Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Base To Replace Froogle

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the goog-to-the-froog-to-the-woog dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Google plans to introduce a new shopping feature in time for the holiday season. Soon products on Google Base will be searchable via the regular search box. Simultaneously, Google intends to de-emphasize its own Froogle shopping search engine; Google intends for Froogle to no longer be a standalone Web site." From the article: "When people search for products on Google.com, the system will present them with another search box so that they can refine their query, according to Bear Stearns & Co analysts. After people refine their query, Google takes them to a second page populated with product results from the Google Base listings service. 'Ranking will be determined by the attributes that the sellers listed for the product as well as by relevancy,' the analysts wrote. Currently, Google has no plans to monetise this product-search capability with display ads or listing fees, but that could change, they wrote. "

20 of 68 comments (clear)

  1. Err, okay by isecore · · Score: 2, Funny

    according to Bear Stearns & Co analysts

    I need some sleep, I read that as "Stern Bears Analysts" and thought, man that must be a tough firm to work for!

    --
    I enjoy large posteriors and I cannot prevaricate.
    1. Re:Err, okay by gardyloo · · Score: 3, Funny

      I need some sleep, I read that as "Stern Bears Analysts" and thought, man that must be a tough firm to work for!

          You're a true American. One of The Heroes. We'll incorporate that into the Threat-Down.

  2. It's about time! by Urza9814 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I gotta say, I love all things google, but froogle is absolutely horrible. It just gives you too much unrelated junk, and sort by price never works because of that. Try searching it for cheap iPods. You gotta first sort through 30 or 40 pages of iPod cases...with no real way to remove 'em all. It's best to just stick with sites like pricegrabber or even pricewatch unless you know VERY specifically what you want.

    1. Re:It's about time! by ThatComputerGuy · · Score: 3, Informative

      I use Froogle all the time. It's really simple to get useful results out of it - do you really think you're going to find a $15 ipod somewhere? Of course not, that'll be some useless case or related item. So set your lower price bound to something half-reasonable, like $100. Cuts out tons of crap, as long as you have *some* clue about the expected price range of what you're looking for.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    2. Re:It's about time! by scooter.higher · · Score: 4, Informative

      You can filter out search terms using the hyphen (-) just like in a Google web search. Try this:
      http://froogle.google.com/froogle?q=cheap+ipod+-ca se&hl=en&btnG=Search+Froogle

      Want to get rid of the AC chargers too?
      http://froogle.google.com/froogle?q=cheap+ipod+-ca se+-charger&hl=en&btnG=Search

      --
      Ramen
  3. Great, Froogle was a waste... by HatchedEggs · · Score: 5, Interesting

    At least for me. Whenever I tried to use it the results I got weren't that great at all. By searching a few other sites I was often able to find cheaper prices than those found on Froogle. I'm not sure what the reason for that was, but it just didn't seem to find me the best prices.

    Plus, on top of that it's search wasn't accurate enough. For instance, if I searched for "television" and "LCD" then it would throw in a bunch of peripheral items that I would then have to search through. Doing a search for that now seems to be a bit more accurate than last I checked though, perhaps they are making it more accurate.

    Either way, combining it with the regular search engine would be a great idea in my opinion. That'll make it more efficient to do searches.

    --
    Justin - Don't be afraid of my blog, it won't bite.
    1. Re:Great, Froogle was a waste... by marshmallow+soup · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Froogle was a good idea that was poorly executed. Searching for anything other than a specific product returned pages and pages of listings for the same item under slightly diffent names. I hope any integration of Froogle into the main index will include a better system for managing dupes than Froogle had.

    2. Re:Great, Froogle was a waste... by antifoidulus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not to mention a huge conflict of interest. Froogle didn't directly get commissions if you looked at/bought something, but did sell contextual ads. So what should google do if the person who buys the advertisement has a slightly higher price than someone who came up on froogle. The ad buyer just wasted money so the other guy could get a sale. Not to mention it calls into question how accurate everything really is on froogle. I mean, do ad buyers get preference in the search results?

      --
      Monstar L
    3. Re:Great, Froogle was a waste... by rm69990 · · Score: 2, Informative

      "The ad buyer just wasted money so the other guy could get a sale."

      Not if the consumer didn't click on the ad, and instead clicked on the lower price in the search results. Google only charges per click, not for just showing the ad.

  4. This is wrong. by Gabrill · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I already get a bunch of shopping links whenever I search information on products. I use Google less and less because I can't find information relevant to anything BUT shopping.

    --
    Always going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse.
    1. Re:This is wrong. by owlnation · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I wholeheartedly agree. I think the balance has been tipped on Google some time ago. I find it very difficult to search for anything on Google without including a whole bunch of qualifiers like -amazon, -ebay, -checkout, -shopping, etc...

      Having said that, in principle I do like the idea of Google promoting Base. This World desperately and urgently needs a strong eBay competitor, and a Cragslist competitor too for that matter. (Craigslist being the nouveau chic site de jour for spammers and scammers - and that's one org that's letting them all win hands down. Since their staff don't review listings, Craigslist even has a neat way of spammers find out their marketing penetration using the report spam button on the listings - you can figure out how many folk saw your ad by how long it stays up - yay! a free gift to all spammers! Seriously, why wouldn't you want to spam on Craigslist!!!?).

      What would be great though is if Google could allow users to choose to avoid Base if they wished - in the way they could with Froogle. If I want information from the web, I rarely want to buy it. If I want to buy something from the web, I know where to look. There's rarely any overlap. I doubt I am alone in that.

      Or, if any smart person would happen to know of, or would like to develop a Firefox extension to filter out shopping sites in search, I for one would be eternally grateful.

    2. Re:This is wrong. by moreati · · Score: 5, Informative

      This seems a good time to mention http://www.givemebackmygoogle.com/ as featured in the b3ta newsletter recently. It filters the majority of shopping comparison sites from a google search, it's not perfect but it makes a big difference.

  5. Fine, replace froogle... by merc · · Score: 2, Funny

    just don't touch fark's foobies

    --
    It's true no man is an island, but if you take a bunch of dead guys and tie 'em together, they make a good raft.
  6. Making money by slashkitty · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "Google has no plans to monetise this product-search capability" Wrong, Google makes money when people buy things with the google checkout. They are creating a whole "buy it now" ebay type site with a single checkout. Fees are lower than paypal, and the checkout process is quick and easy. Google even gives you an anonymized email address during the checkout for each store. If only enough vendors would jump onboard, the site could really rock.

    --
    -- these are only opinions and they might not be mine.
  7. Branding Mistake by MSTCrow5429 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    After blowing cash on the Froogle brand, which nicely derives cachet from the Google brand while also implying that it is for frugual users, thereby it must save users money, to then run to a product called "Google Base" is stupidity. What does the "Base" mean? It has zero positive associations with shopping and price, and except for its association under the Google umbrella, zero assocation with anything else. Google has to grow up and stop change for the sake of change, when it wastes shareholder's money and ditches valuable brands for senseless no-brands.

    --
    Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
    1. Re:Branding Mistake by retrosteve · · Score: 4, Funny

      It means all your Base are belong to Google, of course! /How are you Gentlemen? //you are on the way to destruction. ///Wait, this isn't Fark?

    2. Re:Branding Mistake by holdenholden · · Score: 3, Funny

      Obviously not. Here you have to insert the line breaks yourself.

    3. Re:Branding Mistake by skids · · Score: 2, Informative


      "Base" as in DataBase. It's supposedly not just for shopping, but also for content hosting.

      --
      Someone had to do it.
  8. Very old news by NineNine · · Score: 3, Informative

    This is very old news. Those of us who have been using Froogle were notified about this transition about 6 months ago via email. Ho hum.

  9. in time for the holiday season by Threni · · Score: 2, Funny

    Which holiday season? We've just had summer. Is it Christmas already?