Ask.Com's New Look Competes Well With Google

Carl Bialik from WSJ writes "Ask Jeeves has been overhauled and renamed Ask.com. The Wall Street Journal's Walt Mossberg tested the new site against Google and found that Ask.com holds its own and even beats the search champ in some cases. 'It has some very nice features Google lacks, including previews of the sites it finds, an easy way to narrow or broaden your search results, and frequent top-of-the-screen answers that lead you directly to core information,' Mossberg writes."

Comments

has no one

[Kranfer]

Has none seen the new ask.com commercials in the last month or so on TV? While I like the preview feature, I am still going to stay with Google for all my random searching needs. Hopefully Google will make a preview enhancement soon so they won;t be left behind by ask.com.

Re:has no one

[Anonymous Coward]

If you read the Mossberg review you'll see that Ask.com is much more than the preview feature. I came across this blog post that has lots more about Ask.com features.
http://www.resourceshelf.com/2006/02/ask-jeeves-is -now-askcom-new-look-and.html

Re:has no one

[GundamFan]

https://addons.mozilla.org/extensions/moreinfo.php ?id=189&application=firefox

here you go... it's not a google product but it does add this functionality to Firefox.

Re:has no one

[badspyro]

WEll,

google used to have something like tihs in there labs, but it seems to have dissapeared.

meh

Re:has no one

[MrFlannel]

Preview is a gimmick.
The narrow/expand/alternate search thing makes TONS of sense. I often search for things, and just randomly throw together keywords hoping to find it.
If it would be able to suggest other common searches (as opposed to just misspellings), that'd be great. Since often times I'm left blindly searching for things (sort of like looking up a term in a dictionary if you don't know how the word is spelt - at all, not just the exact spelling).

Is there any way to turn off the preview thing? Erm, I suppose killing JS would do it. I just don't want to waste the bandwidth loading 10 little pictures per page.
Then again, I suppose I should just go look for myself.

Speaking of which, anyone know the economics term for something that can be used by lots of people without being consumed? (like a lecture, any number of people can experience the lecture, without detracting from other people's experience, as opposed to like... a sandwich.)

Re:has no one

[oudzeeman]

nonconsumable resource?

Re:has no one

[chris macura]

They use the Tango icon set. (Open source (art wise, I don't want to hear from the license-nazis), very nice). I use it.

Any significance? They seem to use a vanilla set.

Re:has no one

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, many times. It usually causes me to change the channel. What a great message to send: "if you're not using our search engine, you're a monkey".

Way to reach out to your audience, dorks.

Re:has no one

[Anonymous Coward]

catalyst

Re:has no one

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm slowly giving up on google, I've got my own retail site which I have tried to make search engine friendly white hat style, it ranks on the 1st page on every search engine I have tried for my favourite search term except google where we appear on page 39..?? (down from page 30). Now I have done a lot of research into this and have done everything by the book, my site has been up now for over a year and in a niche market without many competitors. I now am starting to believe that being a popular search engine is a curse - your results will muddy overtime as you compete with those trying to affect your rankings.
sucks for me though if everyone still wants to use google (I've now started searching with different search engines and actually enjoying it).

Re:has no one

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm going to have to agree with you. A few weeks back, I started paying notice to referrals traffic from ask.com. The same search in ask.com puts our site in the top 5, on google it's not even in the top 50 -- seo tricks and irrelevant pages having higher priority.

Re:has no one

[ytpete]

Nonrivalrous.

It's an economic term, though I first heard it used by Lawrence Lessig. Something is nonrivalrous if I can use it without diminishing anyone else's ability to also do so.

The preview would be nice

[Anonymous Crowhead]

If you could actually read the text of the website. I guess maybe it would steer you away from link farms but other than that, you can't see much.

Re:The preview would be nice

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

But if they're then effectively presenting the web site's content before you visit the site, they're open to all the same inevitable legal shenanigans that Google Cache is going to get slammed with sooner or later. If they're presenting a cut-down preview that doesn't potentially make the site itself redundant, they would seem to me to have a much safer position when it comes to fair use/fair dealing/whatever it's called in your jurisdiction.

Then again, the preview image for the front page of a fairly large web site I run is several months out of date, and the cache supposedly scanned just a few minutes ago shows a blank page, while our site is happily up and running. This sort of out-of-date, inaccurate information makes the features worse than useless, and is one of the stronger legal arguments for slapping down unauthorised caching and previewing of other people's web sites.

Re:The preview would be nice

[jammindice]

If you could actually read the text of the website. I guess maybe it would steer you away from link farms but other than that, you can't see much.

Not nessecarily, i do alot of searching for php errors and the like. Some links are legitimate and have answers to the questions i'm looking for, others have the same error, but it's being caused by another problem their having (that i'm not) and it just pollutes the links.

I could see a preview pane being most helpful because you could possibly even answer your question by just googling, and not have to visit the site (possibly with coding: syntax errors and the like). I know this would reduce traffic to sites somewhat (at least for me), though i think it would help everyone filter their results even more to provide more pages with the content they want and being able to weed out those link farm pages, as well as ones that don't nessecarily fit the problem your looking for.

Re:The preview would be nice

[AzsxQuii]

I particularly like the feature for searches like Spyware. Where the preview for the Lavasoft site having a tab for a Christmas Special. XMAS...For crying out load occured 4 months ago. If this is any indication to the type of info the binoculars will provide its useless. Especially when the content has been take down because of its subject matter (Think Warez, or content which may otherwise be questionable)

Re:The preview would be nice

[AzsxQuii]

LOL. Searched Slashdot. The two previews have posts from November and February. Close, but still, no cigar.

Re:The preview would be nice

[demonbug]

I didn't find the preview feature all that useful - I suppose it might be nice if you were on a slow connection and thus must be sparing in what you click on, but the fact is that most sites these days load just about as fast as the preview does anyway. Couple that with the fact that only a few of their links actually seem to come with the preview feature (are they in the process of creating the previews still? None of the sites when I searched for my name and only about a third of the sites when I searched for "Canadair Regional Jet" had previews).

And is it just me, or did Ask blatantly copy the look of Google? Seriously, compare the layout when you do a search. You get the logo in the exact same spot, the search entry in the same spot with nearly identical links above it (except ask.com has fewer), a colored horizontal bar that says "Web" for google and "Web Search" for ask.com, both giving you the number of results within the horizontal bar. They just look really, really similar - and since google has looked more or less the same for a long time, it appears that ask.com pretty much copied them.

Of course, with the regional jet search above (inspired by picking up a friend yesterday who came in on one, if you're wondering where I pulled that search out of) google reports 469,000 results and ask.com reports 32,900 (out of curiosity I just checked yahoo search - which, by the way, also looks nearly identical - and came up with 172,000 hits).

Wow, I hadn't used anything but google in a while. I hadn't realized all the major search engines seem to look pretty much identical these days (although MSN search does seem to have a somewhat unique look).

Re:The preview would be nice

[SanityInAnarchy]

There's another place you can see the text, and it's right there in their result. Unfortunately, Google does a much better job of displaying this kind of "preview", which is actually useful, as opposed to a blurry screenshot.

Re:The preview would be nice

[rm69990]

Google has already been sued over Google Cache....and Google won too.

Re:The preview would be nice

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

There have been some fairly specific lawsuits, yes, but the general principle hasn't really been attacked yet AFAIK.

In the only related US law suit that I can immediately recall, the plaintiff effectively admitted in court that he knew very well how to ask that the content on his web site not be archived, but had actively encouraged the archival anyway. At that point the judge essentially threw out the whole case.

This is a far cry from what we're looking at here, where the caches and previews on the ask.com site are completely misrepresenting the site they're supposed to reflect. This could be very damaging, whether simply by causing people who would otherwise have visited the site to stay away, or more seriously by giving a false impression of the site's host and their products or services, perhaps resulting in a direct loss of business. I'd expect that such a site might have a rather strong case against the poor caching service, and IMHO they do deserve to be compensated in this case, since the caching is no longer benefitting the public and is actively harming the web site operator, which hardly constitutes "fair use" of the content!

Re:The preview would be nice

[blaksaga]

Look at maps.ask.com. It's almost a carbon copy of google maps. Draggable map, balloons with location information, etc.

Website time-lapse

[brejc8]

I made some nice animations of the way the some sites have changed their layout (google, ask and altavista). Both altavista and ask are turning more and more google like.

Re:Website time-lapse

[Lispy]

Wow. You have time on your hands. Not that I don't appreciate it, but what made you do this? Was this a project of some kind?

Re:Website time-lapse

[suffe]

altavista,digital.com, not altavista.com.

Re:Website time-lapse

[brejc8]

I looked at altavista for the first time in years and noticed it being very google like and so I thought it would be nice to see how and why it changed. The script was pretty simple to make but took a while to run (overnight for each one). I like doing stuff like this as it improves my skills in different languages (in this case it was perl) and I thought learning a lot of languages might be an idea before writing my own.

Re:Website time-lapse

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you consider Opera a defective web browser?

Re:Website time-lapse

[brejc8]

The line in question is :
' if (browserName=="Microsoft Internet Explorer") {'

If you're gonna pretend to be using IE then unfortunately you will be treated as if you use IE.
Feel free to send me a better script which differentiates between IE and Opera pretending to be IE but I don't think it is possible.

Re:Website time-lapse

[rbochan]

All I can say is blech.

A simple search for "linux" and I have to scroll down just about a full page at 1024x768 to get to the actual results set below the "Encyclopedia Entry" (from wikipedia), 3 "Sponsored Results" (first being from Microsoft, of course), and "Latest News" (first being from ZDnet).

I just don't find a sponsored link from Microsoft or Linux "news" from friggen ZDnet to be particularly relevant to a search for "linux". The Wikipedia entry is at least a bit interesting... but it's not part of the 'search results'.

When I go to a search engine, I want results, not extraneous bullshit.
I'll take google's sole "Sponsored Link" at the top any day.

Re:Website time-lapse

[pomo monster]

But in what context would you, a Slashdot reader and (presumably) seasoned computer user, actually search for the term "Linux" alone? For the kind of person who would enter a search term like "Linux"--someone without a clue about computers, for example--maybe the Wikipedia entry is, indeed, the most appropriate result. And ZDNet might be as good a place as any, for the non-tech savvy, to start learning about this "Linux" thing.

These comparisons are meaningless if you just blindly submit queries you'd never do in real life, with preconceived expectations of what you'd find useful. The only way to find out which search engine works better is real-world experience. I don't know about you, but I'm willing to give Ask.com a shot for the rest of the day.

Re:Website time-lapse

[OptimusPaul]

wow... how big is your font? I don't have to scroll at all.

Re:Website time-lapse

[conJunk]

you can do it in javascript:

if (window.XMLHttpRequest) {
  // browser supports XMLHttpRequest, so it's
  // not IE<7
}
else if (window.ActiveXObject) {
  // browser supports activexobjects, so it's an IE flavor
}

Re:Website time-lapse

[Anonymous Coward]

It is not only possible but trivial.

Opera always puts the word "Opera" in its user-agent string, so checking navigator.userAgent is a better idea than navigator.appName. If that's not good enough, Opera may also be identified by the existence of the window.opera object.

Re:Website time-lapse

[fbjon]

Simple, if the UA string contains 'Opera', then you're dealing with Opera. It's possible to remove it, but it requires more than just selecting a default UA string.

Re:Website time-lapse

[bigpat]

Can you make it so you can input any web site? That would be a useful tool for researchers or the curious. Maybe also add variables to slow down the cycling of the sites and specify intervals. And making the previews a bit bigger would be nice. Heck I don't see a reason why archive.org wouldn't want to include your application (maybe not in perl, my own bias).

Re:Website time-lapse

[payback451]

Interesting how over the years Yahoo's home page has become more cluttered, while Google's and Altavista's have become less.

Re:Website time-lapse

[TheRaven64]

I tried a random search 'OpenBSD'. This gave pretty much what I was expecting. It also gave me some options for refining my search. One of these was 'history of OpenBSD,' and I clicked on it. I got this page, which has no links of relevance at all on it. It has four sponsored links talking about the History of Linux, both at the top and the bottom with only a very faint (pale grey on white) caption saying 'sponsored links' to inform me that they were adverts. Contrast that with the Google equivalent, which has a much higher relevance.

Oh, and this is a real-world example. I have an article on OpenBSD due soon, and I wanted to make sure I remembered the history correctly.

For the lazy

[creepynut]

I know it's not hard to type, but when doing an article about Ask.com, it helps to provide a link to Ask.com.

Oh, and it's nice. Unfortunately, I use Google because I like the results it provides. Can Ask.com compete with that, or is it just a nice look?

Re:For the lazy

[Zendar]

Well, this morning someone mailed one of the tech lists I am on and said his Pine under Windows XP could not send email through Qwest's SMTP servers. I figured it had to do with SPA so I went to Google to see if PIne supported SPA. Here are the results I got. Then I got bored and moved to Slashdot and read this story. I brought up Ask.com and decided to try my search there. Here are the results I got there. Results look comparable as the answers were within the first two (non-ad-sponsored) results.

Re:For the lazy

[Anonymous Coward]

At least be honest and do search on the SAME FREAKING KEYWORDS! So, you search on Google with Pine + SPA, and you search on Ask.com with Pine + SMPT. No wonder Ask.com comes up with valid results.

Try searching "I am an Idiot".

Re:For the lazy

[op12]

I think they're taking search pretty seriously and have made some interesting improvements recently.

I particularly enjoyed this Ask.com blog entry.

Re:For the lazy

[aeoo]

Try it. It beat the crap out of Google on a very difficult search for me. But that's just one search and it's just me. But from what it looks like so far, it's definitely doing fine on the results so far. Give it a shot and let us know.

I'm hoping someone will post some more detailed research on the actual search results. :)

Re:For the lazy

[Zendar]

Oops. You are correct. I thought I searched for spa which is why the results were skewed towards Ask, but then I changed it and forgot to update the URL for Google. If you notice, I said the results were pretty much similar and did not favor one or the other.

Re:For the lazy

[hunterx11]

I primarily use Google, but for some topics its results are so mired in linkfarms that Ask.com is more useful.

Re:For the lazy

[npietraniec]

I just did a search for my name and it returned documents on my website that have been gone for years... Their cache on my last name is HORRIBLY out of date... Just one search though, maybe they can compete better on more common terms.

Re:For the lazy

[hackstraw]

Unfortunately, I use Google because I like the results it provides.

What else is there?

With google I can do:

my doctor's last name my_city, state

Hit return, and at the top of the page there is the phone number to call. If only the number was hooked into an autodialer, when that comes, it will be cool.

Google has usenet searches.

Google has news searches (I get confused sometimes between news.google.com and groups.google.com, but...)

Google has search by domain searches. Very useful to do .edu or .org or whatever to eliminate the .com domains who are trying to sell me crap.

Google is instantaneous. ask.com is slow right now.

Google has image searches.

Google has video searches.

Google will have music searches.

Google...

Yes, I'm a happy user. Thanks for Google having the best real estate on the web, and those greedy link parking whores that pay for my searching capabilities. Not to mention that its refreshing that I can buy ANYTHING that I search for at eBay while I'm at it. Very convenient.

Re:For the lazy

[Milalwi]

I just did a search for my name and it returned documents on my website that have been gone for years... Their cache on my last name is HORRIBLY out of date...

This is exactly what I saw as well. Since my name is somewhat unusual, but not unique, I usually test search engines by entering my name, both unquoted and quoted, to see what the results are.

Entering my first and last names (unquoted) into Google gives me my web site, at its current URL as the first link.

Entering my name into Ask.com gives me my web site as the sixth link and at the old (6+ months) URL, which is dead. The new site is nowhere to be seen. Entering my name quoted into Ask.com gives the first link, but still the old, dead site.

My wife's site comes up first on both Google and Ask when her name is entered.

My old site was setup to do a permanent redirect to the new site for a couple of months last fall.

This is the kind of thing (dead links) people won't tolerate in a search engine, IMHO.

I *do* like the site preview hover link, though.

Milalwi

Re:For the lazy

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Try searching for "Fourier Transform"

On Google

On Ask

I don't know about you, but I found Ask's search more helpful than Google's simple redirection to Mathworld and Wikipedia.

Re:For the lazy

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, I agree [though it feels strange].

I particularly like the "Narrow search"/"Widen Search" lists. Seems it may not take much to help the average searcher learn to search like a slightly-above-average searcher,... or somethin' like that.

thanks

Re:For the lazy

[Krimszon]

I did the my_doctor thing, I didn't see the telephone number in the first result, so I added "telephone" to my query. All of the sudden I got one of those aggregate websites (sort of yellow pages rip-off) that don't mean anything filled with ads. Is that also the power of Google?

Re:For the lazy

[Anonymous Coward]

1) Ask.com has phone listings on web results pages
http://www.ask.com/web?q=phone+listings+for+steve+ smith+San+Francisco+&qsrc=1&o=0

2) Ask.com has news searches
http://news.ask.com/
Localized by Zip

3) Ask.com offers search by domain
site:

4) Ask.com has image searches. In fact, the image dbase was just
revamped and highly lauded.
http://searchenginewatch.com/searchday/article.php /3580061

5) Ask.com maps are amazing. Move the location pointer to a new location and watch the location change.
Ask.com offers walking and driving directions. ften different especially in large cities
Add intermediate stops. Click the green button and watch the directions animated. Btw, the quality of the aerial imagery is awesome. Read the maps help page for more features.

6) In terms of music, Ask.com Smart Answers are amazing and helpful.
http://www.ask.com/web?q=aerosmith&qsrc=0&o=312

Re:For the lazy

[Illbay]

I use Google because I like the results it provides.

I use Google as well, but it's more force of habit. In fact, you have to wade through two or three screens of "paid links" before you get to anything non-commercial, in most cases.

For instance, if you're trying to find out something about, say, a particular musician, you first have to wade through a couple of pages of music download sites (mostly off-brand) and at least a page of things like GetLyricsToYourFavoriteSongsNow.com, before you can find anything of actual substance.

Re:For the lazy

[rainman_bc]

I personally only use google because of google groups. When trying to find information about a particular issue I have while coding, google groups serves me much better than most web searches. I've grown quite tired of seeing usenet mirrored in about a thousand different web sites out there.

Re:For the lazy

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

>I can buy ANYTHING that I search for

Please search for "world peace" then.

If you can't afford it I'll kick in a few bucks to help.

Re:For the lazy

[a.d.trick]

That's great, but some of us you know, might actually think differently from you. I for one did not find ask.com slow. They have image searches and news as well, although I never used anything but web and image searches anyways. From my experience ask.com provided really good results — informative web pages, not just popular ones.

Diversity and choice is a good thing.

Re:For the lazy

[hackstraw]

Please search for "world peace" then.

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en& q=world+peace

For me, its the 3rd ad on the right. It says:

World Peace
Whatever you're looking for
you can get it on eBay

Here are the eBay listings: http://search.ebay.com/world-peace_W0QQfnuZ1QQfsoo Z1QQfsopZ3QQxpufuZx

not about "quality" per se

[Douglas Simmons]

Though a competitor may try to make advances against google with revampments, Google's already got the golden brand and in this industry the guy who's at the top stays there as people feel more comfortable using what everyone else uses ... what's established. They're not going anywhere, move along.

Re:not about "quality" per se

[Guilly]

Funny, I'd like to see you say the following in future linux/microsoft bashing articles...

Though a competitor may try to make advances against Microsoft Corporation with revampments, Microsoft's already got the golden brand and in this industry the guy who's at the top stays there as people feel more comfortable using what everyone else uses ... what's established. They're not going anywhere, move along.

Thank you.

Re:not about "quality" per se

[Anonymous Coward]

You could say the same thing about Microsoft. Firefox is regarded as a "popular" browser when it captures 10% of the market share and Internet Explorer is considered "dying" when its market share drops to a pathetic 88%. IE's not going anywhere either -- does that mean that competition is completely useless?

Re:not about "quality" per se

[Mr. Underbridge]

Though a competitor may try to make advances against google with revampments, Google's already got the golden brand and in this industry the guy who's at the top stays there as people feel more comfortable using what everyone else uses ... what's established. They're not going anywhere, move along.

I seem to remember a time when Altavista owned the search market, with Yahoo a distant number 2 and Google didn't even exist. It is possible. Large companies can be beaten when they become complacent - something I think Google could be accused of when it comes to searching.

Re:not about "quality" per se

[corbettw]

Though a competitor may try to make advances against google with revampments, Google's already got the golden brand and in this industry the guy who's at the top stays there as people feel more comfortable using what everyone else uses

Tell that to AltaVista and Excite. They were both, at one time or another, king of the search hill. When was the last time you used either, though?

Granted that Google's been popular for longer than the others were, but it's not a foregone conclusion that someone else can't knock 'em over.

Re:not about "quality" per se

[shawn(at)fsu]

IMHO I'd say in business no one stays at teh top forever. Kmart used to be hugly popular uuntil walmart came aournd and at one time Kmart was the new kid onthe block trying to push someone else out. The big three automakers that were once untouchable are facing fierce compotition for market share. IBM was the top dog at one time too. Nothing last forever.

Re:not about "quality" per se

[CarpetShark]

what's established.

You're referring to Unix, right? ;)

Re:not about "quality" per se

[webview]

Actually, they have a point. I doubt anyone will unseat Google in the searching business. Rarely does a competitor do this (unless they become utterly clueless). It does happen more frequently (especially in tech) when what the top company does, no longer becomes that relavent and a competitor comes in and provides something new alltogether.

It's not a clear-cut great analogy, but I look at Google vs. Microsoft in that light. However, contrary to what people on Slashdot post, Microsoft is still poised to make a boatload of cash (more than Google)--at least for the forseeable future.

I am not praising Microsoft, but rather being realistic. Vista will come out, late, and it will be marginally better than XP, but everyone will eventually upgrade, all new PCs will be sold with Vista, and Microsoft will still stay number one.

Yes, it is a bit depressing.

Re:not about "quality" per se

[mporcheron]

the difference being Google was new technology.

AltaVista had no ranking system, just results return which were often not accurate.
Yahoo! was a directy managed by humans and thus limited to sites.
Google was the first relevant search engine with many more sites that the others.

Ask.Com doesn't really offer new technology or anything special that isn't already in existance in one form or another.

Re:not about "quality" per se

[gamer4Life]

There's a difference: Microsoft is still the leader because of it's monopoly and because it copies other companies' innovations and leverages it's operating system to make it "easier to use".

Google has many competitors that people can switch to by just typing a different URL. It continually innovates even when it's in the leadership position. Even if Ask.com was slightly better, it would not make much of a difference. Something has to be significantly better for people to switch.

Also Google has many tie-ins to other products, like Firefox.

Re:not about "quality" per se

[Anonymous Coward]

"Though a competitor may try to make advances against google with revampments, Google's already got the golden brand and in this industry the guy who's at the top stays there as people feel more comfortable using what everyone else uses ... what's established."

That same statement could have been applied to Yahoo or Altavista not many years ago.

I think...

[Machina Fortuno]

It really boils down to a basic mistrust by the population of the name "Jeeves"

I used to use ask... but switched to Google cause all the cool kids were doing it. That, and the color red pisses me off!

The next thing for ask.com... change name to "Google_eats_souls_use_us.com"

While their homepage design may be a little simpler... Google still loads quicker. Cause I gotta have my extra 5 seconds with page loads... it is a matter of National Security.

Re:I think...

[TheBogie]

It really boils down to a basic mistrust by the population of the name "Jeeves"

I couldn't agree with you more. I never really understood the whole butler thing either. A butler is someone who greets you at the door (and maybe gets you your pipe and slippers), but not necessarily someone who can answer any questions you might have. Maybe ask-einstein or ask-poindexter would have made more sense.

Re:I think...

[Otter]

I never really understood the whole butler thing either. A butler is someone who greets you at the door (and maybe gets you your pipe and slippers), but not necessarily someone who can answer any questions you might have.

In the P. G. Wodehouse novels, the dimwitted protagonist Bertie Wooster was wholly dependent on the practical and theoretical wisdom of his butler, Jeeves. As you note, though, that reference may have been lsot on most users.

Re:I think...

[Yo Grark]

I don't know, I tested Ask.com and it returned the more relevant info first. My homepage for example instead of slashdot entries.

Yo Grark

Re:I think...

[Irish_Samurai]

Wasn't the dude from "House" in those? BTW, whats a novel?

Re:I think...

[Nick Number]

It really boils down to a basic mistrust by the population of the name "Jeeves"

Yeah, that really Jeeves me out.

Re:I think...

[fiddlesticks]

> change name to "Google_eats_souls_use_us.com"

You can't have underscores in domain names (RFC 1034 and 1035, I think)

Re:I think...

[Anonymous Coward]

more people read your slashdot posts than your homepage. your homepage may be more relevant to you, but more people have read your thoughts about things on slashdot. in that regard, /. is more relevant.

Re:I think...

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Google still loads quicker. Cause I gotta have my extra 5 seconds with page loads... it is a matter of National Security.

Doa few hundred searches every day and speed becomes the priority.

Re:I think...

[Machina Fortuno]

semantics ruins jokes...

I think you are right, but I wasn't worried about it, ROFL. "googleeatssoulduseus.com" looks more like the name of a mythological character to me.

Re:I think...

[Petrushka]

Yes, Hugh Laurie appeared in P.G. Wodehouse's novels.

Re:I think...

[gregeth]

Google is soooo last search engine.

Personally I use Gizoogle. It's da fo shizzle!

They need to do a lot better than Google...

[g253]

When people started using Google instead of Altavista or Yahoo, it was IMHO because Google was better than Yahoo and Altavista was selling out and turning into sheer crap. If Ask wants to grab some market share, it will not do to be as good as Google or to offer a couple of extra nice features, even if that's an impressive feat; they will have to be so much better that people will not want to use Google anymore. Good luck to them...

Re:They need to do a lot better than Google...

[iocat]

Ask's search results are just as good as Google's IMHO (when I've asked it about a subject I know a lot about, sometimes the results are actually better than Google's to be honest). I use Google more cause of the toolbar, but I use Ask's portal as my homepage because it's full featured, loads quickly, and is ad free.

Re:They need to do a lot better than Google...

[mjm1231]

myway. looks a lot like yahoo, only less cluttered. While it is "full featured", it is full of features that I don't care about. I prefer google's personalized homepage, both for its cleaner layout and the nice selection of content features, including a Slashdot section and the ability to add bookmarks (much better than del.icio.us or Spurl for frequently used links). It also has a lot more third party content available as well.

Re:They need to do a lot better than Google...

[ThePhilips]

Google people are clever.

Many people have noticed their approach. First they provided fast search. Then they have provided more results. Then have started filtering results to artificially guess what you really want. Then have introduced "hacks" (and in fact they are still introducing them) for most of the often searched items.

E.g. "man ifconfig" as well as "msdn CreateWindow" on Google do what I want and expect from them - fetching me pages with technical documentation. When I search in Germany "Berlin Muenchen" Google gives me option to jump to Bahn.de and look for train connections between the two cities. Weather? - he you go. Movies? - you are welcome. Shopping? - here it is. And so on. (*)

Google is cool because they always tried to bring better results for every search. And they did NOT stuck with "only search" moto like for example Altavista did many years ago. People search for various kinds of information - you can NOT optimize in general - but you can in particular. And Google optimizes lots of lots of the particular cases. That's why I like Google.

That process takes time. And of course, it requires the feat now *very* UNpopular across the IT industry: listening to your users.

Good Luck Ask.com - Google needs some healthy competition ;-)

(*) I suspect Google constantly analizes what people look for and which results they click on. That way they can guess in advance what majority of users expects from the search.

Re:They need to do a lot better than Google...

[Lord Ender]

Have you watched TV recently? Ask.com is running a serious new ad campaign. It infers that all other search engines are primitive by comparison. Whether it is true or not, superior ad compaigns often matter more than slightly superior products.

Re:They need to do a lot better than Google...

[Breakfast Pants]

Yeah, afterall, what would Google have been without it's massive ad campaign.

Re:They need to do a lot better than Google...

[Fishstick]

yeah, but Ask has that spiffy TV ad campaign where people de-evolve into monkeys when using their computers until they start using ask! [/sarcasm]

I agree, that's a tough row to hoe, trying to get a leg up on google by being 'as good' with a couple nice extra features. They've got to offer something dramatically new/different/better.

That's what google's appeal was (and still is) -- I remember how disgusted I was with altavista or hotwired or whatever I was using when I found out about google though word of mouth. I remember telling all my friends and having them say "oh wow" at how uncluttered the interface was, how quickly it returned results and how usefull the results were.

Re:They need to do a lot better than Google...

[Lord Ender]

When google became popular, it was far superior to its competition. As such, your observation does nothing to invalidate my claim.

Overall I am impressed

[liliafan]

It seems like ask has come a long way, the binoculars feature is actually really smooth, I was expecting a slow loading feature when I read the article but I was suprised.

One thing I am not so keen on is the adverts displayed at the top of the page, something you see all over the place now, but also at the bottom of the page, meaning, I had to view them twice, I imagine for the advertisers this is a major benefit but to me the user it is an annoyance to have to scroll further to view the next page of results.

Another minor annoyance when you make a search you can go to settings but then to get back to your results you have to click the back button or make a change and save the settings there is no cancel and the top links to images, news, shopping and more options disappear from the top.

Minor annoyances aside though it looks like ask.com has taken a page from the google book of search engines and come up with a reasonably fast (feels a little slower than google), minimalist site with nice features, hopefully they will get the recognition they deserve for a job well done.

Re:Overall I am impressed

[Blakey Rat]

More people would buy your baby if you spent some time to proofread the site and correct the obvious spelling and grammar errors.

Poor Jeeves...

[PoitNarf]

Last I heard was that Jeeves was so upset about being dropped that he clocked an ask.com board member on the head with a pipe in the ballroom.

Re:Poor Jeeves...

[Anonymous Coward]

At least the deed wasn't "with the chair in the boardroom"

I think this is good btw, I always liked Jeeves, and I'm glad they've come back as Ask.com
Google are spreading themselves too wide, they should concentrate on SEARCH and their core values
instead of trying to be an polymath media portal omnicompany. Ask Jeeves always seemed like they
had their eye firmly on doing search well.

Re:Poor Jeeves...

[PoitNarf]

I found the ask.com cover story for Jeeves disappearance. I'm not buying it!

http://sp.ask.com/en/docs/about/jeeveshasretired.h tml

http://blog.ask.com/2006/02/thanks_jeeves.html

Re:Poor Jeeves...

[farmhick]

The first four possible futures for Jeeves looked stupid. Gay even.

But that last one cracked me up. "Look out for bounty hunters and their carbonite." That made it worth it.

Oblig. Simpsons Quote

[agraupe]

I know what we can ask Jeeves: why does he suck?

Re:Oblig. Simpsons Quote

[Anonymous Coward]

Dino, short for Dinosaur? Ask Jeeves.

One big difference

[Araxen]

Ask.com throws big ad searches first before any of the results you actually want. Google ads are off to the side. I'll stick with Google still.

Re:One big difference

[corbettw]

Ask.com throws big ad searches first before any of the results you actually want. Google ads are off to the side. I'll stick with Google still.

This search turns up three ads at the top before any actual search results. So what's the problem with Ask doing this, exactly?

Re:One big difference

[szembek]

But ask.com seems to do it for many more search terms. And it's not so much the block of 3 ads at the top that get me, it's the humongous block of 5 ads that you have to scroll past on ask.com to get to the next/previous links at the bottom.

Re:One big difference

[Senjutsu]

This search turns up three ads at the top before any actual search results. So what's the problem with Ask doing this, exactly?

If you run the same search on ask.com, you get three ads at the top, like google...and five more at the bottom between the last search result and the "next page(s)" button row.

I like the new layout, but the extra ads are a bit egregious, and the separation of the last non-paid result from the page controls irritates the shit out of me. It gives that same "real results squeezed between a sea of ads" feeling that turned me off pretty much all of the non-Google engines.

Re:One big difference

[mporcheron]

the international versions of ask don't have a different background colour and have '%% Web Results' randomly placed above the back/forward links. They also have an affiliate accounts with Lycos, Yahoo! and Excite which they link to.

eg.http://uk.ask.com/web?q=mortgage&qsrc=0&o=312

Re:One big difference

[aeoo]

Can you say greasemonkey? :)

I like it...

[Otter]

Like with most "natural language" search hype, I always found that the only thing Ask Jeeves seemed to do effectively was ignore the context and pick out keywords. That's probably genuinely useful for a lot of users, but if you know how to use keywords, there's no advantage.

But the new Ask.com site is the first real advance in web search since the original Google came out. My one gripe is that their banner ads on other sites (with the Google results whooshing by in a blur) are really annoying.

Re:I like it...

[vonFinkelstien]

Yeah, like how I just tested Ask.com with a search that I did early today at Google (latex chapter). The first result was a sponser hocking erection aids. No thanks Ask.com, I do not want spam in my mail or in my searches.

Re:I like it...

[Otter]

No thanks Ask.com, I do not want spam in my mail or in my searches.

I don't understand -- Google has exactly the same thing! In fact, Ask.com's presentation of sponsored links is basically copied from Google.

I can sympathize, as a recent search on the Penduline Tit turned up some very NSFW ads, but the only difference in your case seems to be that no one has bought "latex chapter" from Google yet.

Re:I like it...

[Greedo]

Uh ... Ask.com's sponsored links *are* from Google.

Ask.com Maps and Directions

[Lord Satri]

I took a look at TFA. Is it me or they don't discuss this new important feature: Ask.com Maps & Directions.

Re:Ask.com Maps and Directions

[aeoo]

Very nice map! Thanks.

It looks like ask.com will be kicking Google's ass. I think it's already right up there with Google, and considering that people say it has no Chinese operation, it may be a winner for me. We'll see.

Re:Ask.com Maps and Directions

[gorckat]

I looked up my address to see how it worked- it showed in a 'grassy' texture the park down the street from my house, but didn't show the elementary shcool right next to it.

Also, when I tabbed out of the 'address' box and hit the space bar, it was on some NY link, not the 'Go' button.

However, it loads pretty quick.

Re:Ask.com Maps and Directions

[Tab is on Slashdot]

Furthermore, it seems that Ask's satellite data in some areas is much better than that of the competition. This is the first I'm able to explore my hometown in high-res, living color.

Re:Ask.com Maps and Directions

[JVolkman]

Has anyone else noticed that Ask.com's Maps allows you to drag markers around? Bring up a point-to-point direction search and drag one of the markers to another location. Ask seems to search for the address nearest to that location and then recalculates the driving directions. Pretty cool.

Re:Ask.com Maps and Directions

[rsborg]

I took a look at TFA. Is it me or they don't discuss this new important feature: Ask.com Maps & Directions [ask.com].

Is it me, or did they copy Google completely?? I mean, I typed in my address and Ask gets it wrong the same way Google does (one nice improvement is the red arrow showing me which house is mine... but it's wrong!!).

Ok, they do have one feature that seems neat is the directions "playback", similar to Google Earth's "flyby" feature.

I think they need to improve their server response, though :-)

Re:Ask.com Maps and Directions

[pomo monster]

They obviously based it on Google Maps, but from what I can tell in five minutes of screwing around with it, they improved it significantly in the process. This is laudable, and distinct from, say, Microsoft cobbling together a ghastly sham of someone else's stellar product, or Gnome's or KDE's bumbling attempts to rip off the latest Mac features that never end up working quite as well as the original.

Stealing someone's ideas to make them better, and to make a positive dent in the world, isn't necessarily bad. What's bad is mindless, uninspired copying that results in spiced shit warmed over.

Re:Ask.com Maps and Directions

[mporcheron]

sadly they are only us, no way they will take on Google with US only products

Re:Ask.com Maps and Directions

[sk8dork]

I took a look at TFA. Is it me or they don't discuss this new important feature: Ask.com Maps & Directions [ask.com].

i tried out the maps feature and what i found was that ask maps had a nicer picture and could zoom farther, but seemed to have older satelite images. (this is all dealing with the satelite, or 'arial', view)

here is an image from ask maps.

here is an image from google maps.

my preference is with google on this fun feature.

Re:Ask.com Maps and Directions

[generic-man]

Go east. Ask has maps of nearly all of Europe whereas Google only has a few countries. Google's Japan maps are among the coolest I've seen; Ask can't match them yet.

Firefox Extension

[celardore]

There's a Firefox extension that adds preview images to search results.

http://ackroyd.de/googlepreview/

Re:Firefox Extension

[E1v!$]

Seconded. Better search for a better browser.

Google give you CHOICE in this matter.

Are we finally into the 'less is better' stage?

[grimsweep]

There's always been something about Google that I've liked more than it's search offerings: simplicity. The interface never attempts to assault you with a load of options that I may never need (I'm looking at you, Yahoo.com). Ads come in the form of simple text panels that don't make me cringe for downloading the latest version of Flash.

Given the number of gaming sites I go to these days, I would love to see this design philosohpy adapted to more sites on the web. Not only does it help the user, but it can potentially save bandwidth and reduce overall traffic.

Re:Are we finally into the 'less is better' stage?

[Lewisham]

Have you noticed that the Ask.com sponsored results appear by what looks like stealth? You have to run your eyes all the way across the page to find out which results are sponsored and which aren't, by which point I usually have lost track about which line I'm looking across.

Perhaps I just suck at keeping a stright eye line.

Re:Are we finally into the 'less is better' stage?

[rk]

Are you colorblind (not capping on you if you are! You just got some bad genes. Blame your parents. :-D) or using your own stylesheet, perhaps? The sponsored links I see have a light blue background, almost identical to the way Google does it.

In fact, it looks like Ask has virtually copied Google's UI, right down to the bug that I sometimes come across in Safari when I click a link it takes me back to the search engine's home page. One thing I think Ask has that Google doesn't that I like is the "narrow your search" options, which they've apparently integrated from their old Teoma site (which was quite nice, too).

Re:Are we finally into the 'less is better' stage?

[Lewisham]

Ahhhh.

No, I'm not colourblind. But Ask.com forces me to go to uk.ask.com by default. Which doesn't have the blue background that the US site has.

How bizarre.

Re:Are we finally into the 'less is better' stage?

[stu42j]

Actually, I'd say we are going back to the 'less is better' design. The original AltaVista, for example, was very simple and rather Google like.

Re:Are we finally into the 'less is better' stage?

[gamer4Life]

Have you tried http://search.yahoo.com/ ?

www.yahoo.com is a portal for information. search.yahoo.com is for searching.

I like A9

[Lewisham]

I've been using A9 as my main search engine for about 6 months now. I find the fact that it runs Google searches (which I have found most relevant to my needs), with configurable columns makes my searching life a lot faster.

By default, I have a large Google search column, a thin image search column, and a fairly thin Wikipedia column. Every search entry I run finds related images and definitions for me, without me having to click more. I find this configurability and power something that Google's own "personalized" search lacks.

I like that A9 isn't playing the "look like Google" game, and instead giving some power back to users. Google is great at searching, and the UI worked back when Yahoo! and AltaVista were horribly bloated, but I've been waiting for Google to actually start looking back at their UI again, and they simply haven't. They've poured more tech in, and made little tweaks, but that's about it.

That said, the Google Video store proves that it might be best not to go anywhere near the UI at all.

Rathered the Google look

[pembo13]

Maybe it is the red band at the top, or just their logo, but I rather look at google.com than ask.com. But in terms of search quality: i'll stop using Google as soon as it stops working well. Until then . . .

For those upset about Google's policies in China,

[Krotos]

ask.com has no operations there. -K.Ai.-

works better than Google on at least one search

[aeoo]

I can confirm that it works better than Google on at least one search. I was looking for a friend's email just yesterday and I spent about 20 minutes with Google and got nowhere. With ask.com I got my answer on the first link!

ask.com is definitely going to be something I will consider using.

Unfortunately I can't post my search string, because it's personal, but I'll mention that it's three words: first two are my friend's nickname and the third ward is his first real name. My friend has a very unique nickname when you put two words together, but both words are very very common individually. I'm hoping some others will post some detailed results.

Re:Really old news?

[dnebin]

It has been under ask.com for years now, but the revamping is new.

excellent engine, took me right

[wardk]

to google when I entered google in the search area.

now if MS can pull of something like this....

Re:excellent engine, took me right

[quokkapox]

Hey, when you search for "firefox" on Microsoft.com, they take you straight to the IE download page.

Where do you fnord want go today?

Re:excellent engine, took me right

[Omestes]

Though using their actual websearch (MSN) it shows you a full page of links to download Firefox. A WHOLE page!

Now based on Teoma

[SpinyNorman]

Apparently Ask.com is now (or was it always?) powerd by Teoma's search database.

I just gave it a try ("emperor constantine") and on that search it does seem to give notably crap-free results. I'll stick with Google, but I've added Ask.com to my search bookmarks that I resort to when the Goog fails me.

Good old days are gone

[Golden Section]

Too many commercial sites flood the results with top links that do not give any information. Finding information used to be easy with any search engine, but it gets harder to find spec sheets and good reviews using search engines. Adding 'review' or 'specification' to a search term used to help, but now it just means that there is a useless raving review or half-baked dumbed-down specs link on the sales page. For some of the info that I'd like to look up, e.g. on electronic equipment, I find myself scrolling through many SE result pages until I find a link that looks like a non-commercial enthusiast's page.

Ask Jeeves are spyware distributers

[Anonymous Coward]

see a google search for details

ask.com are banned in my kids school as well as our company firewall, visit with extreme caution (if you can get past the paid links and link farms)

A

Only on the English version by now?

[cyclop]

From TFA:
the top of the page, above the ads, featured a Smart Answer box that included a picture of Ted, an excerpt from a biography, direct links to his official site, an encyclopedia article and other images of him.

If I look on the Italian ask.com, I see nothing of all this. Just a dull grey thing bar. www.ask.com redirects me to it.ask.com, here.

However if I use the search query URL and I delete the "it." I see the described features.

It would be OK for me to use the English language version, but the redirect is plain annoying.

Re:Only on the English version by now?

[belg4mit]

Check your preferenes, is the default set to italy? It's not as if google doesn't redirect www.google.com for foreigners either (a huge PITA while I was in FR).

I just have to ask

[WindBourne]

First, what makes you think that ask.com is not used in China? After all, the internet is international.

Second, why pick on Google? MSN and Yahoo have been working with the chinese gov in quietly censoring material. That is, they censor and do NOT notify the user that they are doing so. OTH, Google does censor, but DOES notify the end user that they were censored. As a Freedom lover, I am not wild about the censoring, but far better to let the person know that they are being censored. Consider how many Americans were shocked to find out that America Gov was spying on some part of the population. By knowing, there is something that can occur. But when it is quiet, then you have to wonder.

Re:I just have to ask

[Krotos]

As the other respondent pointed out, I was wrong, and Ask.com actually does have (planned) operations in China -- which, I assume, means they will be setting up an Ask.cn website or something like that. If the experience with Google is any indication, they will also have to agree to filter the results returned by the Chinese version of their search engine in order for it to not be blocked by Chinese ISPs. However, there are search engines which genuinely don't cooperate in any way with the Chinese government.

And that's the point, in my opinion: not whether or not a particular search engine or other content provider is used in China -- which means merely that its IP address isn't blocked by Internet routers, owned by others, which are physically in China and subject to Chinese legal jurisdiction -- but whether or not it is cooperating with Chinese censorship laws in order to not be blocked there. In the latter case, it is, in the interests of profit, enabling something which I and a great many other people find repugnant and immoral. That's why I don't use Google (and now, I suppose, Ask.com). I agree with your criticisms of Yahoo! and MSN and I don't use them either, and I was focusing on Google because of the thread topic.

At the risk of Godwinning the discussion, suppose the New York Times had published a special German-language edition during the 1930s for sale in Nazi Germany, and as a condition of being allowed to sell the paper there, had had to agree to content restrictions imposed by the Nazis. For example, it wouldn't have been allowed to say too much about the persecution of Jews by the government. Maybe the Times would have argued that it was better if the German people got heavily filtered foreign news rather than none at all. Maybe they even would have been allowed to print a disclaimer on the front page saying that the German government had censored some of their articles. But would anyone today consider their actions to have been moral? And is there any doubt that the Nazis would have tightened the restrictions on the German-language Times or barred it from Germany altogether if there'd been the slightest hint that it was emboldening the opposition?

No matter how sincerely the Times may have believed in this hypothetical scenario that it was serving a greater good, it would have been freely choosing to help perpetrate injustice, and thereby would been helping to legitimize it. Google is doing the same thing today in China, which is why, IMHO, people who value freedom of speech and thought should not associate themselves with it.

-K.Ai.-

Re:I just have to ask

[WindBourne]

Lets assume that the NYT had published in Nazi Germany. Had they shown in their pages that the info was censored, then I would have been fine with that. In fact, I would guess that most ppl would be fine with that. Why? Because censoring never works. Some info will always get through. For starters, ppl would know that they were missing something. That alone is useful. Afterall, how many Americans were surprised to find that our current gov. spies on at least some portion of us? You still do not know how much this goes on, but you now know that it goes on. That knowledge has changed our society.

OTH, suppose they had taken the MSN/Yahoo approach of not showing that they were censoring, well, then it would have the appearance of being all the news.

Finally, there is the option of not publishing at all. In that case, it would have appearance of nothing was there. That is, nobody knows that there is other services.

Plain and simple, I will take Google's approach before I take the other two.

Re:I just have to ask

[Anonymous Coward]

Second, why pick on Google? MSN and Yahoo have been working with the chinese gov in quietly censoring material.

Because one of them tries to pass themselves off as a Holier Than Thou "Do No Evil" company and should be hold to the standard their PR pretend to?

Why is "ask.com" a competitor? (Uses Google ads!)

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

Why is "ask.com" considered a competitor? After all, "ask.com" still serves Google Ads. (How do I know? My ads are served on ask.com and I know I only bought them through Google...)

Ask is entering the China market

[Infonaut]

ask.com has no operations there.

At the same meeting Diller announced that Ask will begin operating in China next year... (Sept 22, 2005)

Re:Ask is entering the China market

[Krotos]

I stand corrected. That's what I get for doing my research on the Usenet, I guess. :)

In any case, here is a list of search engines which (according to the site) really don't cooperate with the Chinese government's censorship policies:

http://noluv4google.com/article.php?id=800 -K.Ai.-

Re:Ask is entering the China market

[pomo monster]

I still don't see how providing a limited service for Chinese citizens is worse than providing them no service at all. The first step to democratic reform has to be to show Chinese citizens (and politicians!) the relative vibrancy of politics and freedom of speech in the outside world, and it's ridiculous to think Google could help spread news and information by giving them the finger instead.

Don't forget 14 countries, including Germany and France, have laws of their own forcing Google et al. to censor search results presented within their borders. But perhaps this is the wrong place for this debate.

Not gonna work

[Gat0r30y]

This just isn't gonna work for Ask.com. Why? because Google knows what it needs to do to maintain market share. Keep being not evil. As long a Google rolls out a new beta every once in a while and doesn't do anything evil, they are money.

Ebay?

[StonedRat]

Is it just me or is ebay always the first result when using ask.com ?

Jeeves is fine...

[Vindaloo]

But my new favorite search engine is Ask Wooster.

targets children with spyware

[Anonymous Coward]

see Ben Edelelmans site for a detailed description of how low Ask Jeeves can go

at least Google is "safe" and have a product that works, ask.com is just a million dollar domain squatter

Jeeves new job

[DanCentury]

Jeeves got a job working for MySpace.

One big difference-Adblock.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Ask.com throws big ad searches first before any of the results you actually want. Google ads are off to the side. I'll stick with Google still."

Considering every slashdotter subscribes to adblock. I'm surprised anyone noticed.

Funny

[Anonymous Coward]

All that hype about Microsoft trying to beat google, and ask.com comes along and does better than any MS attempt to date but without all of the hot air.

Google previews are available

[phoebe]

with a Firefox plugin, which has existed for quite some time and doesn't require you to move the mouse over the binoculars making for more productive use. The extension also works with Yahoo! search and has screenshots for a lot more sites than ask.com currently has.

ask vs google

[tokul]

Ask = 5.5 KB
Google = 1.5 KB

Re:ask vs google

[Anonymous Coward]

Google clearly has the 300 baud dial-up user in mind.

Cannot search in...

[klui]

Japanese. I'd guess the same will be true for Chinese characters. Ask.com has a long, long way to go. Previews are a gimmick. I can't see the text on the website. And it sucks unnecessary bandwidth while not everything has a preview.

Re:Cannot search in...

[Anonymous Coward]

Try ask.jp

Re:Cannot search in...

[klui]

That's a good workaround but not as flexible as Google or some other sites that will bring back searches from multiple languages. No active ask.cn yet.

Customize your Google

[mogrify]

You can have many of these fine features with Google as well, using Firefox extensions such as GooglePreview, CustomizeGoogle, and LookAhead. You can even jump over and search ask.com (and many others) with one extra click, if you wanna.

Just saying.

Preview not on all links

[192939495969798999]

The preview feature is useless because 1) it's not on every page that comes back and 2) it's not updated live. What is the point, really? Here's what i'd see in 2 seconds? I'll just spend the 2 seconds, who cares! It's much nicer to have, oh i dunno, a longer summary like Google has.

Re:Preview not on all links

[Anthony Liguori]

The preview feature is useless because 1) it's not on every page that comes back and 2) it's not updated live.

1) Just because it doesn't come for every site doesn't make it useless. It clearly has a use for pages that it works on. It may be less useful but it not useless.

2) The fact that it's not updated live does not make it useless either. It is quite useful, for instance, in quickly determining if a site is a link-farm or is going to load some awful flash piece of crap.

Re:Preview not on all links

[Wolf nipple chips]

If you think the preview feature useful, try this firefox plugin : GooglePreview

I'm sorry

[Mike Savior]

But ever since Google started expanding things well beyond search, I literally had forgotten that there are other search engines out there. Only when I see a headline concerning Google's competition or see someone using Yahoo or the like, am I reminded there are alternatives. I don't know if that's good or bad, and I'm well aware Google isn't perfect, but if they can affect people as profoundly as they have me, then Jeeves and competitors will just be putting work in for nothing. But this is probably just me being ignorant.

Re:I'm sorry

[xombo]

No, you're right. I don't search with anyone else. I told a guy the other day that if you aren't a search result on Google, then you don't exist.

Depends...

[IANAAC]

All it takes is for one major ISP (be it SBC/ATT, Comcast, whatever) to use it as their default search engine. As long as it provides valid results - and from the looks of it, it does a fine job - then people will be happy with it and use it.

People care about whether it provides them with what they want, not how much better it is/may be than Google.

Aww great

[drix]

Now I have to switch my webmail, mapping site, news site, aggregator, financial site ...

You don't earn your fanboy wings for nothin.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well if it isn't my arch-nemesis, Trolly McTroll. I see you still have no life and a lot of virginity. Go back to your mom's basement and jack off to yaoi.

More on Ask.com

[packdel99]

These posts have more about what's new, enhanced, etc. http://www.resourceshelf.com/2006/03/askcoms-new-l ook-scores-big-points.html http://searchenginewatch.com/searchday/article.php /3587686 http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6317186.ht ml The image database has also been revamped. http://searchenginewatch.com/searchday/article.php /3580061

Javascript Required

[Clinton]

Can't seem to do much without having Javascript enabled. Sad.

Re:Javascript Required

[shiznatix]

What are you talking about? I have javascript disabled at all times and ask.com worked perfectly just now.

Google vs. MSN vs. AOL vs. Yahoo vs. Ask

[otisg]

Here is how search engine shares and growth compare over the last few quarters: chart. Doesn't look peachy for Ask.

Re:Google vs. MSN vs. AOL vs. Yahoo vs. Ask

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, what company could possibly survive with 30% YOY growth.. they must be doomed!

Google has one big advantage...

[NthDegree256]

Yeah, yeah, but Google is a verb now. Try and compete with that, Ask.com.

... what?

Re:Google has one big advantage...

[A10n]

The word "ask" is a very too.... They don't need to intervene with the dictionary! Its already there baby!

MOD UP

[PetriBORG]

Its true, the map site rocks on ask! Plus I was blown away by the fact that it actually responds to scroll-wheel by zooming in!

Google look-a-like

[Lars Arvestad]

In my quick testing I was surprised to how much alike ask.com was to google.com. The simple query page is nice, just like google's and maybe it is wrong to complain about that. But the results page felt like it could have been straight from Google; Don't they want to differentiate themselves somewhat? It seems hard to compete with Google if it comes across as wanting to look like Google.

I liked to possibility to save some hits though and will give ask.com a try next time I need to search for something.

Sad copy...

[trifster]

Is it just me or does it just seem like a blatnet copy of google with a ugly ask.com logo and red front page?

Re:Sad copy...

[vescovi]

Theyre following the basic rule of soft-makers... "Omg! thats work for then! lets copy and hope that it works for we too!" just more of the same...

heh... your new, aren't you?

[everphilski]

The same thing had been said about Yahoo!, WebCrawler, HotBot, AltaVista, etc. You have your day in the sun. Enjoy it, Google.

Now I'm not saying Ask is going to take it. But plenty of search engines have had their day. And more have yet to come.

Re: Ask Maps vs Google Maps

[RonDiggity]

Ask actually correctly places Playa Vista (a relatively new neighborhood in Los Angeles), whereas on Google simply points at downtown LA.

satellite images

[HunterAmor]

Additionally, ask's satellite imagery is of a much higher resolution than google maps, at least for my area. For Gainesville, FL on google maps you're lucky to pick out the football stadium on the University of Florida campus. On ask.com, you can count how many people are standing on the field.

Re:satellite images

[A10n]

This is very true, I like their images way more than Google. I have been looking at ways of getting away from Google for privacy reasons. Using one company for everything isn't a good idea.

Like everything in life, moderation is key.

I will continue to use gmail/gnews but I believe I will switch over to Ask.com for search and the maps since the pictures are at least 50 times better

search: where's jeeves?

[dtfinch]

Where is Jeeves?
After ten years of service, helping millions of users find what they want, Jeeves has decided to finally retire from his duties. He felt the time was right, convinced by the vastly-evolved technology of the new Ask.com that he could take a well-earned rest from his work of the previous decade. All of us at Ask.com wish him well in his next adventure.

Re:search: where's jeeves?

[Winlin]

Actually what happened is that someone asked Jeeves about goatse.cx and Jeeves is now in extensive psychotherapy. Doctors assure us he should regain use of his eyes sometime next year.

Preview feature for Google

[Anonymous Coward]

For all those out there using FireFox and Google, there is a nifty extension available that adds a thumbnail view to your google results. I don't remember what it's called but you should be able to find it without much trouble.

overall I am NOT impressed

[Hammer42b]

The preview does not work by default for SeaMonkey. Which (together with Firefox) is a significant part of the userbase. Luckily all I have to do in SeaMonkey is to use my useragentswitcher and pretend I use IE6. Still that is just stupid.

Reasons why it is INFERIOR

[moochfish]

Ask's attempt to copy Google is obvious. Of course, merely copying won't get you far. People aren't going to switch away from something they've grown accustomed to using if the competitor's product is only "just as good" or "barely better." It might even be better at first glance, but Google has been there for you for much longer and you know its reliability. Google's index is much larger, probably by an order of magnitude and Google offers services that Ask hasn't even touched, such as chat and email. They have no where near the same bandwidth, which is obvious in how the site lags. One thing I can say about Google that neither Yahoo or MSN have been able to compete on is how consistently blazing fast their site is every moment of every day of the year. If it's ever been slow, I really can't recall it. Whereas I can think of specific moments where MSN or Yahoo lagged like no other for extended periods of time. Ask seems to be no different. Ask might have Google beat on some minor points, but it's got a lonnnng way to go before it is noticeably better than MSN, Yahoo, or Google. That said, here are things I noticed that make it inferior to Google.

1. Ads appear at the top before normal search results
2. Narrowing down the results appears on the right side -- a very unintuitive place to look for such options
3. It seems to be a Google clone -- Google in 2002, that is
4. When I mispelled a search term, it placed the corrected spelling BELOW the ads

To sum most of my points above, see this search for "Microsoft" on Google (2,540,000,000 results) vs. Ask (96,550,00 results). Ask's results page is ad ridden and clumy. Click on the links to see it for yourself. Below is what I see above the page crease:

Ask (no search time shown):
Latest News: Microsoft
Dueling Fools: Microsoft Bull Motley Fool 25 minutes ago
Microsoft Defends Itself at EU Hearing COX.net for San Diego 36 minutes ago

Sponsored Results Microsoft Help & Updates
Fix Microsoft Errors, Free Download Free Microsoft Support Today!
dllfix.net

Microsoft Help & Updates
Free Download, Fix Microsoft Errors Microsoft Support & Repair Service
www.PCMightyMax.net/Repair

MS Software up to 60% off
Microsoft Software - 60% Off 100% Authentic Microsoft Software
www.eDirectSoftware.com

[[Regular results]]
Microsoft Corporation
Official homepage of Microsoft Corporation...
www.microsoft.com/ Cached Save

Microsoft Windows AntiSpyware (Beta) Home
Find out how to use the new Microsoft Windows AntiSpyware (Beta) to detect and remove spyware and other unwanted software that can track every move...
www.microsoft.com/athome/security/spyware/software /default.mspx Save
More Results from www.microsoft.com

Google (0.16 seconds):
[[Regular results]]
Microsoft Corporation
The entry page to Microsoft's Web site. Find software, solutions, answers, support, and Microsoft news.
www.microsoft.com/ - 26k - Cached - Similar pages - Remove result

Microsoft Update - More Popular Downloads
Office Update - Office
More results from www.microsoft.com

Microsoft Windows Update
Latest bug fixes for Microsoft Windows, including fixes for some possible DoS attacks.
windowsupdate.microsoft.com/ - Similar pages - Remove result

MSN.com
Microsoft's newly renamed portal entry. Features personalization, channels of content sites like Carpoint, and integration with Hotmail e-mail.
www.msn.com/ - 31k - Cached - Similar pages - Remove result

Microsoft Help and Support
Technical support for Microsoft Office products including Access.
support.microsoft.com/ - Similar pages - Remove result

Microsoft Game Studios
Xbox.com is your ultimate source for all things Xbox and Xbox 360. Get news updates; game trailers, scree

Ask.com does not show up properly in Firefox

[Why Login]

Just typed ask.com and after I clicked on "Images" on the right side, the search bar disappeared and all I saw was a blinking cursor in the middle of nowhere. Same happened after I clicked "News"

Re:Ask.com does not show up properly in Firefox

[neonleonb]

Really? It works fine for me in Firefox. Do you have javascript disabled or something like that?

Broken in Firefox

[Midnight Thunder]

Looks like the maps just show broken images in Firefox, but shows up find in IE. Certainly an issue of lack of testing.

Re:Broken in Firefox

[Midnight Thunder]

Looks like the maps just show broken images in Firefox, but shows up find in IE. Certainly an issue of lack of testing.

Nope, it works. My had forgotten I had disabled the 'referrer'.

Re:For the lazy How is "preview" enabled?

[davidsyes]

I am using Konq and Moz-ff and neither one is showing any previews. Is it browser/rev-dependent? Did I miss an activation?

I ran a search on my name and NOTHING about myself came up. Google brings back stuff on me most of the time.

I ran a search on 4 letters-hyphen-4 numbers and Ask returned back only THREE woefully-unrelated results.

Why ask Ask?

Maybe they need to "get their ask together?"....

funny... image word is "absconds"...

Re:For the lazy How is "preview" enabled?

[davidsyes]

Damn... started/multi-tasked reply while testing ask...didn't lop off the part about not finding stuff on myself...

But, how is "preview" enabled?

I beg to differ

[saha]

Back in the mid 90's I used to use Alta Vista from DEC and Yahoo to do my searches, then a young upstart Google blew them away with better and more relevant search results. 900 links to a single word reference in an entire article doesn't help me. Which is why I use Google today.

I have tried Ask.com a long time back, but not since their latest revamp. I actually ran into Eric Glover, one of their chief programmers back in Ann Arbor a few months ago at a party. He did his doctoral research on search engines. Ironically, Larry Page of Google was also in Glover's undergraduate classes and both know of each other. Page went on to Stanford from his graduate school and Glover stayed to finish his PhD. Glover first worked at NEC developing a search engine for them. NEC lacked focus and purpose with search technology, since their emphasis is on electronics and consumer good. Glover then left for Ask.com to help improve their search results. At the time I met him, he couldn't reveal too much and was hush hush about their new search engine launch. Looks like they have something to compete with Google with. Initially, Google didn't spend much money at all advertising their search engine. It was all word and mouth, perhaps the same could happen for Ask.com. You just never know.

Wow, that WSJ.com article makes me want to convert

[A10n]

He made some really good points, which may not be so obvious to users who have tunnel vision with a Google only mentality. I noticed the ability to save results, pictures and upload your bookmarks but didn't think of its value at first. The shorten or broaden your search results is also a very creative and user friendly add on which is very useful as I have used it in the past.

Ask.com seems to be really gaining ground and fast. Unlike MSN and Yahoo, Ask has been working hard, quietly, and very creatively to do their own things and ignore the silly name calling that has been going on.

MSN maps? Yahoo maps? Ya right... Ask.com now has the killer map and direction system. They also have the neat little bar to the left of the screen which is very useful, sleek, and ingenious!


Kudos to everyone at Ask.com for the great work :) My google alternative is coming true :)

How to test a search engine: Ask.com does ok

[Unequivocal]

I have a simple, rule-of-thumb test for a new search engine to see how it performs. My test, of course, doesn't test all features, but it does test an important one. Here's the test: There's a small, rural town near San Francisco called Gilroy. It's a random small town for this test's purpose. Try searching any search engine for:

Gilroy hotels

See what you turn up (or substitute your own city of choice). Google is crammed full of BS fake ad sites for this search (and has been for years). A long time ago on Google this search would pull up useful information from personal websites about good hotels in the area.

Ask.com provides a somewhat more credible set of results, but still plenty of fake ad sites.

In my opinion, until somebody cracks the BS ad site problem, our search engine technology is really just incremental. As far as "narrowing search results" on ask.com - that doesn't seem like what the feature does. It seems more like a semantic prompt. In this case, it asks if I would like to run a search on "City of Gilroy." Note this doesn't narrow my search of Gilroy hotels, but replaces it completely, giving me (useful) results about the City of Gilroy in general.

Re:How to test a search engine: Ask.com does ok

[ill dillettante]

What is need is an ranking algorithm that can't be "gamed" by site owners (search engine optimised to give it its more usual name). I have actually develop such an algorithm (and even applied for a patent on it), but sadly I can't get anybody to even look at it. I have been investigating developing my own search engine, but unfortunately this is not a cheap option :-(

Ask.com might change your mind

[ntintel]

Yes, it actually did change my mind this morning. My dev. lead spent 2 hours trying to google a .Net answer this morning, but none of the results was useful. I did the same thing and was unable to find anything for 30 mins. So i thought "Lets give Ask a chance and see whats the fuss is all about". Guess what, Ask.com gave me only 6 sites (in comparison to 85 from Google), and 3 out of 6 gave the correct solutions, and it's the same search query. I'm did not look through all Google's 85 returns, but usually nobody has the patience to go past the 3rd page.

More Qs, MORE MORE MORE!

[eonlabs]

And now, the questions on "everyone's" minds

1. Which has a heavier home page? If it's 2 seconds on a 28.8 KB modem to access a homepage for one of them, it's preferred to 10 mins on the same. I only use 28.8 as an example because it really gets the point across.

2. Does the new site surpass google by SO MUCH that people who are familiar with google, enjoy google's constant service upgrades (with no downloads at that), switch over?

3. How much is the SO MUCH in the previous question?

Have fun with that.

Re:More Qs, MORE MORE MORE!

[jlarocco]

Which has a heavier home page? If it's 2 seconds on a 28.8 KB modem to access a homepage for one of them, it's preferred to 10 mins on the same. I only use 28.8 as an example because it really gets the point across.

Good point. I just checked this out. Ask.com's homepage is a bit heavier than Google's, but not enough to really notice, even on 28.8k. But for a search returning 100 results, Ask.com's results were roughly 30% heavier than Google's.

...enjoy google's constant service upgrades...

What constant service upgrades? Tweaking their algorithms? To most people, Google search has barely changed in years. They've added quite a few new products, but those hardly count as upgrades to their search engine.

And just to nitpick, there IS a download. In fact, it has to be downloaded every single time it's used.

Re:More Qs, MORE MORE MORE!

[eonlabs]

Fair enough.
Thanks for checking that out. I was interested in numbers on that.

The reason I consider the tools not directly related to searching web pages is that's what ask.com is bound to start pushing. To be honest, it doesn't really matter what search algorithm you use as long as relevant pages show up at the top of the list. I value a page that loads fast when I get to it, and the extra features like video searches and mail and the personalized home page are useful and make it a nice service.

I'm sure ask is going to be focusing on things outside of improving its search algorithm.

But how far can they push it without the lawsuits flying is an interesting question.
The second they start specializing in a field google has betad in, I'm sure you'll see some rising tension and friction.

Pardon the tangential thought process.

But.. where's the beta?

[Fork, Thread, Fork!]

I need a beta! I can't use a non-beta product!

Re:But.. where's the beta?

[A10n]

LOL Everything Google does is BETA! Something can be in Beta for 5 years just to give them an excuse if something is wrong or breaks. I haven't noticed that on any other websites and certainly haven't seen it on Ask I actually haven't even seen it on their new map system. Beta.... what a joke.

It's Step 2!

[Anonymous Coward]

If Ask wants to grab some market share, [...] they will have to be so much better that people will not want to use Google anymore.

Or they could just show some TV ads that imply that if you use their competitor's product, you're a monkey. I hear that works really well, too.

local / maps

[ricky_charlet]

Their satalite data is newer than google's. Specifically, their arial photos of New Orleans show the debries of Katrina

http://maps.ask.com/maps?l=lt%3D30.0173074407%7Clg %3D-90.1094287634%7Cal%3D-1%7Ccx%3D-16797615%7Ccy% 3D-5870704%7Czm%3D1%7Cvt%3D1~lt%3D29.95444%7Clg%3D -90.075%7Cad%3DNew%20Orleans%2C%20LA%7Csd%3D0%7Cdm %3D0~#1

contextual search

[john_uy]

i like the contextual search feature in ask.com. like search for apple allows you to narrow to to items such as apple fruit, apple tree, etc. it even gives suggestions for other search entries like banana, etc.

i may use their site over google. in google, you have to be descriptive about your search. i sometimes find it very difficult to describe my query that i fail to get results or get few returning results.

Less is almost always better

[typical]

Actually, I'd say we are going back to the 'less is better' design.

The problem, I would say, was an era with massive demand and little supply of web designers. As a result, absolutely absurd things went through. Web designers treated client websites as personal experiments ("Well, wouldn't it be cool if..."). Flash went one websites because Flash was fun to play with. Nonsense like logos and links for the *web designer* were prominently slapped on many websites -- that'd be like Chiat-Day sticking an ad for themselves over Apple's ads.

The user wants the website to be usable, and in almost all cases, that means as minimal as possible to get the necessary features across. Incidently, that also tends to make life easier for the disabled, for people using cell phone browsers, etc, etc.

There are still some major websites that are very complicated. A typical Yahoo! webpage has way too much *stuff* on it for me to even come close to fully scanning it.

My guess is that a lot of web-based companies fall prey to corporate organization issues. It's easy to do something new -- just get budget. It's hard to say "there's too much crap on this page" and ram someone's project back a link away from the main page (even if it actually makes that link *easier* to find) because that might generate friction.

I'd say that every Web company needs one person with the personal authority to sit down and basically say "This, this, and this are all coming off the main page. You can stick them in a hierarchy somewhere."

Photographic memory

[Motherfucking Shit]

One of the reasons I like the Preview feature is that I often find myself in a situation like this:

Last week I found a great website about $TOPIC_X. I didn't bookmark it because I didn't think it was worth saving, but now I'd love to find it again. Problem is, I can't remember the name of the site, or the precise search term I used to find it. But if I saw it again, I'd recognize it...

Click through to 20 different sites looking for the right one... Or hover over some preview icons and find it right away?

? Ask.com?

[NZ4410110]

Bloody advertising on /. is getting REALLY bad ...and does anyone actally care REALLY?

It's not too bad actually

[Jugalator]

I like many of ask.com's features and how it makes certain search results very accessible to the user. Search for e.g. Linus Torvalds to see what I mean. BUT... What I'd like to see is these features implemented in another layout. That's still Ask.com's shortcoming. They cleaned up the front page, but the result page also matters a lot, and there they still have those annoying ads in the way.

Ask Jeeves - aj.com

[dave1212]

Seems like no-one's mentioned - you can still get there from the old link, at

http://aj.com/

Which is good. It's shorter, anyway.

No next?

[Anonymous Coward]

I did a search on ask.com using firefox, it came up with 144 hits, showing 10 of 144. But no next button anywhere to find. This functionality should be instantly accessible and easy to find, whether I'm doing something wrong , or it's a bug or hidden somewhere, it's a gross neglect on their side.