Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Goes to Answers.com

Posted by timothy on from the abruptness dept.

tod_miller writes "Google has changed its definitions link from dictionary.com to answers.com. A google search for juxtaposition shows the effect. What is interesting is that answers.com pulls information from wikipedia.org, which was provided bandwidth by google.com [and now Google is providing a service that will be used worldwide to pull information off Wikipedia]. Aside from having both a dictionary.com and a wikipedia.org search box in FireFox (as well as Google) the definition link on Google is still useful and I regularly check it for obscure uses or exact definitions of words. Now it uses answers.com we do not get all the different forms of the word, but we do get any medical or wikipedic information. Interestingly, answers.com does not use Google AdSense, but commission junction that looks like it. There is no announcement yet from Google of their change." This change took place several weeks ago, as players of e-scrabble and other compulsive word-checkers might have noticed. Update: 03/13 23:20 GMT by T : (Also mentioned in passing last month.) Update: 03/14 02:13 GMT by T : Brion Vibber writes: "Google does *not* provide any bandwidth to Wikipedia at this time, except in the sense that they 'use up' our bandwidth when people using their search engine come to our site. ;)"

19 of 194 comments (clear)

  1. Dupe by Paul+McMahon · · Score: 3, Informative

    Dupe

  2. Wikipedia information incorrect by A.+Brate · · Score: 5, Informative

    You might want to correct the false statement that Google is providing hosting services to Wikipedia. Google has made such a proposal only.

    --
    author,
    1. Re:Wikipedia information incorrect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Thanks for pointing this out. For people who are interested, see the following link:

      http://www.google.com/search?q=google+wikipedia+ba ndwidth

  3. No announcement by darkpurpleblob · · Score: 4, Informative
    There is no announcement yet from Google of their change.
    No there isn't, and I don't see any reason why they need to make one. However Marissa Meyer, Product Manager for Google explains the switch to answers.com:
    This decision was driven off of concern for our user experience. We are not paying answers.com for this service nor are they paying us. They were willing to work with us and design a website that we felt represented an improvement for our users over what was offered on dictionary.com (no pop-ups, dense information presentation).
  4. Artical unclear... by Paralizer · · Score: 5, Informative
    I never noticed this feature before, so when I read the post I had no idea what it was talking about, other than something google was doing had changed from linking to dictionary.com to answers.com.

    For those of you wondering the same thing, since the post didn't really discuss where the feature is located, if you google query for "juxtaposition" (or any other word), at the top right portion of the results page there is a little information about how long the query took:
    Results 1 - 10 of about 887,000 for juxtaposition [definition]. (0.10 seconds)
    [definition] is the link which the post is referring to, it links to answers.com with the definition of the word.
  5. Re:And Slashdot Too! by pHatidic · · Score: 3, Informative

    Wikipedia is already the 69th most popular website in the english website according to alexa.com, how much more mainstream can you get?

  6. Re:display by wodgy7 · · Score: 2, Informative

    It's Trebuchet MS. It is a very nice typeface, especially for on-screen use because of its large x-height. For some reason it suffers a bit of horizontal optical compression when viewed with ClearType on an XP machine. It looks particularly nice on MacOS X.

  7. Re:How much is google funding? by fm6 · · Score: 3, Informative
    Does anyone find it a bit disconcerting that answers.com gets ad revenue for wikipedia's content.
    They're one of many. Wikipedia content is licensed under the GFDL, which means anybody can use Wikipedia content to create their own online reference. There are many of these, but Answers.com is the only one I've seen that isn't a complete joke. In fact, Answers.com has a lot more to it than just reformatted Wikipedia entries, as you'll soon see if you browse their site.
  8. Rather's new job by Brad+Jashinsky · · Score: 1, Informative

    "Interestingly, answers.com does not use Google AdSense, but commission junction that looks like it." Really? Sure doesn't look like it. Great, an old story with 2 false facts. I didn't know Dan Rather wrote for Slashdot.

  9. Don't go there. by blair1q · · Score: 4, Informative

    Go here:

    www.onelook.com

    All the dictionaries that matter*.

    * - except the OED, which believes more in money than in the free flow of information

  10. answers.com misses an edit link by Eloquence · · Score: 4, Informative
    While answers.com is a fully compliant Wikipedia mirror in terms of respecting the requirements of the GNU Free Documentation License, it would be very nice and beneficial for both answers.com and Wikipedia if they could provide a prominent direct link to edit the Wikipedia article. Wikipedia can only work if people keep editing and improving its content, and that effect is lost on read-only mirrors. I have sent that suggestion to GuruNet (the company operating answers.com), and here's what I got back:
    That's a very good idea, Erik, and one that we even discussed with Jimmy Wales when he visited our offices earlier this year. We're still working out how the Answers.com Wikipedia relationship is going to work, but I would not at all be surprised to see something like what you suggest down the road.
    So, hopefully they will add an edit link soon. It is also notable that GuruNet has expressed an interest in supporting Wikimedia in various ways (the specifics are not public at this point).
  11. Re:Maybe it will help improve wictionary by Buzzard2501 · · Score: 5, Informative
    Well, Wikipedia certainly does a better job of describing juxtaposition that Dictionary.com

    Dictionary.com
    The act or an instance of juxtaposing or the state of being juxtaposed.
    Wikipedia
    Generally, juxtaposition, or contrasting is an act or instance of placing two things close together or side by side, in order to show unlikeness or differences, to note the opposite qualities of the two, etc.

    In music it is an abrupt change of elements.

    In film the position of shots next to one another is intended to create meaning within the audiences mind.

    In literature it occurs when two images that are otherwise not commonly brought together appear side by side or structural close together - thereby creating the reader to stop and reconsider the meaning of the text through the contrasting images/ideas/motifs.

    Modernist poetry played extensivley with juxtaposing images, inserting unrelated fragments togther in order to create wonder and interest in readers.

    Which would you prefer?
    --
    Real programmers don't comment their code. It was hard to write, it should be hard to understand.
  12. Re:Wikipedia by compm375 · · Score: 3, Informative

    answers.com pulls the information from multiple places, one of which is Wikipedia.

  13. A much more cleaner alternative that I use by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative


    Dictionary: http://www.elook.org/dictionary/

    Thesuarus: http://www.elook.org/thesaurus/

    And FOLDOC: http://www.elook.org/computing/

    No ads, lightning fast results. Found a link to it at my compsci course website.

  14. Firefox Search Plugin by superyooser · · Score: 2, Informative

    Answers.com search plugin for Firefox

  15. A change for the worse by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 2, Informative
    A music acquaintance of mine was asking about the meaning of the notational ten. used in a piece of music. Looking in dictionary.com, I found the musical definition easily as an abbreviation of the term tenuto: So as to be held for the full time value; sustained. Used chiefly as a directionI also found about twenty other definitions.

    I looked in answers.com under ten and found a lot of stuff about ten but only about six definitions - most of them widely known already and dealing with ten as a number.

    I don't know about the rest of you, but I use a dictionary as that - a dictionary - a place to get definitions and usage for words, and the more (and the more unusual) definitions, the better.

    In my opinion, the information from answers.com has more vebose information with respect to basic definitions, translations, etc., as well as a lot of eye candy, but has much less depth lexicographically. It doesn't seem as useful qua dictionary as dictionary.com was.

    --
    That is all.
  16. Re:Problems with Wikis... by CyberDave · · Score: 2, Informative

    Supposedly it only takes an average of 4 minutes for a WikiPedia vandalism to get corrected, pretty much regardless of the popularity of the article. I find that pretty impressive.

  17. Re:Good change by SteelV · · Score: 2, Informative

    I don't think you got what define:WORD is. It's not the linked words after you do a search. It's a google parameter such as movies:, doing define:WORD will give the definition of the word from many online resources, not any one. I use it all the time.

  18. Re:Problems with Wikis... by David+Gerard · · Score: 2, Informative

    Jimmy Wales (who started Wikipedia) has asked really nicely for a feature where anonymous edits don't show up for ten minutes to anonymous viewers (logged-in editors' changes would show up immediately, logged-in editors would always see the current version). Unfortunately the devs say it would be a nightmare to program, but it's obviously desirable and people are thinking seriously about how to do it.

    --
    http://rocknerd.co.uk