for "ipsative".

    --
    Ben Hocking
    Need a professional organizer?
  71. Google Local by MicroBerto · · Score: 1

    Haha I typed in "blowjob" and then my city but all that was returned were politicians and lawyers! Pretty damn funny...

    --
    Berto
  72. Dictionary Change by DCheesi · · Score: 1

    It's about time! Dictionary.com was so slow that it literally took 20 minutes to get an answer. The new site is much faster.

  73. Google Local is useless, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As this query returns the null set.

  74. Useless in London by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What: Pizza
    Where: London NW11
    Reply: Unable to understand address london nw11. Please try another address.
    Suggestions:
    - Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
    - Try using a less ambiguous location like a zip code


    What: Pizza
    Where: london
    Reply: Unable to understand address london. Please try another address.

    So basically, it does nothing that I can use.

  75. Google Local result as a vCard by eries · · Score: 1

    I'm a big fan of Google Local, but there's one thing missing that always bugs me. So in the category of "developer scratches an itch" is a GPL'd bit of software I've written to plug a hole on Google Local's offering: the inability to import results into your address book. I do this all the time now, especially on my Treo. I'd appreciate feedback/testing if anyone here is interested:

    http://gvcard.sf.net/

  76. You say slashdotted? by 50m31sl4sh. · · Score: 1
    --
    Rediculous is ridiculous!
  77. Link isn't working by 50m31sl4sh. · · Score: 1

    FYI, "cache:" queries no longer work.

    --
    Rediculous is ridiculous!
  78. Invite overload by Otto · · Score: 1

    The gmail-o-matic has something like 24000 invites ready to hand out right now. So giving them more is probably not really necessary at the moment. :)

    --
    - Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
    1. Re:Invite overload by me+at+werk · · Score: 1

      With the graphs I've seen of how they quickly lose them, combined with the fact that 3 of my 5 invites were used the next DAY, I'm going to say that the 24000 is a rolling figure.

      Plus, due to the supposed "expiration" after 30 days, the invites they have won't last forever. But, when I get them back, I'll redonate. Not too big of a hassle.

      Also, has anyone noticed an insane increase in the amount of invites? Can someone say "daymn"? How do we know they're all good?

      --
      For context, click Parent.
    2. Re:Invite overload by Otto · · Score: 1

      Also, has anyone noticed an insane increase in the amount of invites? Can someone say "daymn"? How do we know they're all good?

      The increase coincides with Google giving everybody 50 invites to give away. So I'd say that most of them are good. They're up to 33000 now, since I posted yesterday.

      --
      - Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
    3. Re:Invite overload by me+at+werk · · Score: 1

      I suppose it's time to advertise the gmailomatic before the 30 days expires. Tell your friends, as now is the time to get gmail.

      --
      For context, click Parent.
  79. Answer ~= Wikipedia by anaesthetica · · Score: 1

    Did anyone else notice that Answers.com scrapes info from Wikipedia? Google is one step closer to our favorite open encyclopedia. Weird. one can only imagine the possibilities when the two finally collide in some manner or another.

  80. Free Domain Names with Adsense? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about free domain names in exchange for a Adsense banners automatically on the top? -Scottelliott.com

  81. try by alizard · · Score: 1

    moving to anywhere in .cn , .tw , or the .th geographic TLDs and do the search again.

  82. Google to buy United Airlines out of bankruptcy by bazily · · Score: 1
    What's next for Google?

    Well, a recent call to the all-things-internet company left me on hold, with a catchy tune playing.

    What was it?

    The United Airlines theme song!

    I can see it now - faster planes, free tickets, AdWords on the screens in front of you based on your conversation. Watch out Jetblue.

    ------------------
    Google Real Estate - http://www.gibsoncompany.com

    --
    Why cut IT when your office space costs $3/sf? gibso
  83. All you google belong to us by Tobias.Davis · · Score: 1

    https://www.certifiedofferservice.com/CertifiedOff er/offer/makeoffer.do?dom=google.com

  84. Gmail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anybody who would want one probably already has one, but if anybody would like a gmail account, I have literally about 100 invites left... leave a comment at www.xanga.com/halfpint08 and ill send u one or two (use it for storage or something)