Google Users more Wealthy, Net Savvy

evil_breeds writes "A study by S.G. Cowen & Co. says that Google users tend to be richer and have more Internet experience than users of the other search engines, including Yahoo!, AOL, and Microsoft's search, according to an article on Infoworld."

Comments

That can't be

[dg41]

I know plenty of hippies that use Google.

Re:That can't be

[leonmergen]

... then you must be Wealthy, Net Savvy enough to keep up the average... kudos to you my friend! :-)

Re:That can't be

[Galston]

Yes. I for one have to set the hounds on those pesky hippies that venture in the grounds of my manor house trying to use their 'yahoo' on my wireless conection.

Re:That can't be

[Billygoatz]

When I recieve those question aires it's my only chance in life to look like a big shot,

so I put my "top ramen" soup down and answer $500,000+

Re:That can't be

[Anonymous Coward]

And back in the 80's and 90's, those same hippies were using the internet, when the lower class was using compuserve and AOL.

Re:That can't be

[16nd60s]

"Less hair on the outside, more hair on the inside . . . tends to crowd the brain." Bob Dylan (circa late 60's) I wonder if he Googles? I'm not so sure wealth breeds brains. Brats, definitely, bias and bull-headedness, probably. Hippie cop-outs are likely running the world these days and perhaps their ability to think freely aided in their arrival atop the flock. Hippies aren't inherently stupid anymore than all "suits" are Republican. Money causes the problems it solves.

Re:That can't be

[scool]

They're also better looking and make fantastic lovers.

Re:That can't be

[Anonymous Coward]

Better looking too.

Quick!

[TCM]

Everyone use Google and wealth and wisdom will ensue!

Re:Quick!

[twitter]

Everyone use Google and wealth and wisdom will ensue!

That's a nice joke, but the old saying "No knowledge no bread, no bread no knowledge" is true. People who know computing use free software and Google. People who don't really care use M$ and junk search engines. The true careless still watch TV to stay informed, well entertained. Poverty follows carelessness as surely as the laws of nature punish stupidity. People like Bill Gates will take their money.

If you don't like people who take advantage of the weak and the stupid, don't give them your money and elect people who will enforce laws instead of using them to protect the abusers.

Mac users

[wazzzup]

So I wonder if a majority of Mac users use Google? The demographics are the same. Personally, I use a Mac and there are no other search engines but Google.

Re:Mac users

[HexRei]

I suppose you have some citations for this claim? I'd buy that Mac users are on the average wealthier (Macs are more expensive) but as someone who has supported both PC and Mac users in a wide variety of circumstances, I don't see much difference between the two in regard to "net savvy".

Re:Mac users

[Anonymous Coward]

The demographics are the same? Since when? I don't mean to be offensive but in my entire life/career everytime we used macs was because they were considered to be more "idiot friendly". School children, very non-tech savy people, etc. I know a lot of very intelligent people use Macs, but overall I think the primary Mac demographic is art, video & design and the "two-button mouses are too confusing" crowd.

Re:Mac users

[OverlordQ]

Google is right up the Hippie Mac users' alley?

Re:Mac users

[sm3ggy]

http://www.internetnews.com/stats/article.php/1403 581 There is a citation for you.

Re:Mac users

[jimktrains]

Oh, you mean that *nix distro with an AWESOME GUI? Yeah I use it. I also use google the most often because it looks better in Lynx.

On a more serious note: Some people don't use google? Even the semi-computer illerteate people I know use google and nothing else. It's like second nature to most everyone, I thought.

Re:Mac users

[Anonymous Coward]

*nix has a /proc filesystem. Thanks for playing.

Re:Mac users

[HexRei]

That survey is 3 and a half years old and identifies the reason that mac users (at that time) were more net savvy as due to the fact that half of them had been online for at least five years. Three+ years is plenty of time for that factor to swing in a different direction.

Re:Mac users

[Mr. Underbridge]

1) Yes, you definitely have to be decently well-off to be a Mac user. However, 2) Mac folks and their ~3% marketshare won't be enough to skew the general trend in a noticeable way.

Re:Mac users

[Kitsuneymg]

Even the semi-computer illerteate people I know use google and nothing else.

Exactly. My whole familiy uses Google. Hell, they use it as a verb. This shows that even non-tech savvy people know that Google is THE search engine. I mean, just look at http://justfuckinggoogleit.com/. No one made a justfuckingyahooit or justfuckingaskjeeves.

Re:Mac users

[BushCheney08]

Even the semi-computer illerteate people...

I think we all can work a bit harder to help people become more computer lerteate.

Re:Mac users

[Fred_A]

Oddly enough a lot of people I know insist on using Yahoo. They admit that google has a cleaner interface and better results but they still use yahoo.

It's a bit like those people that can't manage to switch to Firefox. They tried it, saw that it worked just as well or better than IE, had better features, and still used IE.

I've given up on figuring them out. It must be something like religion, it doesn't make any logical sense.

Re:Mac users

[Fred_A]

Actually all macs aren't that expensive, when I bought my iBook for 1200 € it was after carefully considering the alternative (an Intel/AMD Linux laptop), and the Apple machine certainly was cheaper.

With desktop machines, this doesn't work though.

OTOH, if you want to fully use the software that comes bundled with it, you have to pay extra.

Re:Mac users

[TheRaven64]

Probably, since the search box in Safari goes to Google. It's always google.com, however, which is irritating. I filed a bug over a year ago saying that it should be localised for non-US people, and it was marked as a duplicate, but still hasn't been fixed.

Re:Mac users

[Mr. Underbridge]

Actually all macs aren't that expensive, when I bought my iBook for 1200 it was after carefully considering the alternative (an Intel/AMD Linux laptop), and the Apple machine certainly was cheaper.

You can get significantly more powerful laptops than an iBook for 1200 Euro. I say this as a Powerbook owner too - the decision was not made from a cost standpoint.

Re:Mac users

[ZeonMan0079]

"It's a bit like those people that can't manage to switch to Firefox. They tried it, saw that it worked just as well or better than IE, had better features, and still used IE."

I have always believed these kind of people think IE is more "official" or something (installing "that other program" won't do, even though they install every mini-"game" that comes in cereal boxes), and because Yahoo! and MSN smack them 15 of their other services in the ir front page they use nothing else (They use either (MSN || Yahoo!) Messenger ONLY, etc.

They still probably have the 15 shortcuts to AOL, MSN, Compuserve, etc. in their 50 shortcut 800x600 desktop.

Google is the epitome of good desing, unobtrusive on the outside but yet full of substance.

Re:Mac users

[Fred_A]

Yes, I know that, but if you want a no hassle Unix, which was my main puchase factor, the Mac was the cheapest option.

Linux is still a major pain to use on notebooks (unless you have way too much time on your hands, and even then) and notebooks that come with Linux preinstalled typically suck and/or are overpriced.

I don't expect to stick with the Mac though since although I don't regret my choice, I'm not overly impressed with the Unix side of things. Apple may have used a BSD base but it's really hard to find below all the crud, and even then it has been twisted so far that it's become quite difficult to use. Still what there is is nice to have. I'd still prefer a proper Linux or Unix machine though.
At the end of the iBook's life in 2 or 3 years, I hope that the "laptop problem" will be solved on the Linux side and I'll be able to pick a generic machine.

Disclaimer: I have been using Linux for about 10 years now, I'm just not interested in spending ages getting hardware to work anymore. The laptop was for working on, not toying with.

Re:Mac users

[AmberBlackCat]

I think alltheweb.com is better for image searches than Google because they link directly to the image instead of making you load a whole webpage with a billion other things on it. I also think Google tends to suffer from being the most popular search engine out there, similar to how Windows suffers by being the most popular Operating System out there. Everybody's spamming Google and trying to make its algorithms fail, which can tend to make other search engines better. I think the general trend in information technology is, smaller is better.

Re:Mac users

[lasindi]

Oddly enough a lot of people I know insist on using Yahoo. They admit that google has a cleaner interface and better results but they still use yahoo.

I use Google over Yahoo, but really it's more because of features like "define: X". When I google myself, I actually get worse results than with Yahoo or MSN. Google used to put my webpage at the top, but now it's down to the 3rd result and has switched around numerous times. Yahoo and MSN have consistently put my page at the top for a while now.

I'm not saying that one search is enough to show one search engine is better than another. But it does raise questions about whether or not Google really is undeniably superior to its rivals.

Re:Mac users

[crucini]

I can't speak for the people you know, but Yahoo's search engine is better than Google's; it does a better job filtering out keyword spam. And Yahoo has a nice clean interface at search.yahoo.com.

Re:Mac users

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally, I use Windows and prefer to use CoolWebSearch.

Re:Mac users

[Mr. Underbridge]

Yes, I know that, but if you want a no hassle Unix, which was my main puchase factor, the Mac was the cheapest option.

Ah, same reason I got one. I was probably confused by "cheapest" - I've seen so few *nix on laptop options it's basically "only."

I don't expect to stick with the Mac though since although I don't regret my choice, I'm not overly impressed with the Unix side of things. Apple may have used a BSD base but it's really hard to find below all the crud, and even then it has been twisted so far that it's become quite difficult to use. Still what there is is nice to have. I'd still prefer a proper Linux or Unix machine though.

Agreed. Compiling OSS apps from source is a major bitch since some required toolkit will invariably puke on the Mac, requiring major Makefile investigation...or, more likely, saying "screw it."

Re:Mac users

[Skim123]

I think it's fear of upsetting the computer. They've used IE. It works, for the most part, so why rock the boat? Plus some people don't like change. My wife has some great recipes, but she won't deviate from them. Even when I cook them a couple weeks later with some twists, when it's her turn, she goes straight back to the old faithful approach rather than using my admittedly tasty customizations or trying her own new mix.

It can be frustrating if you're one who thinks the "new" recipe is a lot better than the "old," but it's not worth getting to excited about, one way or the other.

Ho Hum.

[Anonymous Coward]

And this is important for what reason?

One step closer

[RasendeRutje]

I think we're one step closer to Miscrosoft paying us to use their search engine...

Re:One step closer

[Barny]

If the price was right, and it just forwarded the results from a google search, i may even give it a try :)

Re:One step closer

[Anonymous Coward]

" I think we're one step closer to Miscrosoft paying us to use their search engine..."

Dude, it's already happening.

Re:One step closer

[climbon321]

They should go for it, as it worked so well for http://www.iwon.com/

In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

Another study by S.G. Cowen & Co. shows that people who respond to spam e-mails have smaller penises.

Re:In other news...

[saskboy]

"A study by S.G. Cowen & Co. says that Google users tend to be richer and have more Internet experience than users of the other search engines,"

Oh great! Here come the spams with titles like:
"EN-LARGE UR BRAIN!!! Google unlocks engorged brain powers!!"

Not very surprised

[mcvos]

AOL and MS's Search are places you're directed to by your OS or ISP. Google is independent, so going there requires a bit more independent thought.

Actually, Yahoo! is also independent, so apparently there's a hole in my theory. Can anyone explain why Yahoo! users are less intelligent than Google users? Has it something to do with that exclamation mark?

Re:Not very surprised

[UnderDark]

The reason may be that
YAHOO! GOOGLE

Re:Not very surprised

[mattyrobinson69]

the yahoo toolbar is installed by default with acrobat reader?

Re:Not very surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

Can anyone explain why Yahoo! users are less intelligent than Google users?

Certainly. They are quite clearly a bunch of yahoos.

Re:Not very surprised

[nincehelser]

The word "yahoo" isn't particularly flattering. Look it up.

Re:Not very surprised

[billstr78]

Are you kidding? Have you downloaded a copy of Firefox in the last 2 years? Have you ever seen a screenshot of the default browser in Apple OS X? Google is the promonent, sticky and "difficult to ignore" search engine that pays Mozilla.org and Apple for it's promonent placement in those products?

Re:Not very surprised

[docbob]

Yahoo is also an ISP supplied one. If you have SBCGlobal, a special branded, but clearly Yahoo portal page is given to you open starting your browser, unless of course you 1)do not use their modified browser or 2) change it to your liking. The Doc

Re:Not very surprised

[The Clockwork Troll]

Yes, but the groups on which Google would then be "dependent" are what, 3% of the market?

Re:Not very surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, there is a very simple reason for that. I'm surprised no one has mentioned this.

Yahoo users tend to be people who like portal sites and want an experience that is already designed for them. Google users tend to be those who want to custom design their own experience; hence more computer saavy people.

Re:Not very surprised

[SeaFox]

Actually, Yahoo! is also independent, so apparently there's a hole in my theory. Can anyone explain why Yahoo! users are less intelligent than Google users?

Remember that Yahoo Mail has been around a lot longer than GMail. So lots of people using Yahoo's Search Engine do so because they are already frequent visitors to MyYahoo, Yahoo Mail, and Yahoo Auctions. GMail is relatively new compared to Google so it was more the reverse effect (people came to GMail because they already used the search engine, as well as the huge capacity).

I have a MyYahoo page as my homepage, but I rarely use the search engine part, as I have Google searches from my address bar in Firefox. I started using Google because I find the results I want more easily, or at least I used to.

When Google was an unknown to the general public, it's results were spades better than Yahoo's marketting infested returns. But since it's popularity has grown it has become just as convoluted by advertisers abusing the methods the engine uses to decide result ranking. It's sad there can't be a search engine that is both accurate and well known to the complete web-browsing public at the same time.

since we are always discussing microsoft

[way2trivial]

and their 'funded' windows v linux TCO studies..

I'm curious who paid SG Cowen for this one?

they don't generate this stuff for fun, they do it for income-- what's the source of the income that enables them to produce such a report?

anyone? know anything about the corp? I find little on the site of the company to fill in the blank...

Re:since we are always discussing microsoft

[akuma(x86)]

SG Cowen is a wall street investment bank. Their analysts get paid to do research on publicly traded companies.

They may have a position in google stock in which case they would try to find information to suggest that the stock should be priced higher. They may do investment banking business with google which introduces a conflict of interest. By law (regulation full-disclosure), the analyst needs to disclose such positions or investment banking relationships if they exist.

Their clients may have positions in google stock or be interested in buying or selling google. They pay the analysts for their reports. Accurate analysts develop good reputations and draw more business to the bank.

Re:since we are always discussing microsoft

[blane.bramble]

they don't generate this stuff for fun, they do it for income-- what's the source of the income that enables them to produce such a report?

Wrong. They produce reports on various markets as part of their own advertising: predict a trend, publish the prediction, if you are right, people will flock to you to manage their portfolios.

Re:since we are always discussing microsoft

[tpgp]

I think the main problem people have with the Microsoft funded studies is the conclusions they come to do not match people real world experiences.- hence questioning the source makes sense.

Whereas this 'study' elicits a 'well duh' type response.

1) People who have been on the 'net longer tend to be more educated.
2) Better educated people tend to be wealthier.
3) People using the 'net longer tend to use google 'cause it works well.

*shrugs*

Re:since we are always discussing microsoft

[Lettuce B. Qrious]

I don't want to guess who's paying them, but I can venture an opinion on who stands to gain from these results becoming generally accepted knowledge. It's the same thing as on TV and in print media: If you can convince somebody that your audience is generally wealthier and smarter than anybody else's, you can charge more from the advertisers who want to reach them through your site.

Imagine the discussion;
"How come you charge us X dollars per users when we only pay X minus 20 percent at Yahoo!?"
"Well, that's 'cause our users have more money to buy your products. Who will you rather reach; a couch potato with no dough, or a Lexus-toting, MBA-graduated duchebag with nine platinum mastercards and no bars on using them?"

If you're wondering why "The West Wing" is still on (shows with higher ratings than theirs have been cancelled before), that's it: The people who do watch it, are probably most educated TV viewers in the US media universe. Hence, they're "worth" more to the advertisers, and the show makes more money than its viewership would indicate by their mere numbers.

Who Doesn't Google?

[pianorain]

You mean they actually found a computer user that doesn't use Google?!? Not just one, but a whole group of them?!?

Re:Who Doesn't Google?

[tsa]

Yes. And all those people are too poor to be able to afford an internet connection.

Re:Who Doesn't Google?

[Anonymous Coward]

I use a9.com for my searches. The results are enhanced by google etc, but I haven't used google homepage in 5-6 months.

Re:Who Doesn't Google?

[Barny]

Don't look at me, every computer my store builds has google as its IE home page and search page, as well as firefox :)

Re:Who Doesn't Google?

[pla]

You mean they actually found a computer user that doesn't use Google?!? Not just one, but a whole group of them?!?

I found it hard to believe as well, until I started my most recent job (from pure software to "everything and the kitchen sink")...

I intially started giving new PCs Firefox with Google as the homepage, as most people I knew preferred it that way.

People complained loudly, wondering where the "internet" had gone.

So I started changing the FireFox icon to MSIE's icon. Still didn't help much...

I finally realized that everyone wanted MSN as their home page.

Unbelievable, but it made all the complaints go away... people even like FireFox, as long as I set the homepage to MSN for them.

I just don't get it. if you want prepackaged ad-heavy content thrown at you, why not just watch TV? Well, I suppose people can't watch TV at work, whereas they can justify a few trips to a "legitimate" site such as MSN a few times a day.

Re:Who Doesn't Google?

[Prog_Burner]

On a related note. Back in the bad old days, I worked in a call centre and we had an offer with the forms online. The web address wasn't complicated, so if people lost the form, that was the easiest way to get a replacement. One day I got a call from a guy who needed a replacement form....I read the web address off and he asked if I could stay on the phone while he found it...not an odd request, people like to see it before they let you go.
Fast forward to 20 minutes later, with me wondering why he can't manage to type in a simple web address and him repeating what had become his mantra "I use the internet every day, so I KNOW how to use it."
Now I had given complete instructions many times in this period, including "Type it in the address bar in IE." after verifying that the icon was indeed an "e"
As it turns out, he had SBC/Yahoo and had never typed an actual web address...he just used the default yahoo search on the homepage, it also appears that he (or someone else) had hidden the address bar in IE....and he was not going to enable it, no matter what I said. I eventually directed him to call SBC tech support (although what they could do is questionable.)

The moral:
Never, ever overestimate a user.
Which can now be ammended with the question:
"Do you use Google?"

Rich?

[OverlordQ]

Will all you rich Google users please send this Broke College Student some money?

Re:Rich?

[Anonymous Coward]

Will all you rich Google users please send this Broke College Student some money?

Just give me your Bank Account Access Details, Account Type, Password Table and Payment Confirmation Codes and I'll put 100.000$ to your account.

Sincerely,
Robert Guie
Nigeria

Re:Rich?

[Dante Shamest]

We're rich because we don't do stuff like that. =)

And didn't you email me last week about saving your uncle from some Nigerian jail? ;)

Re:Rich?

[chillmost]

Will all you rich Google users please send this Broke College Student some money?

Why don't you just google for it?

Re:Rich?

[bad jerkface]

I'm glad you weren't hurt in the plane crash!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051210/ap_on_re_af/ni geria_plane_crash

Could it be

[zappepcs]

that Goooooogle users actually know what they are looking for when they search on the Internet, and so use Goooogle, and people that don't know what they are looking for are happy with whatever Yahoo! and others dish up?

I know I use Gooooogle because I'm able to use it to find what I want to find, and normally in the first page. This is not so with other search engines. I may be biased by personal taste, but that seems to show some difference that might explain the headline?

Re:Could it be

[hankwang]

that Goooooogle users actually know what they are looking for when they search on the Internet, and so use Goooogle, and people that don't know what they are looking for are happy with whatever Yahoo! and others dish up?

This is probably an important factor (although Yahoo doesn't seem to be too bad, it is just not being updated with fresh content as aggressively as Google). However, what's more interesting is how this shows how reluctant or ignorant people are to change things. It can be argued that OSS often is less polished than the commercial equivalents and that the time to get used to it is a barrier against change. But Google is better, both in search results and in user-friendliness, than for example MS search. Even with zero investment and a large potential improvement, people don't change. Why?

More gullible too

[NigelJohnstone]

nt.

hmmm..

[Anonymous Coward]

1. use google
2. ???
3. Profit!

No word on...

[Scareduck]

... more attractive to the opposite sex just yet, though I'm sure that if Google could get you laid, you'd think I'd've heard about it by now...

Re:No word on...

[carndearg]

So _that's_ where we're going wrong!

Hang on, Yahoo gives you http://personals.yahoo.com/ but Google users have more cash. Could this be the real reason?

Re:No word on...

[headLITE]

After I first met my gf, we didn't see each other for months since she lives halfway across the country (of course, said country being Germany, that wasn't as bad as it sounds). We started to exchange e-mails, currently totalling over 4k messages. I'm fairly certain our ability to look up information on Google and impress each other with it played an important part in this. Thousands of e-mails from the same person tend to be boring if there's never anything new in them. That was in 2004. We've been "officially together" for the better part of 2005 and she's finally moving in with me this month. Thanks, Google.

Re:No word on...

[Qzukk]

if Google could get you laid, you'd think I'd've heard about it by now...

http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Acraigslist.o rg+m4w

Now you know, and knowing is half the battle.

Re:No word on...

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, for that, you need a Mac.

Of course, if you aren't already a Mac user, don't even bother trying to fake it.

Re:No word on...

[null-sRc]

richer = more attractive to the opposite sex

Re:No word on...

[The Real Nem]

So what are your conversations like now?

"Welcome home honey."
*Runs off to computer.*
*Googles really long words.
*Runs back.*
"Gynotikolobomassophile!"
"What's that dear?"
"One who likes to nibble on a woman's earlobe."
"Ooooh, has someone been a naughty gynotikolobomassophile today? Come here. Oh ya, that's the spot, right there..."

I apologize for the ending, my creative writing skills are lacking at best.

Re:No word on...

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh no, don't give Google any more ideas- like a matchmaking service.

Re:No word on...

[Prog_Burner]

Have you ever looked at Yahoo personals? That just proves that yahoo attracts the lowest common denominator.


Disclaimer:
I apologize in advance to anyone who has used or is using Yahoo personals. This is strictly meant as a broad generalization of the people that use Yahoo personals and should in no way be considered a personal attack.

Re:No word on...

[Anonymous Coward]

Google users have more gf, That's is news!

The downside is that are long distance relationships, so you can't say Google users have more sex.

Re:No word on...

[whitehatlurker]

Oh, to have mod points right now. I think I'd give an insightful to the parent post.

I was looking for the posts that said that Google users were also better looking / sexually attractive / whatever, but maybe that goes along with the "richer" part.

The question remains: What about those of us who still use older search engines?

Re:No word on...

[TERdON]

Actually I think that it might be a GOOD idea for them. Most matchmaking sites available today are really really expensive to use, which tend to really nullify their practical usefulness (it simply costs too much for the not-so-desperate singles out there). I just don't really understand what it is that costs that much, and kinda hope that it would be the same for Google (yeah I'm the classical /. stereotype single male...)

Re:No word on...

[Anonymous Coward]

Guess I'll just point you to okcupid.com

Re:No word on...

[Anonymous Coward]

I am!

Re:No word on...

[TERdON]

Muchas gracias, señor!

Google makes you smarter

[alchamy]

Since the first time I started using google it has always impressed me, the ease of use and accurate search results were just the beginning.

For me the best thing about Google is that you can use regular expressions in your search strings which really gives you the best possible results, sure other search engines allow expressions but none as complex or effective as those found in google.

Whenever I need to know something or understand something better I do a quick google and within minutes I have the information I need.

I can think of several occasions where something gets mentioned in a meeting etc and I honestly have no clue what people are talking about, while they are still talking I can do a quick google and be back on track within seconds. The "define word" function is one of my favorite ways to get quick answers.

Other search engines just don't do it for me, the results are not nearly as accurate and the excess adverts/banners slowing down the entire process really annoy me.

A google user truely has the world at his/her fingertips.

Re:Google makes you smarter

[Anonymous Coward]

And richer! We must not forget that part :)

Re:Google makes you smarter

[sydb]

you can use regular expressions in your search strings

I tried one and it didn't work:

http://www.google.com/search?hs=Ja5&hl=en&lr=&safe =off&c2coff=1&client=firefox&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen- US%3Aunofficial&q=comp%5Ba-zA-Z%5D*&btnG=Search

Please tell me how I may use regular expressions in Google, because it would certainly be nice. I am highly sceptical of your claim, I think the resource utilisation would be too great to give such a facility to the public.

Re:Google makes you smarter

[euthman]

I am reasonably sure that Google does not support regular expressions in its search fields. There is no mention of regex on a search of the help pages, and this page specifically indicates that the asterix character does not function as it does in a regex.

There was some European general search engine a few years ago that did support regex, but it had indexed only a paltry number of pages on the Web and was pretty much useless.

Re:Google makes you smarter

[alchamy]

Perhaps it was a bit bold to say regular expressions, its more permutations since it supports words and not letters.

But you can do things like "word * word"

You can also do something like this

"(I|He|She) (can|may|will) (search|find|locate)"

I agree with you that they would never (not atm) allow the public to have access to something that is turing-complete.

Re:Google makes you smarter

[sydb]

Well, it's not regexp but it's certainly more than I knew you could do. Thanks for that, very useful indeed!

Re:Google makes you smarter

[jnana]

FYI: regular expressions (finite automata) are not Turing-complete.

Re:Google makes you smarter

[rbarreira]

Apparently google wasn't good enough to make you know what regular expressions really are...

Re:Google makes you smarter

[hobbit126]

for fucks sake man, stop using words that you don't understand. seriously. you're only digging yourself deeper.

Re:Google makes you smarter

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because the software that Google runs is not Turing-complete.

I guess we can conclude...

[Anonymous Coward]

...that google is the smartest and most expensive free way to search the internet...

Net savvy users

[J_Darnley]

The net savvy users all know the phrase "Just fucking Google it!". Where as the not net savvy people ask "Where can I find x, y or z?"

Yeah?

[connah0047]

...and AOL user's are idiots. No news here.

Google-wealthy=Net Savvy

[microbrewer]

I might be net Savvy but I wish I was wealthy

Correlation != Cause

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing to see here folks. Move along.

Re:Correlation != Cause

[Snwbeast]

And here I was hoping that just using Google was the path to riches. At least it makes me smarter...

Google was good, going down?

[ATeamMrT]

What made google so appealing to people was the interface, there was no advertising. There was one blank page with an input box to do a search from. Google seperated advertising from searching at a time when other engines like Excite were filled with junk that distracted.

Today, Google seems to be going in the other direction. Offering more services, integrating more advertising.

Just the past 6 months, I have noticed a new form of advertising by Google. In the past, there would be the advertising on the right of the page, and the advertising on top in the blue or green box. But now they sneak in 3 or 4 searches on the first page mixed in with the regular searches as advertising. Google is tempted to make money, and it will burn thier support.

Who knows, maybe someone else will start a search engine. Google came around at a time when Yahoo and Excite dominated, but Google made a product easier to use. I remember my first time using Google... I was at Yahoo to search for something when someone said "Why don't you try google, check it out". I was hooked.

The past few months I have been using Yahoo more for a few reasons. Maybe reason #1 is I got tired of Google having so many websites listed so high that was spam.

The other thing which turned me off to Google was I started a website and wanted to add it to the listings. Google would not add my listings for six months. And mine is NOT spam. Why is spam listed so high, but legitimate websites are not?

Re:Google was good, going down?

[(1 -sqrt(5))*(2**-1)]

Just the past 6 months, I have noticed a new form of advertising by Google.

Would you mind linking to an example?

Re:Google was good, going down?

[Narc]

teoma.com is pretty nifty, doesnt sneak in sponsored links. Clean interface.

Re:Google was good, going down?

[jav1231]

I don't know where you're going, but Google still has a plain, no ad page when I go to their main page.

Re:Google was good, going down?

[OmnipotentEntity]

I think what the grandparent mistook for ads are the misspellings links.

For example, if you do a search for "profit" it will give you 3 links to sites, then ask if you meant "pro fit" and give you 3 links from there, and then finish out the rest of the page with results from "profit."

It looks suspiciously cluttered for google, and I also mistook them for ads the first time I saw them.

Re:Google was good, going down?

[antifoidulus]

The problem is that as google gains in popularity, people are learning more and more about how their search engine works and how to exploit it(see nigritude ultramarine). When google came on the scene nobody(including spammers) had seen anything like it, so you actually got useful results, unlike some other search engines. However, google has to be able to fight back against the tide of spamming to still continue to provide "useful" results, and in certain regards, I think like you, it's failling...

Re:Google was good, going down?

[coolcold]

as for listing, have you try to put that link in your sig on slashdot? I think that would definitely help to get your site listed

Re:Google was good, going down?

[Fear of C]

Who knows, maybe someone else will start a search engine. Google came around at a time when Yahoo and Excite dominated, but Google made a product easier to use. I remember my first time using Google... I was at Yahoo to search for something when someone said "Why don't you try google, check it out". I was hooked.

Long Live http://www.mozdex.com/!

Re:Google was good, going down?

[gaurzilla]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q= prescription&btnG=Search This is probably what he means.

Re:Google was good, going down?

[Paraplex]

Google have put a couple of 'neat' things in their search engine, but the web is seeming smaller and smaller because of their pagerank system.

I believe a search like "stumbleto's" search is along the right path. Its not there yet, but based on a database of your liked and disliked pages it could essentially understand a "context". eg if you search for "Birds" you're going to get all of the pages relating to real birds ranked far higher than pages relating to "hot birds". You're also going to get sites that agree with your disposition toward the subject (eg. bird-hate sites would rank a lot lower because there are more links between separate bird-like sites and fewer linking this cluster to a cluster of bird-hate sites)

Furthermore I think searches (image searches specifically) should be tagged and have their ranks change dynamically as visitors visit the sites. So an image or a website that is clicked on under the search terms "native bird" will be tagged as such and relationally linked to other pages creating a community context and therefore ranking more relevant items higher.
Users should have a limited ability to moderate searches by selectively nuking items which are irrelevant to the search terms which in turn would change the tags associated with it

Anyway, I think context based personalised searching is where the future of searching is at and stumbleto has the headstart on this.

Re:Google was good, going down?

[TractorBarry]

Another thing that hacks me off with the Google is the amount of "compare prices" spam links that now appear in the results.

It seems that whenever I look for anything a large amount of the initial results are along the lines of "compare prices for [search terms]". It doesn't even matter what I'm searching for as these idiots seem to think I'm only using the internet for shopping. All in all a complete fucking waste of time and space.

Personally what I'd like to see is a plugin whereby I can blacklist certain sites so they either don't get returned in my results or they're at least stripped out before the page is rendered. Perhaps a Firefox plugin would be nice ?

But despite this I still prefer Google to any of the others (although not so much that I let them store cookies on my machine ;)

Re:Google was good, going down?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not so! Just get a Firefox Google add-on, and you can customize it to have no ads, but if you use IE, you're screwed.

Re:Google was good, going down?

[Nintendork]

I know exactly what you're talking about. There's also times when I'm looking for hard to find items and I have to waste my time on web sites that do nothing more than cache the contents of Ebay auctions. If you go to one of those pages, you get tons of ads thrown at you and redirected to the Ebay acution. There's also the sites that have a web page devoted to keyword spamming. There's sites that have review pages for everything, even if there are no reviews. All of these make it difficult to find real content.

Re:Google was good, going down?

[ergo98]

as for listing, have you try to put that link in your sig on slashdot? I think that would definitely help to get your site listed /. adds nofollow on sigs and comment links, so add it as your sig gets you nothing.

They don't, however, put nofollow on journal entries, the beginning of which will appear on your profile page.

Re:Google was good, going down?

[Sean0michael]

Firefox does have an extension that pretty much does what you want it to do. It's called CustomizeGoogle. It works through 1.6~, features lots of customizability (my own word there) and has been given reviews as one of the best extensions to Firefox.

Get the extension here https://addons.mozilla.org/extensions/moreinfo.php ?id=743&application=firefox

That is, assuming you use Firefox ;)

Re:Google was good, going down?

[koko775]

I don't get it. Does that mean that http://www.google.com/search?q=mit and http://www.google.com/search?q=university+of+calif ornia+system are ads too? What am I supposed to be looking for?

Re:Google was good, going down?

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. People who have been google for a while and use it alot are probably noticing that their searches ain't what they used to be. As someone in a creative field, I use it daily as a reference gathering source. It was about 6 moths ago that I began noticing a bunch of crap filtering to the top of my searches. To make things from not totally awesome to totally not awesome, lately I've noticed that relatively obscure searches get really crappy results. They done sold out!

what I wanna know is, wheres the next google? (the awesome search engine not the hot hot hot ipo)

Re:Google was good, going down?

[Dominic_Mazzoni]

The other thing which turned me off to Google was I started a website and wanted to add it to the listings. Google would not add my listings for six months. And mine is NOT spam. Why is spam listed so high, but legitimate websites are not?

I've never had this problem. I create a new website, and Google finds it within a day or two. I don't even bother submitting it to Google - just promote the site; people link to it in their blogs, a few set up permanent links, and voila, it's indexed by Google. Of course, that assumes it's actually a useful site with some content that people find interesting and relevant.

Re:Google was good, going down?

[sloths]

When you're signed in to your Google Account (and maybe Google Personalised Search, I'm not sure) and you google something it will give you a link next to every result that says "remove result". After you click that it will give you an "undo" or "more options" link. More Options lets you either get rid of that site altogether, or just that page.

Re:Google was good, going down?

[bad jerkface]

Would you mind linking to an example?

Most slashdotters can't be bothered with googling. It looks like some of them don't even know the url!

http://www.google.com/

Re:Google was good, going down?

[Anonymous Coward]

What? I see no paid advertisements here. They all look like relevant search results.

Drug Information by RxList
Drug Information for Prescription Drugs, Side Effects, Interactions, Warnings, Overdose, Patient Info, Pharmacology, Online Pharmacy.
www.rxlist.com/ - 57k - Dec 8, 2005 - Cached - Similar pages - Remove result
RxList - Advanced Search - RxList - Top300
Xanax Online, Description, Chemistry, ...
More results from www.rxlist.com

MedlinePlus: Drug Information
Guide to prescription and over-the-counter medications provided by the United States Pharmacopeia.
www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/druginformation.html - 20k - Cached - Similar pages - Remove result

Prescription Drug Reference: Drug Information by Condtions
Health Square is a Health information resource Featuring information on drugs, diseases and disorders from the PDR (Physician's Desk Reference) Family Guide ...
www.healthsquare.com/drugmain.htm - 53k - Dec 8, 2005 - Cached - Similar pages - Remove result

Medicare.gov - The Official US Government Site for People with ...
Want to Learn More About the New Medicare Prescription Drug Coverage? ... Link to Prescription Drug and Other Assistance Programs Find a Medicare-Approved ...
www.medicare.gov/ - 52k - Dec 8, 2005 - Cached - Similar pages - Remove result

www.pparx.org/
1k - Cached - Similar pages - Remove result

Prescription Drugs, Information, Side Effects, Interactions ...
Prescription Drugs information and news for professionals and consumers. Search our drug database for comprehensive prescription and patient information on ...
www.drugs.com/ - 45k - Dec 8, 2005 - Cached - Similar pages - Remove result

ExRx (Exercise Prescription) on the Net
ExRx.net is a exercise resource of nearly 1700 pages for the exercise professional, coach, or fitness enthusiast. ExRx.net features a comprehensive exercise ...
www.exrx.net/ - 11k - Cached - Similar pages - Remove result

Express-Scripts.com
Express Scripts, Serving the prescription needs of more than 50 million ... Activate your account to use the online features of your prescription plan. ...
www.express-scripts.com/ - 22k - Dec 8, 2005 - Cached - Similar pages - Remove result

Offshore Sports Betting & Online Gambling at TheRx.com Sportsbook ...
Online Gambling & sports betting forum listing the best online sportsbooks.
www.theprescription.com/ - 65k - Dec 8, 2005 - Cached - Similar pages - Remove result

www.helpingpatients.org/
1k - Dec 8, 2005 - Cached - Similar pages - Remove result

Re:Google was good, going down?

[ericspinder]

What made google so appealing to people was the interface, there was no advertising.

Well what made it appealing to me was the fact that the page was quick to load, and the great search results, both from the page rank, and the commercial ads.

The fact that the main page had no ads to me was a bonus, besides those ads are a distraction from ones purpose on that page. And that purpose is to be delivered ads targeted to their search results. The banner ads take time to download, and often are loud and brash, Google, made a keep a commitment to refuse them. The use of only text allows one a quick comparison for company's offerings.

The past few months I have been using Yahoo more for a few reasons.

Yes, it looks like Yahoo has learned a couple of good lessons about the search business and, like others, is still competitive, which is, of course, a good thing.

Re:Google was good, going down?

[Anonymous Coward]

one word for the success of google...

groups.

that's why i go there.

if yahoo had the groups... i'd be going to yahoo mare than google... even with the distractions.

Re:Google was good, going down?

[alex4u2nv]

subscribe to adscense. It would make the process a whole lot quicker ;)

Re:Google was good, going down?

[Drakonian]

What the hell? Those are not ads. It's a new feature where Google will give a direct link to specific subsites if they are the most popular and believe you may be looking for them instead of the front page. It's the same sort of stuff as the caclulator, the spelling suggestions, etc. Google calls them "OneBoxes".

Re:Google was good, going down?

[bigblueball]

This is a minor example of the extreme power that Google has over small web-based businesses. Many rely on search engine traffic. But if the latest Google dance screws them over, they are screwed. I'm no so cynical to assume that Google does any such thing maliciously, but they have become a vital source that can make or break a site.

Re:Google was good, going down?

[Anonymous Coward]

The CustomizeGoogle extension for Firefox allows you to filter out domains in the results, which is really really handy.

I find more with Yahoo..

[cybrthng]

Google is just a mess for anything i look for. Yahoo's summaries are better, results are less poluted of advertising only sites and actually are more responsive.

This study only proves someone's bias for google and nothing more.

Hold on....

[sdo1]

...while I put my surprised face on.

Joe Average goes to his local Best Buy, Circuit City, or other mega-store and buys the PC that the pimply sales dweeb recommends. He doesn't know a Gigahertz from a megabyte. He unpacks his PC, plugs it in, answers yes to every question the computer recommends he answer yes to. He opens the browser and it points to MSN. His twelve year old daughter's friend uses Yahoo messenger, and therefore so does she.

Is anyone surprised that the technically non-savy and generally lesser educated segements of the populous don't know what's out there and pretty much just take what's fed to them? Don't get me wrong, there's plenty of well educated and afluent people who don't have a clue either.

-S

Re:Hold on....

[Billosaur]

Is anyone surprised that the technically non-savy and generally lesser educated segements of the populous don't know what's out there and pretty much just take what's fed to them?

But that's true of most things - cars, stereos, refrigerators. People don't really comparison shop anymore. They watch commercials, the commercials tell them what to do, and they do it, like lemmings to the sea. If Google advertised on TV and they redid this study, I'll bet the demographic would have shifted overnight.

As an aside, why do we in the tech community look down on such things? We're immersed in it every day. We read /. and eWeek and CNet, so it shouldn't come as a shock that we're more savvy than Joe Average. Joe Average doesn't know what /. is, nor does he care, He just wants a computer that works 90% of the time where he can bank online, check sports scores, buy neat stuff, and generlly fart around, and he's not going to go out of his way to listen to tech-heads.

Re:Hold on....

[Lostman]

Our way is not the best way, nor is it the only way... it is just a way...

I grew up playing on 8088's and specialized computer. I use google and (insert_other_geek_indicator_here). This doesnt make me better than anyone else (except, perhaps, in the computer world).

Example: I recently bought a house. My father in law and brother in law are not the computer elite. They are electrical engineers, HVAC, plumbing, etc. They also took time off their work to come up to our new house to help us fix tons of things that I just didn't know how to do.

Just saying - don't start feeling as though we are better than others because of our choice of computers. Keep thinking how good we are and try to hold onto that feeling when your plumbing backs up, you dont know how to fix it, and you need to do the necessaries.

Re:Hold on....

[ichigo 2.0]

http://www.google.com/search?q=plumbing+backs+up+f ix :)

Re:Hold on....

[marcosdumay]

"answers yes to every question the computer recommends he answer yes to"

How funny, I do that when compiling Linux kernels too. I guess almost every non-geek out there does it. Not a good metric, but I agree with the overall.

Re:Hold on....

[Rydia]

That's a really great statement, and I don't think it can be emphasized enough. I'm a techie and now a lawyer, but once upon a time I spent a summer working in maintenance. There are so many things that people who slashdotites look down on can do it boggles the mind... and it's not just advanced stuff, it's knowing how to wire something properly. Computers won't give you that. Sure, most of the guys didn't go to college. But they're certainly not stupid. They're sending their kids to college because they want opportunities for them. They watch jeopardy and all that good stuff. You read /. long enough and you get the idea that everyone else here thinks that "joe sixpack" really is a permanently inebriated, dirt-eating idiot. That's really unfortunate, and it doesn't reflect well on us as techies.

Re:Hold on....

[Tim C]

the technically non-savy and generally lesser educated

How stunningly arrogant. A lack of technical knowledge means that the person is "lesser educated"? News flash for you - an awful lot of highly educated people (doctors, lawyers, etc) are clueless about technology. Conversely, a lot of people who are very, very knowledgable about technology know very little about any other subject.

Re:Hold on....

[Anonymous Coward]

A lack of technical knowledge means that the person is "lesser educated"?

The parent never said any such thing. He said technically non-savy and generally lesser educated segements of the populous. Let me break that down for you just in case you fit in with the lesser educated. He's talking about the technically non-savy segment of the population and also the lesser educated segment of the population.

News flash for you - an awful lot of highly educated people (doctors, lawyers, etc) are clueless about technology.

Yes, so they're admitedly uneducated about technology.

Re:Hold on....

[sdo1]

A lack of technical knowledge means that the person is "lesser educated"?

Go re-read what I wrote. I didn't say anything of the sort.

News flash for you - an awful lot of highly educated people (doctors, lawyers, etc) are clueless about technology

Didn't I say exactly that when I wrote "Don't get me wrong, there's plenty of well educated and afluent people who don't have a clue either".

Like I said, it should come as no surprise that on average, google would have an audience that's more tech-savy. It should also come as no surprise that, again on average, more tech savy leads to (or is caused by) being more affluent. And yes, there are highly affluent people who are not tech savy and there are people below the poverty level who are absolutely technically brilliant.

I see nothing arrogant about anything I wrote. Please read what you're replying to before hitting the "submit" button.

-S

Re:Hold on....

[JhohannaVH]

I think I agree with you there, even though I don't want to. I'm oft accused of seeming arrogant, stuck up, snobby, even more so than my aviator husband! Which, since he was a fighter jock, is saying a LOT. But that's what it came down to, is that I 'assumed' that my friend or colleague was as up to speed as I was, and when asked a question, I 'dumbed' it down, thus made them feel inferior. It is an issue, and I think it blows over into other areas sometimes, of my life, and affects things it wouldn't. And you're right... it doesn't reflect well on us, and furthers our reputation as socially ignorant jerks. Of which I tend to be one. :P

Re:Hold on....

[xaque]

You mean dirt's not for eating?

If you ask...

[Skiron]

Jeeves he says to use Google too!

So we're down to three steps

[Hugonz]

1. Use Google.
2. ???
3. Profit!

Re:So we're down to three steps

[MidKnight]

1. Use Google.
2. ???
3. Profit!

Doesn't anyone read TFA any more?? From it you can easily deduce that your sequence of events is backwards.

Erm... duh

[kiddygrinder]

Ah, i think it's just that people who are smarter can figure out how *not* to use the default msn search in ie

Re:Erm... duh

[Zerathdune]

Or just realize how stupid using IE is in the first place. Firefox's search bar is set to google by default.

MSN's Wealth

[rasty]

I guess the survey didn't include Mr Gates in MSN's users wealth.. or the outcome would have been quite different!

Re:MSN's Wealth

[blueZhift]

Actually, it wouldn't surprise me if Mr. Gates uses Google too! It's good to keep an eye on the competition!

Re:MSN's Wealth

[Zerathdune]

If MS won't stop using windows server for it's own purposes, especially since they need better performance more than anyone, what do you think the odds are that Gates uses a competitor's product for something so much more trivial?

Dialup portals

[TallMatthew]

AOL, MSN and Yahoo (via relationship with SBC) are all dialup providers. It's not surprising their portals are visited more often by the, erm, underprivileged.

Re:Dialup portals

[mattbrundage]

AOL, MSN and Yahoo (via relationship with SBC) are all dialup providers. It's not surprising their portals are visited more often by the, erm, underprivileged.

Yeah, but since AOL's base price for dialup is friggin' $23.90, and Verizon's base price for DSL is nine dollars LOWER, the dialup/broadband price stereotypes no longer apply.

Re:Dialup portals

[Nimey]

No. SBC Yahoo also sells DSL.

The Shark has been Jumped

[pedantic bore]

Wake me up when there's some "stuff that matters". Or when the Google fanboys go off and start up a "GoogleDot" web site (which will be the best thing ever and spend five years in beta...) and we can have more stories about swimming hamsters.

Re:The Shark has been Jumped

[garcia]

They need to have google.slashdot.org and then people could block this stuff. Better yet, pointless-google-stories.slashdot.org as well as google.slashdot.org so we could seperate out the true trash from the slightly overrated trash that the editors have been pushing lately.

Re:The Shark has been Jumped

[Anonymous Coward]

That is a great idea. They do it for apple, why not google?

mod article -1: flamebait

[Anonymous Coward]

no. just no.

Macs & Googe

[mslinux]

Mac users who google are the smartest, wealthiest people on the planet.

Re:Macs & Googe

[Anonymous Coward]

I know what a Mac is, but what is a Googe?

Either wrong or article is missing something

[broothal]

From tfa: "The longer people have been using the Internet, the more likely it is that Google will be their search engine of choice" and "people whose primary search engine is Google are more likely to have household incomes above US$60,000"

  You can't conclude that. It's like saying "I'm left handed. I like linux. Therefore, all left handed like linux". What they have found out is, that people with more experience has a higher paid job. There's no statistical evidence tying it to their search engine of choice.

"Google also emerged as the search engine of choice, with 52 percent of respondents choosing it as their primary engine for general Web searches. Yahoo came in second with 22 percent, while Microsoft's MSN and AOL tied for third place with 9 percent."

That survery is good to see which search engine is the most popular. Google obviously is. But if you only have 9% MSN users in your statistical material, then you can't compare them. You need to compare groups of similar size.

Re:Either wrong or article is missing something

[santiago]

From tfa: "The longer people have been using the Internet, the more likely it is that Google will be their search engine of choice" and "people whose primary search engine is Google are more likely to have household incomes above US$60,000"

    You can't conclude that. It's like saying "I'm left handed. I like linux. Therefore, all left handed like linux". What they have found out is, that people with more experience has a higher paid job. There's no statistical evidence tying it to their search engine of choice.

Yes, you can conclude that. The phrase "more likely" does not imply causation, merely correlation. If the data you gather shows that two factors are correlated then, without even trying to construct a causation model for this correlation, you can use one as a predictor of the other. The article is merely saying that the longer a randomly-selected user has been using the internet the likelier it is they use Google, and that the fraction of Google users with incomes over $60,000 is higher than the fraction of non-Google users with incomes over $60,000.

That survery is good to see which search engine is the most popular. Google obviously is. But if you only have 9% MSN users in your statistical material, then you can't compare them. You need to compare groups of similar size.

No, you don't. There is no statistical requirement that various groups you are trying to compare be of similar size in order to make comparisons. There is only a requirement that all your groups be sufficiently large to have a high likelihood of being representative of the population from which they are being drawn. WIth 1000 users and 9% MSN that's only 90 users, which is probably not enough to draw broad conclusions about MSN's user base, but the study as a whole seems to be mostly comparing the 52% Google users to the 48% non-Google users. That certainly seems like a reasonable number of samples to support the conclusion that Google use, technical experience, and income are all positively correlated.

Re:Either wrong or article is missing something

[fafalone]

WIth 1000 users and 9% MSN that's only 90 users, which is probably not enough to draw broad conclusions about MSN's user base, but the study as a whole seems to be mostly comparing the 52% Google users to the 48% non-Google users.

Well, since they reported it as a statistically significant finding, I'm sure 90 people is enough to be representative. There's all sorts of statistical methods to determine if the results are significant with any sample size, and in practice 90 is a decent sized sample for making generalizations.

Re:Either wrong or article is missing something

[DongleFondle]

Mod Parent +1 Statistical Modeling Bitchslap. Thank you for setting the Grandparent straight. I get extrememly tired of people posting things that cannot research. Perhaps the most apt suggestion to the Grandparent would to be to Google Statistical + Analysis + Requirements.

Re:Either wrong or article is missing something

[vettemph]

>>>But if you only have 9% MSN users in your statistical material, then you can't compare them. You need to compare groups of similar size.

Isn't the whole point of statistics and percentages to compare groups and samples using smaller and varying sample sizes?

Re:Either wrong or article is missing something

[winse]

60k a year is all it takes to be wealthy nowadays???, and I thought I was middle class average.

Re:Either wrong or article is missing something

[Mad Marlin]

The median household income was $44,400 in 2004, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. You are better off than you think: be thankful.

Re:Either wrong or article is missing something

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of these nationwide statistics are pretty pointless. In some parts of the US 60k is probably a lot and in others it is far from "wealthy".

Re:users versus readers

[Eightyford]

I know what your saying, but -500 offtopic!

Make a donation

[vivekg]

Now I can ask all my site visitors coming from Google to make a donation as they are rich :D

Heh

MODERATORS

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want to mod something down at least make sure you mod it with the right reason. Redundant? Hardly, get a clue. It's not hard to pick a more relevant option from the menu so do it.

i can see it now...

[Connie_Lingus]

Google would like to announce the newest addition to our family of services...

GOOGLE SNOB

Get better search results by having a higher GPA than your dorm mates!
Salary above average for your neighborhood? Get a better ranking!

Re:users versus readers

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

I'm not complaining about rejected submissions, but surely the ongoing success of digg.com has a lot to do with the fact that they don't just toss you out on your ass if you don't post a story that the editors don't like.

Read up on the facts man! The Slashdot Random Story Submission Selection System [SRSSSS] is completely unbiased. It just needs a shuffle rather than a random feature.

Yahoo and MSN users...

[Anonymous Coward]

...also tend to use low-brow phrases like "C'mere!" and "Oh yeah?".

POP! goes the ad revenue

[krygny]

This seems almost like some contrived effort to increase Google's ad revenue. Now, when Google negotiates an advertising agreement, they can cite this. Poor, dumb people (who have computers) don't use Google? Virtually everyone uses Google. I wouldn't claim to know, but I'd think the Google demographic is that of the general population.

Re:POP! goes the ad revenue

[615]

This seems almost like some contrived effort to increase Google's ad revenue.

Ah, but I wonder which demographic is most appealing to advertisers. After all, smart, rich people don't click on bullshit ads...do they?

Re:POP! goes the ad revenue

[Anonymous Coward]

No, as an adsense (google ads) publisher, I can tell you that the clickers come from msn and yahoo search, whereas traffic from slashdot, digg etc rarely click (~0.05%).

Re:POP! goes the ad revenue

[Anonymous Coward]

This seems almost like some contrived effort to increase Google's ad revenue. Now, when Google negotiates an advertising agreement, they can cite this.

Yes, of course. TV networks and newspaper publishers have been doing this sort of thing for ages.

bad news dude...

[way2trivial]

um-- you have ad/trojan/spyware.. I had this exact same thing..
in made my google results always have commercial sites turn up in/mixed in with the results.
looked really good- but none of the adslime had cached version links available

Re:bad news dude...

[KarmaMB84]

I've never heard of this trojan. Which one is it?

Re:bad news dude...

[sigloiv]

No he doesn't. I know what you're talking about, but it displays the same 3 links no matter what string you search for. Did you click the example? I got it on my mine and I am 100% sure I don't have any spyware.

Re:bad news dude...

[dancingmad]

Where's the "+1 You got served" moderation?

Re:bad news dude...

[Shawn is an Asshole]

I'd also like to know which trojan this is, since if that's the cause it also exists on Linux, FreeBSD, and OS X... (I too get spam results in many google searches)

Re:bad news dude...

[shiftless]

What? I have noticed the exact same thing with Google. No, I don't have ad/trojan/spyware, I run Linux. One day I was searching for information on lost foam casting, and 80% of Google's first page (and subsequent pages) was spam and search page links. I went to Yahoo and 90% of the first page was useful, informative links, exactly what I was looking for. I wrote Google a very nasty, scathing letter telling them how disappointed I was about spending hours wading through spam when Yahoo turned up useful information right away. I think my letter may have actually had some sort of effect, because I just did the same search on Google to use as an example, and now it's turning up much better results. Good job, Google.

Re:bad news dude...

[johansalk]

I agree too, I have noticed those new ads within the search results and it's been annoying me for a while. And no, I know for sure that I don't have adware/spyware. They don't always appear, but they too often do. They tend to be the top few resultsd, and they come in a somewhat emphasised font.

Re:Quick! [Obligatory response]

[SIGALRM]

Everyone use Google and wealth and wisdom will ensue!

4. "Run" Google. Discover hidden knowlege on the Internet.
3. Use said knowledge to build a capitalist empire.
2. ???
1. Profit!

They Forgot a Few Things

[Stu May]

As a Google user, I'd like to point out that they forgot "better looking" and "more fun to be around".

Not really... (Yahoo independent)

[hackwrench]

http://sbc.yahoo.com/

The whole "less savvy" thing appears to me to be due to marketing to less savvy people.

I don't know about you ...

[Woldry]

... but I'm definitely putting "Google user" down on my next loan application.

Google Overlords

[faqmaster]

"I for one welcome our new rich, net savvy Google overlords."

Wait, if you think about it that could be uncomfortably close to reality.

money=google use?

[joe 155]

It seems that the older you are, the more money you have, and the older you are the less likely you are to change anything on your computer because you're worried that it will be taken over by elves or something (although not worried enough about spyware to use firefox). Ergo money makes you not use google.

But the sheep lead the way....

[Anonymous Coward]

Yea, but we all know Microsoft leads the way by controlling the more numerous "sheep" of the computing world - business and personal computing.

The "sheep" have the larger mindshare, and MS with the desktop monopoly has a firm grip there. Many think Windows to be the computer.

In other news

[Anonymous Coward]

Google users score. They design skyscrapers in their spare time. They heal kids with a wave of their hand.

No wait.

Re:users versus readers

[ubiquitin]

The facts speak for themselves. I posted a story to slashdot which was rejected in five minutes (usually it takes longer than that) and then turned around and submitted it to digg.com. After about 15 minutes, it had about 100 digs and within a few hours it was on the main page. I want to see slashdot succeed, but if this keeps happening, they're history.

Re:users versus readers

[ubiquitin]

The topic is publishing demographics. And the tag line was "from the slashdot-users-not-mentioned dept." So I responded to the fact that I'm a slashdot reader, not a user. But I am a user of their competition, and slashdot could learn something from that.

Maybe I'm wrong though.

Big surprise!

[BushCheney08]

Well, I know that this is a huge surprise for everyone. *rolls eyes* Keep in mind that people who aren't netsavvy have no idea how the internet works at all (big shock!). I've seen many people who open up a browser, get sent to MSNs or AOLs page or wherever the latest hijacked homepage is, then type the address that you give them into the search bar there. They don't realize there's a difference between an address bar and a search field on a page. Every time this happens, one more hit for MSN, Yahoo, AOL, etc. Only people who go out of their way to get to Google (setting it as a homepage, installing Firefox, etc) use it. By these actions alone, it shows that they're more netsavvy. Can't say anything about the affluence part though...

Re:Big surprise!

[Barny]

Maybe we should make up some music CDs that run the "google registry" patch on insertion.

Re:Big surprise!

[novakreo]

Well, I know that this is a huge surprise for everyone. *rolls eyes* Keep in mind that people who aren't netsavvy have no idea how the internet works at all (big shock!). I've seen many people who open up a browser, get sent to MSNs or AOLs page or wherever the latest hijacked homepage is, then type the address that you give them into the search bar there. They don't realize there's a difference between an address bar and a search field on a page. Every time this happens, one more hit for MSN, Yahoo, AOL, etc. Only people who go out of their way to get to Google (setting it as a homepage, installing Firefox, etc) use it. By these actions alone, it shows that they're more netsavvy. Can't say anything about the affluence part though...

I've seen a guy go to Google using the address bar and then proceed to type the URL that he really wanted into Google's search field. I tried to explain to him how he could go directly to the site by putting the address in where he had originally typed 'google.com' but he said he was happy doing it this way.
I'd love to know how he got that habit.

Welcome!

[gfanboy]

I, for one, welcome me as your new Wealthy, Net Savvy Overlord.

Re:Welcome!

[chawly]

Welcome, Sire

REGEX HOW?!

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't have the first clue what a 'Regular Expressions' is, do you?

[And yeah I'm crossing my fingers that he does in fact know .* about regex]

Re:REGEX HOW?!

[alchamy]

I might not know * about regex but I do know something, eitherway I am simply saying that the concept can be used in google, its definately not unix standards but its better than nothing.

This would not work; "Date:\s*((\d{1,2}\.){2}\d{4})\s*"

Eitherway, I seem to have gotten people really excited about something a bit misleading, my apologies for that.

Mom Loses RIAA Lawsuit: Fined $22,500

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.digg.com/music/Court_Rules_Against_Mom_ In_Music_Download_Suit

It's been on Digg for 6 hours now. Why hasn't slashdot plagiarized it yet?

perhaps, but

[Anonymous Coward]

the inclusion of Mssrs. Brin, Page, Schmidt, Cerf, and Lucovsky in the sample may have skewed the income and experience numbers some.

Sounds a little familiar...

[jhaefele]

Doesn't anyone watch Saturday Night Live? This argument is almost 20 years old.

I use Google 99% of the time, and our household income is, woefully, <$50K.

It was a nice way to draw some attention, though.

The Mac Demographic

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple's customers are like no others--a rich blend of the most sociologically elite with those seeking elegant, simple computing... Unlike users of Intel/Windows computers, a significant portion of Apple's users are active , exploratory , avant-garde and early adopters . The activities they enjoy are unique in the way that they more often incorporate rich media such as video and music as well as more active prosumer behavior than many more passive Windows [and Linux] users.

-- MetaFacts, Inc.

With above-average household income and education levels, the Mac population [is] very attractive [ intellectually as well as physically .]

-- Nielsen/NetRatings (as quoted by C|NET)

Re:The Mac Demographic

[HexRei]

ha!

Re:The Mac Demographic

[goaty_the_flying_sho]

Wonderful.

The self identifying elite -- just the kind of people I can talk to for a minute without wanting to punch them in the face.

Not bundled - that's why

[BestNicksRTaken]

I would say that less tech-savvy people use the bundled searches with their computer or ISP - like MSN with Windows, or AOL Search with AOL, or Yahoo with SBC etc.

Google isn't actually bundled or partnered with anything - other than Firefox, which is also a tech-savvy product really.

As far as richer goes, well if you're not computer literate enough to use Google, then yeah you probably don't have a great education or job.

Re:Demographics

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop trying to kiss A, Bill.

Survey accuracy

[rossdee]

How many people answer surveys honestly. Especially online ones. I always click on the highest income bracket.

I think the answer can be summed up to:

[ichigo 2.0]

Wheee!

g00gle stock over 300$

[xTantrum]

yeah right!! i'd be rolling in it now if i'd have bought some stock. darn those nay sayers talking about a tech bubble!!!

Re:g00gle stock over 300$

[pboulang]

You should have bought some at $300, it's over $400 now.

... this is a international website, no?

[QunaLop]

the first word in the article is "US" however the comment line makes it seem like it is a global phenomenon. I do a lot of work onsite for law firms and financial institutions in canada, these people are probably in the "more wealthy category" but they tend to use Msn way more than Google. Though the "net savvy" part (in canada) seems to be accurate from my experience.

Lots of Advertising!

[sciop101]

Google advertises on TV and Radio!

Ask Jeeves advertised on TV about 5 years ago!

MySimon advertised about the same time.

I miss the tobacco commercials most.

cause vs. effect?

[mnemotronic]

Frequence of Google usage = Fg
Average wealth of user = Wu

Which is the independent variable and which is the independent variable? In this case, does use of Google cause wealth for the user? Does my use of Google make me more "internet savvy" and richer (bring it on!), or do I use Google because I'm smart and socially secure.... no, wait. That can't be the case. Well, anyway, we already know Google usage creates wealth for Sergey Brin and Larry Page, the founders of Google. Even after sales of 5.3 million shares of Google stock, they retain 33 million more, currently worth over $13 billion (story). Which begs the question: are these two fish (and the other Google execs) big enough to overwhelm the "average wealth" pool of all internet users? If Bill Gates uses Google (and I'll bet he does), does that leave no room in the aquarium for the rest of us? Do we become noise in the equation?

P.S. Of course I used Google to research this post...

Love your signature

[jmenon]

I thought it was so well-thought-out, I just had to post it on my blog. Hope you don't mind. Slashdotter wit

Possible explanation

[HexRei]

I can't explain the wealth disparity, but I think Google users tend to be more computer savvy because google is more of a purist search engine. MSN, yahoo, etc are more "portal" type services with lots of obnoxious ads, silly tabloid-style surveys and fluff articles, and generally a lot of clutter for the bewildered computer noob to ooh and ahh at.

Those with more net savvy tend to head for the more simple, direct route to what they want to find, with the least amount of distractions and timewasters along the way.

maybe?

More gullible too...

[Anonymous Coward]

And those who use Google as a result of reading this PR are particularly stupid.

People who use cocaine tend to be richer than those who use chocolate. Let's all use cocaine.

Duh!

Re:users versus readers

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

I posted a story to slashdot which was rejected in five minutes (usually it takes longer than that) and then turned around and submitted it to digg.com. After about 15 minutes, it had about 100 digs

You see! Completely unbiased! Even the great stories can get rejected!

Stop begging...

[Anonymous Coward]

... get a hair cut and do an honest day of Googling like the rest of us.

I searched google for "make money fast"

[Anonymous Coward]

Now I'm a highly paid rich person.

I bet I can explain some of this

[mclaincausey]

People who use Firefox are more educated generally (at least in terms of the Internet) than IE users, and it has the integrated Google search bar. As for the wealth thing, there has always been a correlation between Mac users and wealth (and education) and Safari has a Google search bar. Perhaps these factor into the correlation in the study.

Re:users versus readers

[Fizzl]

...they don't just toss you out on your ass if you don't post a story that the editors don't like.

Double negative stack overflow. Please elaborate.
Seriously, could some gansta rapper decipher this one for me?

The ladies should know

[Pedals]

I'm single, and a Google user.

the only reason i used google

[digitallysick]

when it started up, it was very basic and straight to the point. A txt box and a button to search, unlike yahoo and msn filled with ads, i loved the fact that google had none. I dont mind the way they advertize, its not as intrusive as msn and yahoo is.

Paraphrase ...

[LoudMusic]

In another words smart people use Google and dumb people don't. Smart people have more money and dumb people don't.

Smart people know this, and dumb people don't.

This is of course speaking on the whole and not of the individual.

Bad news for Google

[fleener]

You're right. People eat what is put in front of them. The news in this study is that Google has a huge barrier to overcome to attact the masses.

I use Clusty

[Anonymous Coward]

And I'm a CS grad student (ergo poor, so they do have at least half a point there).

Not surprising

[drsquare]

Google is a more commercial-focussed search engine. Most of the results are for sites selling things or advertising things, even when you're looking to buy something. It makes sense that people with money to spare will want to use Google, whereas people after relevent information will go elsewhere.

Isn't this a FLAMEBAIT Slashdot article?

[BrentRJones]

Seems like it to me. Google vs the rest of the Netsphere.

Re:That can't be... another Google marketing ploy.

[Thomas_the_Wart]

It sounds to me like Gooble is trying to GET rich people to use their (crappy) site. I am not sure; but doesn't the Yahoo! search get its results from the Google meta thing, or they both use the technology? I just stick with Yahoo because sometimes I like to look at Bells and Whistlers.

Google whore!

[weierstrass]

You must be rich, tech savvy, good-looking...

Re:Google whore!

[Short Circuit]

And not a nerdy, wannabe coder who doesn't always wash, and is easily amused.

Er...oops.

time is relative----

[way2trivial]

I have not clicked the example (which was posted well 45 minutes after my post-making it impossible for me to have done so before my post) and this is new on to me.

the results in the 'alternate' search do appear commercial, and they are also the top results if you actually search for the alternate terms.

what is very odd is a search on a deliberate mispelling
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q= beahball which does suggest alternate spellings and no 'ad' section of three similar to the original,

and weirder still is, if I use the example, the first 'pro fit' alternate link sample gives a url of
http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&revid=2025422389&qp os=0&upos=0&oi=revisions_inline&q=http://www.pro-f it-intl.com/

whereas a google adsense link looks like

http://www.google.com/url?sa=l&ai=BZMAUjQebQ9ejNr7 8aLaotc8Pq9_0DIOpsL0Bv7LCnwewtjwQBhgGKAg4AEikOVCLx tSZ-P____8BmAGSlAnIAQGVAiGaGgo&num=6&q=http://www. goldforex.biz

I'm not sure it's really an "AD" as google loves to use those hugely perverse multiple digit urls (between the ?and the &num in the last example above) to track specific clickers... but it does seem--slimish?

Re:time is relative----

[nigelo]

Well, I managed to click the example, even though it was posted well before I made this reply ;-)

I see two links at the top of my Firefox browser display of search results, in a shaded area marked 'Sponsored Links' (on the far right-hand side of the shaded area). The right hand colums are also marked 'Sponsored Links'.

I am fairly sure these are "AD's".

Is it possible you overlooked the sneakily-placed label?

Ah yes! Of course you did - you have yet to click on the example...

(end slimy_sarcasm)

Re:time is relative----

[nigelo]

Doh! I re-read your comment, and see what you mean, now (the "profit" example.

Sorry about the early-weekend misplaced sarcasm...

countGoogle++;

[managedcode]

return true;

Statistics

[weierstrass]

Hey, I'm left handed and I like linux too!

Job Security

[Joffy]

Google has helped me get the unofficial job title as know it all. Seriously if I was doing an interview I would test their ability to google. It has saved me countless hours and it has even given me credit for doing half of a six person project during the first week when we had a month to do it. If google's servers ever went down I'd be delivering pizza. I try to tell everyone that googling is a powerful skill they need to learn, but they'd rather me do it. I had one coworker who was big on yahoo, but I could out google his yahoo anyday. Job security! Also, never say "I could out google his yahoo anyday" in front of a woman you are interested in. I just learned the hard way.

do me a favor?

[way2trivial]

reparse my question with me, and tell me how your response 'wrong' applies?

my question includes two assertions before asking a question (ps I consider a little bit of skepticisim of everyone healthy)
1-they don't do it for fun (it referring to generating reports)
2- they do it for income (it referring to generating reports)
--what's the source of the revenue ?

what part of that- properly- can be responded to as "wrong"?

now, in the second half, you answered my question- but why did you start out with "wrong"

Re:do me a favor?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because, you very strongly implied that Google paid for the advertisement. Or don't you remember writing:

Since we are always discussing microsoft and their 'funded' windows v linux TCO studies.. I'm curious who paid SG Cowen for this one?

(Edited to remove the beginning of the comment from the subject. Which is just annoying and makes it difficult to read your post or follow the flow of conversation)

If you make accusations, be prepared for people to get offended and defensive.

Re:do me a favor?

[way2trivial]

oh..

thanks for the response, however I find your interpretation flawed.

especially, strongly?
it was a genuine question of what SG Cowens inspiration/source basis for the report might be.
it was answered well by others, and I learned a little more about how the world works.

but thanks for your input..

Re:do me a favor?

[timmyf2371]

Looks to me that he was disputing the actual statement itself; that he was saying "hey don't generate this stuff for fun, they do it for income" is wrong, ie, an incorrect statement.

I am such a loser

[Abuzar]

DAMN! I've been using Yahoo! all along, no wonder I'm so poor broke... and here I was thinking it was because of living in a capitalist regime based on economic dominance and artificially constructed resource deprivation.

Ok, I'll go spread the word when I go back to our local soup kitchen (Scott Mission) tomorrow. I'm sure all of the other low-income/homeless peeps will appreciate learning to serve the new big boss of the internet mob.

Hold on!

[Anonymous Coward]

"His twelve year old daughter's friend uses Yahoo messenger, and therefore so does she."

I wasn't aware Yahoo! Messenger caused spontaneous sexual-reassignment surgery!

A9 pays pi/2

[slashkitty]

The amazon search engine a9.com pays pi/2% off on most amazon purchases. It's a nice plus, but hasn't made me switch from google.

Next up:

[electrosoccertux]

But wait, theres more! People who use computers can afford computers, and people with cars know how to drive them! We'll be back with this breaking news after the break.

Speaking of wealth...

[alerante]

Google's due to be added to the NASDAQ-100 on 19 December.

Google & NASCAR

[Anonymous Coward]

It is difficult to get intelligent rich people to spend money; this will hurt google. The real trick to making money in the US(and probably the rest of the world) is finding a way to take money from people of average and below intelligence and income.

NASCAR has made an amazing amount of money marketing to people who at first glance wouldn't have any disposable income. Even people on foodstamps go to NASCAR races and spend amazing amount of money on the related goods. The intelligent, rich people this article is talking about don't have any disposable income because they have blown it all buying cheaply built McMansions with a negative amortization mortgages in overpriced real estate markets. In five years, interest rates will be up, the roman soaking tubs in the McMansions will be leaking and the high income technophiles will be looking for cheap bankruptcy lawyers on Froogle. Meanwhile, Bubba in his double wide trailer will still be spending a ridiculous large portion of his income on NASCAR merchandise.

If Google userbase is rich

[Ilgaz]

I wonder if google userbase has more money as they can't "dare" to give an option like Yahoo mail plus to their users.

http://mailplus.mail.yahoo.com/

I think Yahoo userbase is richer than Googles. In fact, AOL users can afford that expensive service, no?

Re:Quick! [Obligatory response]

[panth0r]

It's funny because I would have modded you funny if you said

1. Use Google
2. ???
3. Profit!

Just stick to the boring, simple, oldies, we /.ers don't like change... er, wait...

Source of funding

[ari_j]

I can't name names, but I can tell you this:
they all use Google.

In other words -- use Google, get laid

[mr_death]

... knock yourself out, boys and girls. Who would have thunk it?

users of the other search engines

[observer7]

tend to be pure white trailer trash and cant buy anything, therefore we dont need them in our corp world and all should be eugenticly fixed

Another sign that Google becoming Microsoft?

[Ilgaz]

Weird essays showing rivals "bad" by some "xxx and xxx Co."...

I just sense some Microsoft way of doing business. Maybe a first sign?

Redundant Study

[otisg]

Did we really need a study to tell us that?

Re:users versus readers

[Anonymous Coward]

...they don't just toss you out on your ass if you don't post a story that the editors don't like.


>Double negative stack overflow. Please elaborate.
>Seriously, could some gansta rapper decipher this one for me?

Well (decypher mode on).. lets see.. "if you don't post a story that the editors don't like" - so, so in other words, takign out the double negatives, basically says "if you post a story that the editors like".

So basically he's saying, they don't toss you out on your butt if you post a story they like. Uh, I don't know many places that toss you out for doing what they like, does anyone else?

Now, based on what I *think* he meant, you'd take the second "don't" out of that phrase, ie, "they don't toss you out if you post a story that the editors don't like".

Well I use Froogle...

[digitaldc]

...and I am none the richer for it.

Wealthy...?

[Anonymous Coward]

Then where's my bag of money, bitch?!

Soooo ... the question is

[ScrewMaster]

does wealth cause Google usage, or does Google usage cause wealth?

In my case, the results are indeterminate since I'm just a middle-class Google user.

Slashdot's new slogan:

[dep01]

"Slashdot: Syndicating Marginally Interesting One-Week-Old Tech News"

Slashdot Mirror

[Tibe]

Better yet, there should be a slashdot mirror that updates 12 to 24 hours after slashdot at dupes.slashdot.org

Richer than the lower classes who dont have a pc?

[Anonymous Coward]

The richest in the world dont have to even play with computers!

trying adding a new website to google

[Anonymous Coward]

Try to look for 'johnnylutz' in yahoo.com, altavista.com and google.com

See whichs one brings up my site. I admitted to all 3. so it's a matter
of ineptitude or politics.

Google ads

[Zantetsuken]

when I use google, I only see usually 3 to 4 ads (the text ones) off on the right and the 2 or 3 that show up immediately before the search results (between results and search form), which is like 5-10% of the ads you see on other search engines (yahoo, msn, ect.).

BTW: I heard there was a spyware infection a few months ago (I think it was in google's news section) that did what the first or third guy said (spyware infection causing the ads), where it redirected anybody connecting to google to the spyware distributors site, which they somehow managed to get the google.com domain name, which was LOADED with nothing but ads, it sounded like they even had support for all the languages the real google supports...

Google Users more Wealthy, Net Savvy...

[0WaitState]

...and we're better looking, too.

Google is a Wall Street Journal darling

[Hyperx_Man]

Whenever Mossberg writes about technology, it seems anyone that reads the WSJ flocks to that technology. Google is no different. And, as we know, most that read WSJ are fairly successful. I bet a similar study bout 80% of Mossberg recommendations would yield similar results.

Google users = Google shareholders?

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps a considerable portion of Google users bought shares of the company? That should explain the difference in wealth.

Two rich guys skew this one

[adorai]

How much of this "income effect" is due to Sergey Brin and Larry Page?

Assuming they're worth $20 billion each, and the US has 50 million Google users, they are together worth about $1000 per Google user.

I don't know the net worth of the Yahoo guys but I suspect that their effect is less than a quarter of Google's.

And for Bill Gates, he's a smart guy. He probably uses Google or Yahoo.

Who funded the study?

[MacDork]

Obviously, you're poking fun at the study. But isn't this study supposed to send that exact message to Google's advertisers? "Look boss, Google users have more money. We should be targeting them instead of those cheap bastards over at Yahoo." Everyone here is highly critical when another Windows TCO study rolls out showing Windows stomping Linux. In every case I've seen on slashdot, it turns out that Microsoft funded the study. Big surprise. Could it be that Google has funded a third party for a study of their own? Hmmm....

At Least Google

[Dannyboy8405]

At least google has the decency to mark ads with "sponsered results" Some search engine, I believe Jeeves does just puts their adverts in the search results with no notice, so you if you click on the link it registers as a click through. Seriously, I have no problem with ads for a free service. As long as they aren't installing spyware, adware, malware on my computer or hijacking my browser. I mean they have to pay the bills some how! How can people think everything must be completely free with no strings attached?

I use Clusty and Google.

[Yes BlueBerries]

Clusty is very good at what they do, but the survey people don't know enough to include it. I also use clusty.com about half of the time. I don't think clusty was a choice, so if they asked me I would have to say Google. Google has a big advantage the default home page (USA download) http://www.google.com/firefox?client=firefox-a&rls =org.mozilla:en-US:official and toolbar for Firefox. If you vary the sites you go to often who cares what website(s) you default to, just make it one you are likely to find useful (on a Windows PC a default page for updates would be good/useful for IE browser). A few years back when I worked as a student in a campus computer lab I usually could point fellow students and others to websites for information they wanted without going to any search engine (used the web enough to know the good websites without having to look them up). Google used to be listed as being in clusty's meta-searches, but now isn't listed in the FAQ.

On Google's side they do come up with lots of results and some of the papers they use in their news section are ones I normally open when I read online papers and gives a pretty good versions of other websites that are the best. It you don't know about the better alternative(s) that already exist for areas Google moves into, like http://www.ipl.org/ or http://www.gutenberg.org/ then when it comes to reading out of copyright books then the Google book project sounds very well meaning and good. Go to Amazon.com to read inside copyright books http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/catalog-guide /guide/-/506469/104-8484589-7689549, before the Google book project they had free excerpts for most books that anyone could view without signing up. If you don't want to find the best and trust Google, then like the Microsoft supporters you we use them except when you need something better and usually Google does a very job. I have toolbar for both Google and Clusty.

Win at /.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yay!

1. Boost Google
2. Bash religion in general
3. ...
4. Profit on /.
5. Elicit AC rebuttal
6. ...
7. Profit!

hurry

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why we need to get the $100 laptops out as soon as poverty and end world poverty. Get to them before microsoft and yahoo do...

net savvy??

[Anonymous Coward]

I have no idea how they came to that conclusion. My parents, for example, are regular Google users. When they want to check Hotmail, they diligently browse to Google, type "hotmail" and click on the first search result.