Slashdot Mirror


Yahoo's Y!Q Contextual Search Beta

skeptic1 writes "Just days after Microsoft unvieled its new MSN search, Yahoo released a new search tool called Y!Q that allows users to search within the context of the web pages they are currently viewing. It's not the typical textbox input search, and you don't even have to leave the current page you're on to use it. The current release is only the beta version."

129 comments

  1. Is that useful? by BigDogCH · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Cant you already use google, specify the website or domain, and input your search request? Also, could anyone explain when this would be useful? Why not just go to the site, and search there?

    1. Re:Is that useful? by chris09876 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, they're not doing anything new. This sounds just like what you can do with Google. You can also use google to find 'related pages'. ...and it sounds like they might come out with an AdSense competitor too. ...but where's the originality there? It'll just be like what Google already has.

    2. Re:Is that useful? by FreshlyShornBalls · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think the point is that the functionality is what's new....the idea that the search "pops-up" on the same page withouth having to open a new window.

      Certainly not something that would make me switch to using Yahoo! instead of Google, but.....I can definitely see it being useful to a lot of users.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank.
    3. Re:Is that useful? by ergo98 · · Score: 1

      Well then doesn't that diminish the Google advantage?

      Countless people did search before Google did, but that doesn't reverse the fact that Google kicked their ass.

    4. Re:Is that useful? by FinalCut · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think it could be useful. First off I like the fact that you get the little popup div inline with what your reading so you can quickly determine if any of the search results will really help you with what your reading.

      Secondly, I can see alot of blogs using this - I already added it to mine. I discuss alot of technical topics that not everyone who visits might know about - but they might want to learn more about. I don't go into any great detail on most of the topics so the inline search might help my family figure out what I'm talking about when I post a "geek" entry.

      So now I have google and yahoo search integrated into my site. Theres nothing wrong with options.

    5. Re:Is that useful? by aussie_a · · Score: 1

      Cant you already use google, specify the website or domain, and input your search request?

      You don't understand what this is, this isn't google's "site:blahblah.com" feature, but Google's "related links" feature. This differs from Google's in that Yahoo is offering a plugin for websites.

    6. Re:Is that useful? by rekraft · · Score: 1

      ... try to feed a paragraph of text into Google and see what comes out. Then try the same with Y!Q.

    7. Re:Is that useful? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree, I dont understand waht makes highlighting something better than just typing it in , in the first place. this concept is a little premature on yahoo's end. The startup blinkx alreayd had this monthes ago and its far more effective as it searches for you

  2. Firefox support by digitalgimpus · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Yes, Yahoo does support firefox.

    But the idea isn't very original. The functionality belongs to Firefox and has been around for quite some time. The default search engine is Google on Firefox.

    So yes, by default you get G!Q installed, Yahoo wants you to "upgrade" to Y!Q.

    1. Re:Firefox support by bryan986 · · Score: 0, Informative

      Note quite, some email features are disabled under firefox

      --
      There is no sig
    2. Re:Firefox support by I+confirm+I'm+not+a · · Score: 1

      Y!Q is more like Google's site-specific search than Firefox's find-as-you-type: from the article, 'For instance, a reader looking at a news story about the State of the Union address might highlight the phrase "Social Security" to get a listing of pages that deal with that topic.'. You're absolutely correct that this isn't very original, however: it's just Yahoo playing catch-up with Google and - dammit! - it's MSN's turn to play catch-up!

      --
      This is where the serious fun begins.
    3. Re:Firefox support by pHatidic · · Score: 5, Funny

      The website says the demobar requires windows 95 and better. Does that means it runs on OS X and Linux?

    4. Re:Firefox support by kaustik · · Score: 4, Informative

      In firefox, with a default install, you can highlight a phrase, right click, and choose "Search the web for xxx"
      It searches Google.

    5. Re:Firefox support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, dumbass. The website says that "Y!Q turns any Firefox browser into a Yahoo! powered, contextual search tool." That means that it runs on OS X and Linux.

    6. Re:Firefox support by joeljkp · · Score: 1

      It's nice to see big names specifically supporting Firefox. This new browser war may have something going for it after all...

      --
      WeRelate.org - wiki-based genealogy
    7. Re:Firefox support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Y!Q is more like Google's site-specific search
      No, it is nothing like that at all. I'm not sure but Slashdot seems even stupider today than usual. Where the hell do you people come from?
    8. Re:Firefox support by wo1verin3 · · Score: 0

      By that logic it should also have no problems on my Speak and Spell.

    9. Re:Firefox support by X · · Score: 1

      You're absolutely correct that this isn't very original, however: it's just Yahoo playing catch-up with Google

      Either you don't understand what Y!Q does, or you know something about Google that I don't. Can you explain to me how I can do the equivalent of Y!Q with Google?

      --
      sigs are a waste of space
    10. Re:Firefox support by DarkMantle · · Score: 0

      And not on windows ME (Mistake Edition)

      --
      DarkMantle I been bored, so I started a blog.
    11. Re:Firefox support by Blue-Footed+Boobie · · Score: 2, Funny

      When I search the web for "xxx" I don't get anything even close to what I wanted!!

      --
      DAMN YOU OCTODOG! DAMN YOU TO HELL!
    12. Re:Firefox support by SandmanCL · · Score: 1

      You've misunderstood the point here I think. The firefox plugin is a way to easily utilize the new functionality of Y!Q. If I highlight an entire paragraph or two from the State of the Union, Y!Q will find out the essential words for me.

    13. Re:Firefox support by adeydas · · Score: 1

      Firefox also has Yahoo Search embedded in it. Infact it provides the option for Google, Yahoo, Amazon, Dictionary.com and Creative Commons. I am talking about FF 1.0 and above on Windows.

    14. Re:Firefox support by AmberBlackCat · · Score: 1

      launch.yahoo.com doesn't work with Firefox. Try watching a music video there.

    15. Re:Firefox support by aussie_a · · Score: 1

      Firefox also has Yahoo Search embedded in it. Infact it provides the option for Google, Yahoo, Amazon, Dictionary.com and Creative Commons.

      And only Google is searched via "Search Web." I tried to change this but had no luck (and had to download an extension to add Yahoo to the context menu). With Firefox having a special google page as the default homepage, google as the only engine possible to use in "Search Web" and google as the default in the search bar in the menu, all of which was done BEFORE google hired one of the Firefox developers, can we expect Firefox to quietly become Googfox?

      I don't know about you, but I prefer my browser to not encourage me to use a certain product. Having everything by default for Google? Okay, that's fine. I can live with that. But having google-features that can't be changed to another search engine? That aint cool.

      This is assuming I can't change "Search web" (I did a google on it and surprisingly found nothing).

    16. Re:Firefox support by m50d · · Score: 0

      Surely in that case it will run fine on DOS?

      --
      I am trolling
    17. Re:Firefox support by I+confirm+I'm+not+a · · Score: 1

      Either you don't understand what Y!Q does, or you know something about Google that I don't. Can you explain to me how I can do the equivalent of Y!Q with Google?

      Like this. Look for "Only return results from the site or domain", about 4-5 lines down.

      Granted, you need to copy-and-paste a bit to do what Y!Q does a little more easily, but the fundamental tech has been there for a while.

      --
      This is where the serious fun begins.
    18. Re:Firefox support by X · · Score: 1

      Sigh... Try reading about what Y!Q does, or doing a search with Y!Q. You will discover it doesn't do anything like "Only return results from the site or domain".

      --
      sigs are a waste of space
    19. Re:Firefox support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All this fuss over another feature that was copied from Opera to Firefox and now to Yahoo???

    20. Re:Firefox support by jseale · · Score: 1

      ...and for that matter you're better off getting the Googlebar for Firefox if you really wan't to get serious about using Google. It pretty much has all the features that the IE version of the Google Toolbar does. Just select Tools|Extensions from the menu bar and then click on Get More Extensions.

    21. Re:Firefox support by freakmn · · Score: 1

      Methinks you searched for the wrong type of Boobie, Boobie.

      --
      warning: This post is likely to contain gobs of dripping sarcasm. Consume at your own risk.
  3. Yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    Goolge loves to innovate.

  4. Extension? by ack154 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Sounds like something that would make a nice extension in Firefox. I know there's a Dictionary one where you can highlight a word and get definitions, or the highlight/copy one... but this could be a nice highlight -> google search or something.

    Or if it already exsits, anyone have a link? I don't recall seeing one at http://update.mozilla.org/

    1. Re:Extension? by Dhalka226 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Googlebar. You can highlight words, right click, Googlebar items, Search for selected text.

      I'm running the Googlebar extension version 0.9.0.30 if it makes a difference.

      I didn't read the article, so I'm hoping that's the sort of thing you were referring to.

    2. Re:Extension? by ack154 · · Score: 1

      nevermind... it's built in...

      "search web for..."

      son of a...

    3. Re:Extension? by manifest37 · · Score: 1, Informative

      If you RTFA you have seen they give many different ways to integrate into firefox. http://yq.search.yahoo.com/splash/firefox.html

    4. Re:Extension? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's already there d00d. highlight some text, right click->Search Web For "highlighted text". has been in firefox for a while. Safari's implimentation is nicer and opens search results up in a new tab.

    5. Re:Extension? by Disperz · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes, it already exists.. It existed the moment you installed Firefox. Just highlight the word, right click, and go to "Search Web for 'highlighted content'" It's right above that, if installed, dictionary extension you were talking about.

      --
      Do you see how my mind works? It's like a laser!
    6. Re:Extension? by lukewarmfusion · · Score: 1

      That's exactly my thought, and I did read the article. I won't complain, though... as more people learn of these features, the demand for 'em goes up and we get better stuff. :)

    7. Re:Extension? by orasio · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In Firefox running on xfree or xorg, without extensions, you can highlight the word, middle-click in the google box, press Enter.

      Also, highlight the word, Ctrl-C,K,V, Enter does it, even more efective.

      Just kidding, but the real issue is that Firefox already has all the searching functionality I can use right now.

    8. Re:Extension? by Mr.+Falco · · Score: 1

      It is a built in feature no need to add an extension.

  5. Firefox by spac3manspiff · · Score: 1

    and you don't even have to leave the current page you're on to use it.

    You also dont have to leave the current page to use firefox's search 'engine'

    1. Re:Firefox by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

      same in safari except it is "Search Google"

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    2. Re:Firefox by subsentio · · Score: 1

      You also dont have to leave the current page to use firefox's search 'engine'

      That's great for those who are using Firefox, but the reality is that ~90% of people aren't.

    3. Re:Firefox by aussie_a · · Score: 1

      Highlight the text in a webpage, right click. You get "Search for " Sounds like the good folks at mozilla already have this feature.

      Damn. Had I only read this page I could have saved myself the hassle of downloading another extension *sigh* I might as well compare them.

      Let's see, State of the Union speech was used in the article, I'll just search for a news article on it. Aaah, here's one. I think the MPA would be an interesting thing to search.

      I'll highlight that first page and use the "Search Web for" feature. Oh, it uses Google. Well I'll just change that to Y!Q. *after a few minutes* Well looks like I can't. Oh well, Google's good, I'm sure . Dang, that's useless.

      I'll just highlight the header. Hmm, that is all about stuff from 2004, not the State of the Union speech. That definitely isn't what I wanted.

      Here's one last ditch effort which again failed.

      Y!Q on the other hand was more then helpful.

      While I love Google and have been using it for years. Yahoo's latest efforts are quite interesting, and I think belittling them by saying "this has already been done" isn't very fair. As I demonstrated, Google doesn't come close with the ease of this new feature. Could I create a search query that would return as good if not better results? Probably. But I certainly can't do it by just highlighting text on a webpage. That is something Y!Q has done, and as time continues I guess we can only expect it to get better.

  6. Why bang Q? Yo dog, why bang Q? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    Sounds like a ghettospeak

  7. Name? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Why Bang Cue"

    does not make sense...

  8. sounds like GuruNet by jrm228 · · Score: 1

    I've been using a tool called GuruNet (aka Atomica, and just recently Answers.com) for about 2 years. It's a subscription service, but worth every penny. You can alt-click on any word/phrase and it'll bring back categorized results from a dictionary, encyclopedia, Google, etc, and since they've linked in hundreds of validated sources you can have higher confidence that the information returned is accurate.

    1. Re:sounds like GuruNet by slyguy135 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Answers.com is free now.

  9. Tinfoil hat time... by kuwan · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So will Yahoo! use this "service" to track what web pages you view and what you're interested in when you view them? A quick preview of their terms of service links to their privacy policy which states:

    Yahoo! collects personal information when you register with Yahoo!, when you use Yahoo! products or services, when you visit Yahoo! pages or the pages of certain Yahoo! partners, and when you enter promotions or sweepstakes. Yahoo! may combine information about you that we have with information we obtain from business partners or other companies.

    So Yahoo! will be tracking what you view and what you search for when you view it.

    Downloader beware.

    --
    Join the Pyramid - Free Mini Mac | Free Flat Screens

    1. Re:Tinfoil hat time... by spac3manspiff · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Amazing how yahoo has really gone under the radar,
      remember the controversy that stired up when google came out with gmail?

    2. Re:Tinfoil hat time... by ColdGrits · · Score: 4, Interesting

      So no different from the information Google already collects about you every time you use Google to do a search, then, it seems.

      --
      People should not be afraid of their governments - Governments should be afraid of their people.
    3. Re:Tinfoil hat time... by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
      Bingo, and I wouldn't put it past them to serve you ads while they're at it. I mean, that IS how they make their money.

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    4. Re:Tinfoil hat time... by enosys · · Score: 1

      I would totally expect that. It's part of how they make money. If they know more about the person viewing their web site they can offer more accurately targeted ads.

    5. Re:Tinfoil hat time... by RealityThreek · · Score: 1

      Google's is an ID that identifies you. As far as I know their claim is that they use it to keep track of your search preferences. They haven't really done anything that might motivate me to disbelieve them. Hey, maybe you look good in a tin hat.

      --
      :wq
    6. Re:Tinfoil hat time... by Pionar · · Score: 1, Informative

      Everything Google stores about you is in a cookie, so if you wanna be an ignorant dumbass and believe cookies can harm you, then just block google.com from setting cookies.

    7. Re:Tinfoil hat time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which you could have found out through Google's own Privacy Policy page, rather than Google Watch's uber-paranoid (and rather narrow/horribly biased) analysis.

      Note that Clusty is recommended as a safe alternative at the bottom of the page, lacking the tracking cookie. Funny that the author claims preferences can (or could) be saved without a cookie on Google... but ignores the fact that most site site analytics are still performed through cookie-independent data (i.e. log analysis for IPs/referrers).

      Daniel Brandt's criticism of Google's cookies holds about as much merit as me criticizing his cookie.htm page for being served from the cgi-bin. Unnecessary, hence suspicious, hence unquestionably evil! I bet it's laced with poisonous CGI code designed to forward my browsing habits to Nazis! And note that it has no specified expiry date! More evil!

      Oh, wait, I don't have enough completely irrelevant imagery and random stupid blurbs in my criticism. Insert questions regarding Brandt's penis size where appropriate, I suppose.

      ;)

    8. Re:Tinfoil hat time... by Dan+East · · Score: 2, Informative

      Don't forget all the prolific Google AdSense content embedded directly into so many web pages. Google is in a better position to track a web surfer than any other entity, with the exception of spyware running on the actual client machine.

      Dan East

      --
      Better known as 318230.
    9. Re:Tinfoil hat time... by aussie_a · · Score: 1

      And have fun using Gmail.

    10. Re:Tinfoil hat time... by aussie_a · · Score: 1

      Doesn't mention anything about selling my information. Only buying it.

  10. Firefox by hamlet2600 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Highlight the text in a webpage, right click. You get "Search for " Sounds like the good folks at mozilla already have this feature. And the tags on the page described just seem like useless overhead.

    --
    Sometimes I wish computers were less friendly.
  11. You search in context by ackthpt · · Score: 2, Insightful
    While they track your search in context to sell as marketing data. Lovely.

    this guy searches site frequently for Tex Ritter, Cool Whip and Kazoos, I guess we could sell that to goatse.cx guy...

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  12. I can't wait until the next party and people..... by ip_freely_2000 · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...try and verbalize "Y!Q"

    or maybe I'll just skip that party.

  13. No wonder they lost the search engine wars by AtariAmarok · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    No wonder they lost the search engine wars. They check into odd things like thus, but even now their search results still do not have caching. That's the one thing that keeps me going back to Google again and again. Wish they would fix the deficiencies first.

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
    1. Re:No wonder they lost the search engine wars by Fledsbo · · Score: 1
    2. Re:No wonder they lost the search engine wars by shrauner · · Score: 1

      Er, what? Yahoo search has had caching since day 1 of replacing Google as their search engine, perhaps you're talking about MSN, not Yahoo?

      You'll also notice, if you compare the two, that Yahoo cache handles frame sites, which Google does not.

    3. Re:No wonder they lost the search engine wars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Last I heard, both Google and Yahoo both had 30-odd percent of the search engine market. Google's was a few points higher, yes, but I'd hardly consider that "losing the war."

      I think Google has only definitely won in the minds of their fanboys, which it seems a huge percentage of Slashdot posters are. I like Google, but I hate obsequiousness. I swear sometimes I read posts here and think "God, just go over to the Googleplex and fellate Sergey and Larry already!" :)

      As for not having caching, I don't know about you but when I did a search on Yahoo just now the results had a "Cached" link.

    4. Re:No wonder they lost the search engine wars by rabbit994 · · Score: 1

      Dang that's an old cache of slashdot.

      Google is much more recent. Google Cache

  14. Re:I can't wait until the next party and people... by sarastro_us · · Score: 1

    Why-bang-que?

  15. Not a killer search app by Inkieminstrel · · Score: 1

    I can see situations where this would be useful, but realistically this seems like just another feature that 90% of users wouldn't know about and the other 10% would almost never use. It hardly seems like something that's going to tip the scales towards Yahoo!

  16. Re:I can't wait until the next party and people... by Tackhead · · Score: 3, Funny
    > ...try and verbalize "Y!Q"
    >
    >or maybe I'll just skip that party.

    You think you've got trouble. I was at this party, and the guy was telling me about Y!Q.

    Fortunately, I was raised by a !Kung tribe, so I was able to understand it when this guy started talking about Y!Q.

    Unfortunately, DNS (which was not invented by the !Kung), I couldn't even guess what the domain name for the Y!Q search engine was supposed to be.

    So I thought I'd just google for it. Heh.

    I really shoulda skipped that party.

  17. Re:Why bang Q? Yo dog, why bang Q? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Randy: Can I get you something?
    Second Jive Dude: 'S'mofo butter layin' me to da' BONE! Jackin' me up... tight me!
    Randy: I'm sorry, I don't understand.
    First Jive Dude: Cutty say 'e can't HANG!
    Jive Lady: Oh stewardess! I speak jive.
    Randy: Oh, good.
    Jive Lady: He said that he's in great pain and he wants to know if you can help him.
    Randy: All right. Would you tell him to just relax and I'll be back as soon as I can with some medicine?
    Jive Lady: Jus' hang loose, blood. She gonna catch ya up on da' rebound on da' med side.
    Second Jive Dude: What it is, big mama? My mama no raise no dummies. I dug her rap!
    Jive Lady: Cut me some slack, Jack! Chump don' want no help, chump don't GET da' help!
    First Jive Dude: Say 'e can't hang, say seven up!
    Jive Lady: Jive ass dude don't got no brains anyhow! Hmmph!

  18. Enough with all the search engines by GatesGhost · · Score: 0

    it seems like every week there's a new search engine out with super happy fun additions. do we even use any of them? i know i only use google to find por...i mean educational material. my fear is these search engines will become so bloated with crap it will become useless. the great thing about google was that it was just a search engine, very simple and easy to use.

  19. Don't we already have this? by akeyes · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If I remember correctly, my browser already has this feature built in, I think I can get to it with a simple CTRL + F Now, where can I get some real news?

    1. Re:Don't we already have this? by ubernostrum · · Score: 1

      If I remember correctly, my browser already has this feature built in, I think I can get to it with a simple CTRL + F

      Ctrl+F in your browser scans the current page for keywords that are important to search engines, then runs them all through a search to try and spit back relevant and related information? Nifty.

    2. Re:Don't we already have this? by Reignking · · Score: 1

      Or, if using Firefox, use the "/"! Two ways to search!

      --
      One man's Funny is another man's Offtopic.
  20. Same as Google's 'Similar Pages'? by tyroneking · · Score: 1

    Isn't this the same as Same as Google's 'Similar Pages'?

    1. Re:Same as Google's 'Similar Pages'? by aussie_a · · Score: 1

      Isn't this the same as Same as Google's 'Similar Pages'?

      Let's fine out. I did a google for "George W Bush" and found www.georgewbush.com/ so I clicked related. here are the results. Interesting. This came back with quite different results.

      How about search for "state of the union" speech and click on a "related links" to one of the results?

      Here is google's page.

      . Certainly very different results. Which is more useful then the other? Depends why you're using it. Google gave me results concerning Bush's speech, but also a movie review on Farenheit 9/11 (definitely not useful) and some info about Queen Elizabeth's time (with no reference to Bush or the state of the union speech).

      Y!Q on the other hand gave me info on Bush consistently, with Faith Based Initaitives (probably related to the Gay Marriage Ban) and Muslims who like Bush (which while is about Bush, is of questionable relatedness. Although at least it's about Bush and could be related to religion and Iraq).

      Here is another comparison of Google and Y!Q and how Y!Q can be used in ways Google can't.

      While Yahoo may not have better results if I am knowledgable enough to create good queries, this feature definitely wins in ease of use.

  21. subliminal headline by logandr · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    did anyone else glance at that headline and see the word "sexual"? If you didn't then I didn't either

  22. uhhh... in safari: by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

    CMD + f ...

    is that hard?

    --



    I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    1. Re:uhhh... in safari: by Anita+Coney · · Score: 1

      You Mac-heads think you're so special... with your modern near-perfect OS, great sense of style, and a wonderful ease of use. You suck!

      --
      If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
    2. Re:uhhh... in safari: by DavidLeblond · · Score: 1

      In my copy of Safari, pressing CMD+F brings up the "Find words on this page" search box. If you would RTFA you'd find that Y!Q is not the same thing.

      Not that Y!Q is anything NEW... I do believe "find related pages" is the same thing... but CMD+F (or the Windows CTRL+F) is definately not the same thing.

  23. I hate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hate
    slashbots
    slashbots
    slashbots

  24. Maybe I'm missing something... by th3space · · Score: 1

    By contextual search, do they mean being able to dynamically (sp? too lazy to open another damned window) search a page that is active in your window/tab without the need to visit a seperate site to use a search engine? Or do they mean that you can use the search engine to select a specific page and search from within their site?

    If it is the former of the two, I've got that covered with a nifty Firefox extension that doesn't crowd my view with a search box window, but rather places a the search box down on my menu bar. I believe that it is ConQuery, but can't be certain as I am at work and forced to use IE6 for all of my darpaintrawebnet needs.

    If it's the latter, then what's the point?

    --
    "How like you to drag your keyboard to a gun fight." - Aaron Bedard (BANE)
    1. Re:Maybe I'm missing something... by Bad+Ad · · Score: 1

      i hope you mean another TAB.

    2. Re:Maybe I'm missing something... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By contextual search they mean that you can take(for example) your entire post and shove it into their search engine, and it will attempt to do something useful with it. The alternative would be to take specific words or phrases from your post and feed them(out of context) into their(or some other) search engine.

      The above is "the point", IE/Firefox integration is just a method to make this easier to use. Otherwise you end up trying to cut and past entire paragraphs into their search engine.

      I just tested this using your post, and Y!Q returns a bunch of results about search engines and browsers. Google chokes on it.

    3. Re:Maybe I'm missing something... by th3space · · Score: 1

      That, goodly AC, is exactly what I was looking for by way of an explanation. Thank you.

      --
      "How like you to drag your keyboard to a gun fight." - Aaron Bedard (BANE)
  25. unified experience by Sludge · · Score: 1

    In the past, most web developers have taken comfort in the fact that most of the popular browsers were Pretty Damn Similar. You can give the user a unified experience no matter what they were using.

    The advent of taskbar thises and thats and Firefox plugins means you can never really be sure what the user is seeing. What's worse, the web developer probably doesn't even have a way to tell. If we're lucky, these programs will identify themselves through HTTP headers.

    Even though we're mostly there with HTML standardization, any sort of high level usability standardization seems increasingly hard to come by.

    1. Re:unified experience by ubernostrum · · Score: 1

      The advent of taskbar thises and thats and Firefox plugins means you can never really be sure what the user is seeing.

      Why does this matter to you?

    2. Re:unified experience by spyowl · · Score: 1
      The advent of taskbar thises and thats and Firefox plugins means you can never really be sure what the user is seeing.

      Dear Bill, the idea behind the World Wide Web has always been to span between browser software, operating systems and hardware - whether it's a cell phone, PDA, laptop, desktop, touchscreen kiosk, TV, or a large overhead projector screen you are looking at. It has never been intended that all web surfers have the "unified experience" that is deemed by a single, or however many entities to be adequate for all.
  26. Re:I can't wait until the next party and people... by hanshotfirst · · Score: 2, Funny

    "Yick"
    "Why Bank?"

    I didn't read the article, and will continue to use Ctrl-F to search within the context of my current web page. No Yahoo required.

    --
    Why, oh why, didn't I take the Blue Pill?
  27. Re:I can't wait until the next party and people... by Reignking · · Score: 3, Funny

    Why bang Q? He's omnipotent, that's why.

    --
    One man's Funny is another man's Offtopic.
  28. Read the back story... by jzawodn · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's a shame the poster didn't link to the info we posted on the Yahoo! Search blog last night. I think it answers some of the questions coming up here. Then again, this is Slashdot! :-)

  29. Has anyone actually tried it? by jwakko · · Score: 5, Informative

    I get the feeling that all the other posters pointing out that firefox already supports "highlight and search" don't get the point. I think the novelty here is that you can highlight huge sections of text, send it to Y!Q, and it will find other pages that are related, given that context.

    After playing with it, I can see some how Y!Q is different - I went to a random article on Google news, highlighted an entire paragraph of text, and sent it to Y!Q. It returned a bunch of pages related to that original news article. When you do the same thing with Google search, not surprisingly, it only returns one page.

    So, yes, Y!Q does something different. I don't know if it's entirely useful, but it's not entirely redundant, either.

  30. wiki by jlebrech · · Score: 1

    Sounds like wiki to me.

  31. Obligatory Bookmarklet by hacker · · Score: 4, Interesting
    You can do this with a simple bookmarklet:
    javascript:Qr=document.getSelection();if(!Qr){void (Qr=prompt('Keywords...',''))};if(Qr)location.href ='http://google.com/search?query='+'%22'+escape(Qr )+'%22&num=100'

    Stick this on your Mozilla/Firefox toolbar (all on one line of course), highlight a word or words, and click it.

    It also works if you click it without highlighting text. It will pop up a dialog where you can enter terms you want to search.

    Simple!

    1. Re:Obligatory Bookmarklet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Simple if you know how... ;)

    2. Re:Obligatory Bookmarklet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you can't do this with a simple bookmarklet that goes to google. RTFA.

  32. Re:I can't wait until the next party and people... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it's the sound you make when you get your private parts caught in something

  33. Mac OS X has this built in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They showed a picture of how this works with Firefox:

    http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/us/sch/yq/sp_f irefox.gif

    Select text, pull up contextual menu, Query To... Y!Q.

    In Mac OS X you can use services with ANY application, and one of the built in services is "Search with Google", which is Shift-Apple-L when you have any selected static text in any application. You can also control click selected text in Safari and there are two options: Copy and Google search.

    This is already much better integration and ease of use than Y!Q with Firefox (don't know how well it works with IE).

  34. Well, mod me down! by AtariAmarok · · Score: 1

    Well, mod me down. there it is! It just was not coming up in the yahoo searches I did. Someone moded me "interesting" without checking.

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
  35. It searches whatever you put there by cbreaker · · Score: 1

    On the very page the parent linked, it has instructions on how to add Yahoo to this context menu.

    --
    - It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
  36. del.icio.us integration? by TuringTest · · Score: 4, Interesting

    For all those folks comparing it to Firefox "Search web for selection", this is a very different beast. What Y!Q does is adding metadata to your query, so that only pages are listed which both

    1) contain the terms you selected and
    2) are related to the metadata of the original website.

    I wonder what the results could be if this technology were merged with masive metadata with distributed generation.

    --
    Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
    1. Re:del.icio.us integration? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It seems to me blinkx has been doing this for some time now, only its automatic. The problem i am having with Y!Q is that i have to manually select and highlight then type it what i want to find with it and sometimes i get the results i want...its seems faster just to type in what i want into a search engine.

  37. found a bug allready... by bizmark22 · · Score: 0

    turns out when you click the link to use this, and then close the window, try to "Back" up, and apparently the first backup click is backing out of the dynamic window you saw when you used the new feature... it now requires TWO clicks to go back... seems like a trick to me... QUICK HONEY! FETCH MY TINFOIL HAT!!

    --


    I read slashdot for the sigs...

  38. I want to add it.... by Sophrosyne · · Score: 1

    ...but I'm afraid of upsetting google. I don't want my ranking to drop!

  39. automagically generated results? by viva_fourier · · Score: 1

    1. Develop alternate interface to internet search engine.
    2. Select outdated, annoying IT colloquialism to describe technical step #3.
    3. ?
    4. Profit!

    --
    and now back to the fallout shelter...
  40. The key is the search-side by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 1

    Everyone is focusing on the "right-click on selected text and search for it" part of this deal, but that is not where the innovation is supposed to be. If you highlight more than 10 words in google, it will drop the rest. This Y!Q thing lets you enter a bunch of text, and it uses that text to get a contextual idea of what you're searching for and find results. It is not looking for pages with all those search terms in the pages.

    How does it do all this?

    Magic.

    --
    Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
  41. I really can't think of the last time I wanted.... by Zphbeeblbrox · · Score: 1

    This kind of functionality. I basically search when I don't have any sites with the information I'm looking for. If I already have a site with the information I'm looking for generally they have links to similar information on the site. I honestly can't think of a situation when I would want to use it. That's just me though. I'm sure there's a market out there for it, else Why would Yahoo be putting it out there? Right?

    --
    If you see spelling or grammatical errors don't blame me. I tried to preview but IE here at work borked the CSS
  42. Y!Q.... by thiophene · · Score: 1

    I don't know, but I would bang Q because he is omnipotent.

  43. Y!Q... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    when you can !M?

  44. Y!Q? by blanks · · Score: 1

    Why didn't they call it Ctlr!F

  45. Did it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cool!

  46. Mod Parent up. by BigDogCH · · Score: 1

    Ahhhh, thanks. Aussie found what was confusing me. Now it makes sence. Mod aussie up please!

  47. Tinfoil hat time indeed by ImaLamer · · Score: 1

    Actually, they are letting you know that signing up for a Yahoo! account makes it easier to match the information they already keep on you.

    Oh, and that they buy information from third parties and in the future they will form a master database about you and your habits. But they don't say they will sell them and that they are basically doing the same thing most web sites do already.

    I look at my logs daily, I like to know about the people who visit.

  48. Re:I can't wait until the next party and people... by aussie_a · · Score: 1

    try and verbalize "Y!Q"

    Why exclamation mark Q? It's a mouthful, but certainly nothing naughty....

  49. Re:I can't wait until the next party and people... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The bang (!) is silent :-)

  50. A Real Winner! by Rambo · · Score: 1

    After adding the "yq" bookmark/keyword search to Firefox I decided to give it a real challenge with the question: What is the best operating system? First entry: Linux Online :-)

  51. Yes, but... by loonicks · · Score: 1

    How do you prounce it? Yah-Queue? Why-Queue? Yahoo! Query? Maybe Eee-Queue?

    1. Re:Yes, but... by lnishihira · · Score: 1

      the bang is silent :-)

      YQ

  52. Re:I can't wait until the next party and people... by jvj24601 · · Score: 1

    Why bang Q? He's omnipotent, that's why.

    Omnipotent? I thought he died?

  53. Re:I can't wait until the next party and people... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I read it as "Why not queue?". Maybe it's slow to return results...

  54. Re:I can't wait until the next party and people... by Reignking · · Score: 1

    Wrong Q!!! Geek privileges denied. (ST:TNG reference)

    --
    One man's Funny is another man's Offtopic.
  55. Use it, Then Comment. by lnishihira · · Score: 1

    I notice the following patterns on the negative comments here on slashdot.

    • CMD+F does the same thing (which btw it doesn't)
    • Google has Select/Query integration in Firefox by default and is therefore not original
    • Same as Google's Similar Pages

    I recommend that all of the people spouting these types of comments check out all the flavors and implementations of Y!Q. To summarize, the first three of these four have not really been talked about in this forum (or just barely scratched). You're missing a glaring 75% of the features:

    1. on Yahoo! News (click on the Search Related Info form button)
    2. on any Web page (a demo toolbar)
    3. on your own site (put the aforementioned functionality in #1 on your own site)
    4. in Firefox (utilizes contexual menu functionalty; much like what's already there)

    Additionally, from the Y!Q results page, you can "peel" superflouous search criteria to narrow down to what you are looking for.

    I encourage everyone commenting on this release to actually read about and use it, so you can all know what you've been commenting about. I'm all in favor of poking holes in things, but at least know what you're poking.