Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Answers Closing Up Shop

Posted by Zonk on from the now-how-will-we-know-things dept.

EricTheGreen writes "It isn't often that Google completely kills a product, which makes the announcement of the end of Google Answers noteworthy. I find it particularly interesting, given that there's clearly a market for this service. Yahoo!'s offering continues to flourish, it seems ... so what made Yahoo's service more attractive than Google's?" From the blog post: "Later this week, we will stop accepting new questions in Google Answers, the very first project we worked on here. The project started with a rough idea from Larry Page, and a small 4-person team turned it into reality in less than 4 months. For two new grads, it was a crash course in building a scalable product, responding to customer requests, and discovering what questions are on people's minds. Google Answers taught us exactly how many tyrannosaurs are in a gallon of gasoline, why flies survive a good microwaving, and why you really shouldn't drink water emitted by your air conditioner. Even closer to home, we learned one afternoon that our building might be on fire."

145 comments

  1. It failed... by Spazntwich · · Score: 4, Funny

    because of the obviously superior and free competing product Slashdot offers.

    Got a question?

    Chances are if Soviet Russian gay nigger overlords aren't the answer, fish posters and licensing trolls are.

    And God bless every one of them.

    1. Re:It failed... by Spazntwich · · Score: 1, Troll

      I would love to know how this got moderated as a troll 3 times in a row.

      Doesn't trolling generally seek to elicit a negative response, or somehow misrepresent facts and lie to incense the audience?

      I referenced a few common slashdot trolls and running jokes in a tongue-in-cheek manner. Christ.

    2. Re:It failed... by ink · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I lol'd, if that helps.

      --
      The wheel is turning, but the hamster is dead.
    3. Re:It failed... by LindseyJ · · Score: 1

      Probably because you used the word "nigger".

      Remember kids, nothing is sacred in America anymore except artificially imposed ethnic offensiveness.

    4. Re:It failed... by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      because of the obviously superior and free competing product Slashdot offers.
      Except with slashdot you have to read all (or at least most) of the posts, and using all that data make a detrmination for yourself as to the correct answer.
      Or maybe that is not such a bad thing. I usually use that method when trying to learn something new. Get as many opinions as possible from every possible angle, then put them all together and come up with the most likely answer.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    5. Re:It failed... by AmberBlackCat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I would love to know how this got moderated as a troll 3 times in a row.

      Casually typing "nigger" would have caused me to mod you down if I had mod points.

      Doesn't trolling generally seek to elicit a negative response, or somehow misrepresent facts and lie to incense the audience?

      If any of the people on Slashdot are Black (like me) then putting that word out there definitely elicits a negative response.

      I referenced a few common slashdot trolls and running jokes in a tongue-in-cheek manner. Christ.

      It was inconsistent. You said "Russian", not "Commie". You said "gay", not "fag". Instead of saying "Black", you said "nigger".

      But relax. You ultimately ended up getting modded funny above all else. And given the environment here, I wouldn't be surprised if I ultimately got modded down for being a "troll".

    6. Re:It failed... by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      But. You used a... bad word.

      Glad the funny guys finally got you over the hill.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    7. Re:It failed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      1)You said "Russian", not "Commie".

      Cliche='In soviet russia'.

      2) You said "gay", not "fag".

      Referencing the 'gay niggers from outerspace' troll.

      3) Instead of saying "Black", you said "nigger".

      Being that the name of the movie is Gay niggers from outerspace, I think that's rather understandable. How could anyone not recognise all of these on sight? I read slashdot about once a week, and 'I' got them.

    8. Re:It failed... by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I look forward to the day we can casually type nigger and other words because they no longer mean anything special.

      overuse and humor are probably the best way to drain the words of power.

      continuing to act like they have power gives them power they don't deserve.

      More to the point--- he was parroting text in common troll spam jokes here at Slashdot.

      When I was a young naive programmer... I worked in a language with six letter variables.
      I had a count field that i wanted to abbreviate. Two letters were reserved for the area (orders, invoices, etc.).

      So I dropped the O and and orcunt, incunt, xxcunt. The senior programmer came by and just about had a cow and yet- couldn't explain what the problem was. He finally just said trust him and change it to cont so I did. there was no internet back then so it was a little difficult to find out what the problem was.

      I get the impression that the parent poster really just sees nigger as any other mildly derogatory term (and to be fair- a ton of blacks use it daily without any problem- it's a like a special reserved word they can use playfully, insultingly, innocuously but is magically derogatory if anyone else uses).

      As more whites and blacks, and mexicans and blacks, and asians and blacks date, marry, and interbreed, the term becomes hard to define anyway.

      And personally, I prefer humor about anything (death, aids, my having cancer, me losing my hair, me being a geek) over getting all huffy and serious about it. Only through humor are we going to destroy the true racism by showing just how stupid it is to think you can know about a person because of their skin color.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    9. Re:It failed... by iamsolidsnk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well said, and I whole-heartedly agree. My friends benefit from my constant attacks on their character, and I think many of them now embrace their idiosyncrasies a bit more. It helps them play their strengths more in society. So, yeah, +1 Insightful

      --
      Here I am, here I remain.
    10. Re:It failed... by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      And...if you live in america or europe, it's highly likely you are no more "black" than I am "english" (25%), a "native american" (25% choctaw), a "mick" (12.5%), the other 37.5% likely includes some black, several other native american tribes (cherokee for sure), various other european tribes but probably no asian. I'm a real heinz 57. Most "blacks" in america are too. Thankfully this is becoming even more common with all the interacial dating.

      However, you were raised to think of yourself that way so I respect that. You have a right to choose your own racial identity if you really want one.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    11. Re:It failed... by goldenpanda · · Score: 1

      "As more whites and blacks, and mexicans and blacks, and asians and blacks date, marry, and interbreed" can I say no thanks, and not be called racist?

    12. Re:It failed... by Onan · · Score: 3

      As more whites and blacks, and mexicans and blacks, and asians and blacks date, marry, and interbreed
      can I say no thanks, and not be called racist?


      Depends a whole lot on why you're saying it.

      If it's "I personally don't want to sign up, because my type is those who happen to have about my own melanin levels", that doesn't seem particularly racist.

      If it's "I'd prefer people not do that, because I think races should be distinct and unmixed", that's a whole lot more problematic.

      (It's a good thing we're not offtopic here or anything.)

    13. Re:It failed... by jZnat · · Score: 2, Informative
      Casually typing "nigger" would have caused me to mod you down if I had mod points.
      A subtle reference to GNAA (Gay Nigger Association of America), not to black people... You must be new here (especially new since they've been trolling a lot lately).
      --
      'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
    14. Re:It failed... by goldenpanda · · Score: 1

      If it's "I'd prefer people not do that, because I think races should be distinct and unmixed", that's a whole lot more problematic. don't let free thinking run too wild
    15. Re:It failed... by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      I look forward to the day we can casually type nigger and other words because they no longer mean anything special.

      We're taking back porch monkey too.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    16. Re:It failed... by caol.kailash · · Score: 1

      Wow people get offended easy. Take it in the context in which it was intended: Humor. I'm gay and have no problem with people using gay epithets provided the context is humorous like this one was. Now if he specifically said to someone, "stupid n*gger" that's different. (Yes I censored it myself, but I'm just not comfortable saying it for some reason and people surely take offense even though it was merely an example.) That's what's wrong with our society: We get too sensitive sometimes and overly quick to flip out about the tiniest things.

    17. Re:It failed... by tehcyder · · Score: 1
      I look forward to the day we can casually type nigger and other words because they no longer mean anything special.
      That day will only come when there is no longer any racism and hence no one uses offensive racial language. Until then, using racist language "humourously" is always going to be problematic, as the fact is that some words currently do mean something special.
      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    18. Re:It failed... by Nurgled · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You are free to think what you like, and everyone else is free to think you are an asshole.

    19. Re:It failed... by powerpants · · Score: 1
      If it's "I'd prefer people not do that, because I think races should be distinct and unmixed", that's a whole lot more problematic.

      Believe it or not, "distinct races," when viewed from an evolutionary perspective, is a good thing. Genetic diversity within a population is critical to that population's ability to adapt to a new conditions. A homogeneous species would be especially vulnerable to a plague.

      Racism may abate when we begin to view our genetic differences as a Good Thing for mankind.

    20. Re:It failed... by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      If you mix members of two races... you get a wider diversity than if you keep them separate.

      If members of one group have genes X=AA and members of the other race have genes X=DD, then the results are children with AA, AD, DA, and DD. Effectively creating 2 new groups who may not be affected by the proposed calamity.

      So your argument is a good one for heavy interbreeding.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    21. Re:It failed... by powerpants · · Score: 1

      That assumes that the parents have four children and that their genetic mix is distributed just so. It may also be the case that they have two children (AD, DA) or three children (AA, AD, AD), etc. Statistically speaking, American women have an average of 2 children, meaning that AA and DD probably won't make it.

      However, this is really beside the point. Crossover cannot introduce new genetic material into the population. It can only combine existing genetic material. It's a sort of "averaging" that eventually results in genetic homogeneity. New material (like DE) only comes through mutation which accrues over time in populations that are isolated from one another (usually by geography).

      The upshot is that if we tried to solve racism by systematically interbreeding to make everyone look the same, we'd be setting ourselves up for extinction.

    22. Re:It failed... by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Well actually it's something like 2.13 so more like AA, DD, and a.

      little joke there.

      Okay so seriously,

      For your argument to hold together, you need an isolated population and random trait "E" which for some reason becomes either
      * becomes common in the population for an unrelated reason (people with popular noses who get laid easily also happen to resist the latest deadly flu because their noses are drier inside.)
      * is immediately valuable right now (such as rampant Aids in Africa right now is almost certainly causing people resistant or immune to Aids or who breed very quickly or who have certain moral values to become more common in the population).

      Speaking at a population level a huge number of random mixes of the two populations would occur. There are not just 2 genes to mix. Any one of those mixes (even without a mutation) could produce something new and very useful in combination.

      The likely hood of mutation is random. So the larger the population, the more mutations. Mutations will be preserved if they do not harm reproductive ability. They will become common if they make reproduction more likely.

      While two distinct populations faced with a catastropic disease might face either 100% success or 100% failure, a diverse population would have a mixture of success and failure.
      Given :
      population A wiped out by virus A.
      population B wiped out by virus B.
      Population AA,AB,BA,BB would not be wiped out by either virus.
      After a pass of virus A, the population is reduced to AB,BA,BB but regenerates to AA,AB,BA,BB.
      After a pass of virus A and B very close together, the population is reduced to AB,BA but regenerates to AA,AB,BA,BB.

      For a real world example:
      A disease that kills all pureblood chinese would not kill the US or European populations.
      A disease that kills everyone except chinese would not kill the US or European population.

      And given interbreeding by soldiers and locals, not everyone would be killed in almost any country on earth.

      Basically, we don't "average" as you seem to mistakenly infer. Instead we create a million distinct sub slices between each race. The only time genetic diversity is lost is if only a small part of the population is able to reproduce. Then you get genetic drift, start losing traits, start emphasizing errors.

      To get an average human with only certain traits you would have to breed *very* aggressively like dog breeders do. You would have to test (like we do for certain genetic diseases) and not let those people reproduce.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    23. Re:It failed... by goldenpanda · · Score: 1

      I guess you shut me up.

    24. Re:It failed... by goldenpanda · · Score: 1

      The upshot is that if we tried to solve racism by systematically interbreeding to make everyone look the same, we'd be setting ourselves up for extinction. not to mention a great deal of boredom

      I find it misanthropic to dislike your own race so much, you want to do away with it completely.

    25. Re:It failed... by Hadryon · · Score: 1

      Ahhh, where's the boredom in all that interbreeding? My "purely" white (ain't nothin' pure, folks) genes just don't care which way they go, and I don't see how the process could EVER be called boring. Here's to everyone on earth getting a tan the fun way, and rooting out racism while we're at it! ...erm, no pun intended.

      --
      "*giggle* Good news... I figured out what the thing you just incinerated did..."
    26. Re:It failed... by goldenpanda · · Score: 1

      I think you confusing promiscuity with fighting racism

    27. Re:It failed... by Hadryon · · Score: 1

      No, I'm saying that a deliberate choice of a partner not of your own race can have rewards besides increasing the immediate pool of genetic diversity. It can even lead to ...dare I say it... cultural tolerance! And of course, there's always the exotic factor. We are attracted to it every time.

      --
      "*giggle* Good news... I figured out what the thing you just incinerated did..."
  2. Google Slashdotted??!?! by user24 · · Score: 1

    (well, blogspot /.'ed actually, but they're pwned by google)

    "The server encountered a temporary error and could not complete your request.
    Please try again in 30 seconds."

    woot.

    1. Re:Google Slashdotted??!?! by wixardy · · Score: 5, Insightful
      they're pwned by google

      No, actually, they're owned by Google, they're pwned by Slashdot. --wix
    2. Re:Google Slashdotted??!?! by natrius · · Score: 2, Funny

      Then again, it could've been an actual typo this time.

  3. Got Answers and Nowhere to Share Them? by vivekg · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Yahoo says they believe in the power of community; in people helping people get answers to their questions. This is an open invitation to all Google Answers Researchers: http://www.ysearchblog.com/archives/000385.html

    --
    The important thing is not to stop questioning --Albert Einstein.
    1. Re:Got Answers and Nowhere to Share Them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How nice. All Google Answers people who aren't journalists under a suppressive regime will surely flock to Yahoo in droves.

    2. Re:Got Answers and Nowhere to Share Them? by D+H+NG · · Score: 4, Interesting

      As a soon-to-be former Google Answers Researcher, I say no thanks. The questions there are bordering on idiocy and the answers are sometimes even less informed. If they're willing to pay for it, I'd be willing to put up with that, but working for free to a bunch of juveniles? Give me a break.

    3. Re:Got Answers and Nowhere to Share Them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yahoo says they believe in the power of community

      Community of what? I can't see how Yahoo's "community" is any different than the yahoos at the local bar. Can someone post an interesting question and answer that can't be found on wikipedia within 4 seconds of a google search?

      I weep for humanity.

    4. Re:Got Answers and Nowhere to Share Them? by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I get pretty frustrated with Yahoo Answers myself. It takes the longest time to find questions that are serious, interesting, and relevant to me.

      On the other hand, the barrier to entry for Google Answers was way too high. You had to pay to ask, and you had to go through a small job interview to answer. Once I found that out, I never touched it again. It wasn't free, so it never developed a community around it. Google should have seen that coming a mile away.

      It seems like the way to go would be a two-tiered system. People would be able to ask and answer questions, and eventually if they generate a high enough "trust metric" they would be allowed to answer for-pay questions. People could ask questions for free, or chip in a few bucks to motivate answers. People with insufficient credibility would be allowed to answer as well, but they'd get the "anonymous coward" treatment (e.g. answers not visible by default). Once the question is closed, the person has to select the best answer(s), and the money is divvied up.

      Yahoo should learn from World of Warcraft: You can get people addicted to leveling up.

      Of course, once you get money involved, people will start looking for ways to game the system.

      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

    5. Re:Got Answers and Nowhere to Share Them? by g8oz · · Score: 3, Informative

      Don't forget about Amazon's Mechanical Turk service which is *sort* of the same thing.

      http://www.mturk.com/mturk/welcome

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_Mechanical_Tur k

    6. Re:Got Answers and Nowhere to Share Them? by BeanBunny · · Score: 1

      While not exactly like what you are describing, the service that comes to my mind when I read your suggestion is Experts Exchange.

    7. Re:Got Answers and Nowhere to Share Them? by Chrondeath · · Score: 1
      The questions there are bordering on idiocy

      That's right. I'm much more interested in pondering whether it's safe to drink the water from my air conditioner.
    8. Re:Got Answers and Nowhere to Share Them? by almost+entirely+lega · · Score: 1

      I'll confess to being a Yahoo answerer myself - in one area only Law and Ethics http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/index;_ylt=AokF2mShZY D20LVNP232oRDsy6IX?sid=396545448 . The questions can be repetitive and the search function needs serious work, though given that the service is free, there isn't much incentive to search rather than simply post a question anew. However, every once in a while you actually can provide decent information to someone, though homework assignments show up with an astonishing regularity. Only once have I actually pulled a client from the answers http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AsuR_ ZfPsCP9dp4jgjS3pcjsy6IX?qid=20061119211700AAYRGBu& show=7#profile-info-acba039c897f3b3cf5649cfb0a4880 ccaa , which makes me wonder why I do it. The only answer that makes any sense is to build up links to my law firm's site http://www.browdelaw.info/ ...which may or may not be the most ethical of practices.

    9. Re:Got Answers and Nowhere to Share Them? by brightmidnight · · Score: 1

      I also say no thanks. The differences between Google Answers and Yahoo Answers are absolutely night and day.

      Here's a hilarious video on the differences between the two.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4E5btrmqyA

      Viva La Google Answers!

      Sign the petiton:
      http://www.savegoogleanswers.com/

      --
      -- Save Google Answers! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4E5btrmqyA
  4. Blogspot Slashdotted? by ironicsky · · Score: 1

    The google blog brings up error 502. Don't tell me Google of all people cant handle a little slashdotting

  5. OSTG announces: Slashdot answers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    The horror.

    1. Re:OSTG announces: Slashdot answers by gt_mattex · · Score: 1

      The horror.

      While Taps plays in the background.

      --
      "No doubt one may quote history to support any cause, as the devil quotes scripture." - Learned Hand
    2. Re:OSTG announces: Slashdot answers by Sinbios · · Score: 1, Troll

      Isn't that called Ask Slashdot around here?

      --
      Anyone can "stand up for what they believe", but it takes a very brave individual to change what they believe. - Loundry
    3. Re:OSTG announces: Slashdot answers by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      Q: "How many T-Rexes in a gallon of gas?"
      A: "SCO did it."
      A: "In Soviet Russia, gallon of gas is in T-Rex!"
      A: "More importantly, how many gallons are in a Beowulf cluster of Tyrannosauruses?"
      A: "It's 'How many T-Rexes are in a gallon of gas'. The Grammar Police strikes again."
      A: "A European T-Rex on an African one?"
      A: "I bet Roland de Piquepaille sent you to ask this. Go away."

      Yeah, that'll go real smooth.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
  6. In case it goes down again, the text by Mateo_LeFou · · Score: 4, Informative

    Adieu to Google Answers

    11/28/2006 10:22:00 PM
    Posted by Andrew Fikes and Lexi Baugher, Software Engineers

    Google is a company fueled by innovation, which to us means trying lots of new things all the time -- and sometimes it means reconsidering our goals for a product. Later this week, we will stop accepting new questions in Google Answers, the very first project we worked on here. The project started with a rough idea from Larry Page, and a small 4-person team turned it into reality in less than 4 months. For two new grads, it was a crash course in building a scalable product, responding to customer requests, and discovering what questions are on people's minds.

    Google Answers taught us exactly how many tyrannosaurs are in a gallon of gasoline, why flies survive a good microwaving, and why you really shouldn't drink water emitted by your air conditioner. Even closer to home, we learned one afternoon that our building might be on fire.

    The people who participated in Google Answers -- more than 800 of them over the years -- are a passionate group committed to helping people find the information they need, and we applaud them for sharing their incredible knowledge with everyone who wrote in.

    If you have a chance, we encourage you to browse through the questions posted over the last 4+ years. Although we won't be accepting any new questions, the existing Qs and As are available. We'll stop accepting new Answers to questions by the end of the year.

    Google Answers was a great experiment which provided us with a lot of material for developing future products to serve our users. We'll continue to look for new ways to improve the search experience and to connect people to the information they want.

    --
    My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
  7. Well.. by TheGreatHegemon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It's honestly no surprise - Google has a lot of money to invest in different projects, but that doesn't mean they're going to waste it on something that doesn't work. Besides, people probably just use the Google Search Engine to find their answers anyway.

    1. Re:Well.. by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 4, Interesting

      True in my case.

      I always tried to use the Google search engine to find information first, almost always succeeded. The few times I didn't, and yet wanted to know badly enough to use Google Answers (and I offered a good price) my questions expired unanswered.

      It seems it would only be able to help when you actually don't need it. From its description it seemed like they would just research by trying Google queries and getting the information. If you know how to get relevant queries (use of Google's minus operator helps get rid of junk) you often can do it yourself and if you can't it is likely little good info is available on the public and indexed part of the web.

      Still, it was a nice idea and a shame it couldn't be made to work. Too many expired questions (the 30 day lifetime was too short I believe) was a big part of it.

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
    2. Re:Well.. by SQLGuru · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yeah, I second the "good searching skills" vote. My rule of thumb is that if I'm trying to find something and it takes longer than 2 hours, it isn't really available on the Internet. Most things take less than 15 minutes, obscure things less than 45.

      For those who aren't good at finding things the following are some good tips:
      1. A good vocabulary / thesarus is very handy (which rules out half of /. already).
      2. Good and bad spelling is important. Just because you can / can't spell a word, doesn't mean that everyone else can / can't.
      3. Word order can be important, too (even on engines that say it isn't).
      4. While I rarely use operators (AND, OR, -, etc.), knowing them is good for that hard to find query.
      5. Quotes around multiple words are more important that the operators. It means that the words have to appear together and in that order.
      6. My engine of choice is Google, but targeted engines might get you better results.

      Other links to useful tips:
      http://www.internettutorials.net/search.html
      http://www.monash.com/spidap.html
      http://www.extremesearcher.com/handbooklinks.html

      Layne

    3. Re:Well.. by VGPowerlord · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm sorry, my mind is having trouble grasping the concept of someone named SQLGuru not using boolean operators.

      --
      GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
    4. Re:Well.. by d33p1x · · Score: 1

      1. A good vocabulary / thesarus is very handy (which rules out half of /. already).
      2. Good and bad spelling is important. Just because you can / can't spell a word, doesn't mean that everyone else can / can't.

      Cool, huh? ;-)

    5. Re:Well.. by SQLGuru · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I do admit it is funny and somewhat ironic, but I chalk it up to my SQL background as to why I DON'T use the operators when searching. I tend to use multiple windows/tabs to search, so if I'm going to do an OR, I'll just run the query in two windows. When you throw an OR into a SQL query, you can kill performance of that query. A lot fo the time a UNION of two result sets is faster than the same query with an OR (sometimes not, Query tuning is a form of technical voodoo). Of the operators, the one I use most frequently is -, but again, only when normal methods fail. A NOT operator doesn't use an index well.

      As a side note, I prefer multiple windows vs multiple tabs. With tabbed browsing, all pages are running in the same memory space. If one result has a bad page (by bad, I mean slow / resource intensive), it bogs them all down. I have my browser set to run each different instance in a different memory space. New window means that the others still perform ok. And if I need to kill the offender, it doesn't take all of my windows with it.

      Layne

    6. Re:Well.. by Vintermann · · Score: 1

      The question I always wanted to ask them (but I never thought I had 20-100$ to spare for something like that) was to get a credible estimate (in other words, not just a guess) about how hard different languages are. Can you get to the same level of french in a month that you can in spanish? And how much does this depend on your native language?
      I've googled a lot, never found anything but guesses and unverified claims (about how long the US army uses to train translators, for instance). Never found any actual hard data. But that was excactly what Google Answers were good at finding. They had access to a lot more than just Google.

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    7. Re:Well.. by VGPowerlord · · Score: 1

      I'm not claiming to be an expert in SQL, but the NOT operator not using a table scan really depends on what you're doing with it.

      I fully expect NOT IN to use an index, for example.

      I haven't really looked into the performance of OR vs. UNION. I rarely use OR, preferring to use IN instead on those few things that I actually need an OR for. I haven't studied the performance of IN vs. writing, say, 4 queries to check IPv4 masks, but I'm just going to assume IN will be faster.

      --
      GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
    8. Re:Well.. by SQLGuru · · Score: 1

      As an FYI, EXISTS performs slightly better than an IN for most queries with no major change in the code. EXISTS gets to benefit from stopping once a match is found as opposed to running the entire sub-query before searching the results. The only time they are close in performance is when what you are matching is at the end of the list. And then, they are more or less equal.

      Of course, I normally change my code to read:

      select from Table where exists( select 'TRUE' from Sub-Table where )

      Instead of

      select from Table where in ( select from Sub-Table where )

      But that isn't required to get the benefit of an EXIST clause.

      Layne

    9. Re:Well.. by VGPowerlord · · Score: 1

      Yes, EXISTS is probably better than IN for subqueries, but the INs I work with now are more along the line of a small number of bound parameters.

      --
      GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
    10. Re:Well.. by brightmidnight · · Score: 1

      What were your questions? I found that often questioners didn't know how to ask a question properly. They wanted legal advice but didn't say what state or country it involved. They wanted hours of research that could save them thousands but didn't price appropriately. There are also some issues GA researchers couldn't touch, such as anything illegal or other sketchy issues. So I'm curious-- what were your questions? Here's a great video on the difference between Google Answers and Yahoo Answers. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4E5btrmqyA Help save Google Answers by signing a letter to Google. http://www.savegoogleanswers.com/

      --
      -- Save Google Answers! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4E5btrmqyA
    11. Re:Well.. by IpalindromeI · · Score: 1

      5. Quotes around multiple words are more important that the operators. It means that the words have to appear together and in that order.

      A small addition for anyone who, like me until recently, doesn't know: you can put an asterisk in quotes to wildcard words. For example: "red * car" will search for 'red', zero or more words, then 'car'. It comes in handy quite often in searching for technical things.

      --

      --
      Promoting critical thinking since 1994.
    12. Re:Well.. by adamgolding · · Score: 1

      You've left out one very important strategy for doing comparisons:

      say i want to compare mp3 playing software--i know winamp is a big one so i search for winamp and look for other mp3 players mentioned.

      once i have 2 or 3 names, i put them all in a search string--# of resutls goes down a lot. Now i'm findinf pages which mentions several programs in one breath--every time i find another important program named i add it to the search query.

      IF there is a page comparing all of them, this WILL find it.

      you can easily get 0 hits this way, when that happens, experiment with removing a single word from the query. of all the possibile removals (i.e. removing the first, removing the 2nd instead, etc.), see which one gets the greatest # of hits.

      by playing with the strings in this way you can get feel for the space of pages mentioning many items in the category you're concerned with.

      I quickly found, for instance, that iMarkup and enLighter (two competing products for web-page annotation) are not mentioned on a single page together (this has since changed since someone made a maxthon forum post, lol), but that each of them is mentioned on the same page as some other related tools.

  8. But Why? by user24 · · Score: 1

    The blog posting doesn't offer any insight into *why* they're stopping the service. I understand that there are only a few hundred users, but surely google can afford to keep running the site; if it's useful for those people then why not keep it?

    Maybe I should ask google answers...

    1. Re:But Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It has 800 researchers (I was one of them). It has far more users (though obviously not to the level that Google want)

    2. Re:But Why? by brightmidnight · · Score: 1

      Google didn't promote the site AT ALL. They promoted it when it first came out and haven't done anything for it in three years. There was still a steady stream of questions, even until the last day, nonetheless-- although Google didn't have the kindness to cut it off at midnight, but did it instead at 5pm. The site might not be termed an ubersuccess the way it was, but with no promotion, it did pretty darn well. That was Google's own fault. They completely dropped the ball. Please sign this letter to Google to protest their decision: http://www.savegooglenaswers.com/ And this is a great video about the whole thing! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4E5btrmqyA Everyone is really upset about this. Google is supposed to not be "evil". I guess things change.

      --
      -- Save Google Answers! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4E5btrmqyA
  9. It didn't work out as planned. by gmezero · · Score: 4, Informative

    Google Answers was originally designed to build a giant knowledge base of data to complement Google searches. Unfortunately, over the years it turned into lots of specialised questions with little re-use value, as most simple answers were found simply by Googling them. Therefore it never achived it's goal. I'm not surprised at this turn of events.

    1. Re:It didn't work out as planned. by rolfwind · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It sounds like Wikipedia has fulfilled that niche better and perhaps they are giving up because of that?

    2. Re:It didn't work out as planned. by Chyeld · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't really call it 'giving up'. That implies the purpose the project was created for is being abandoned instead of what really happened.

      Google Answers was a project that didn't have the results that were being sought. I'm sure the people who ran the project are still seeking those results, just not through this project.

  10. About time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was worthless any way. Sure, might have been 'fun' but in the end...worthless.

  11. Because Google Answers weren't free by rickkas7 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Google Answers were completed by theoretically screened researchers and you had to pay to get an answer.

    Yahoo Answers are completed by random people who have enough time to sit around and answer what appears to me to be a lot of really stupid questions that people should have been able to figure the answers to by themselves.

    Apparently people prefer a free answer of questionable accuracy to having to pay for an answer.

    1. Re:Because Google Answers weren't free by tnk1 · · Score: 1
      a lot of really stupid questions that people should have been able to figure the answers to by themselves.

      Well you answered it yourself. The questions are dumb enough that they know that they don't want to actually pay someone to do it. They want people to find the answers for them for free. If you have to a) use effort or b) use money, you might as well do it yourself.

    2. Re:Because Google Answers weren't free by floorpie · · Score: 5, Insightful

      > Apparently people prefer a free answer of questionable accuracy to having to pay for an answer.

      Sounds like Wikipedia to me.

    3. Re:Because Google Answers weren't free by sjwest · · Score: 0

      googlers are more brighter than yahoo'ers (horses in that Jonathan Swift Book). Yahoo is becoming an advertising platform and gradullay technically retarded since when did a 'new' mac os, or windows xp be the only platforms that you can run yahoo's new webmail on. If i cant find an answer - I be a: asking the wrong question, or b: pushing the envelope. and I would rather find it myself rather than pay some smug person tell me that.

    4. Re:Because Google Answers weren't free by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      But, but, but... It's the WEB TWO POINT OH! Sure we lose a bit of money on each free answer, but we'll make it up in volume!

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    5. Re:Because Google Answers weren't free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      English, motherfucker! Do you speak it?

    6. Re:Because Google Answers weren't free by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Not only that, Yahoo is full of trolls. For example, they'll ask a question like "How do we know the age of fossils?" You'll answer and they'll respond "WRONG. The Earth is 6000 years old."

      Then they mark your answer as completely unhelpful, and you lose your ranking as someone who provides good answers.

      That happened to me ONCE and I said fuck it.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    7. Re:Because Google Answers weren't free by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Apparently people prefer a free answer of questionable accuracy to having to pay for an answer.

      That I can understand (no, really!). What I can't understand is why you'd use a Q&A site to do it. If the answer is that easily available, it's probably right there on a google search or Wikipedia. Plus not only the answer to your question, but in the context of an article. If it isn't... well, then with 99%+ accuracy you'll get no answer or an uninformed answer. To me those fill two quite different markets, and I don't expect the people on google answers to be moving to yahoo answers. I imagine they'll continue using whatever academic circles they're in, library or whatever.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    8. Re:Because Google Answers weren't free by Trojan35 · · Score: 1

      It not only wasn't free, it was the wrong price point. Most of the answers I saw were around $10. That's enough money (more than $0) for most people to want to use a free service. It's not enough money to break-even with.

  12. Reasons for closure. by Kadin2048 · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I think that makes the reason why it's going away pretty clear:

    The people who participated in Google Answers -- more than 800 of them over the years
    Wow...all 800?
    --
    "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    1. Re:Reasons for closure. by funfail · · Score: 4, Informative

      800 is the number of researchers, not the customers. They are hand picked through a very selective process.

      --
      Search RapidShare and MegaUpload!
    2. Re:Reasons for closure. by foobsr · · Score: 1

      They are hand picked through a very selective process.

      Unless you do not reveal the criteria this statement is quite worthless - to put it differently: hand-picked nonsense.

      CC.

      --
      TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
    3. Re:Reasons for closure. by funfail · · Score: 4, Informative

      The general guidelines are documented at

      http://answers.google.com/answers/researcherguidel ines.html#aboutgar

      As I was one of the first researchers approved, I can say that they were serious when selecting researchers. After the first 400 researchers, they stopped accepting any more applications. The rest are selected among the "commenters" (ie. those non-researchers who commented on answers).

      --
      Search RapidShare and MegaUpload!
    4. Re:Reasons for closure. by foobsr · · Score: 1

      THNX. Informative.

      CC.

      --
      TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
  13. Why? by GillBates0 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Why?

    --
    An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
    1. Re:Why? by MollyB · · Score: 1

      I heard that whyness is directly confronted by becauseness, which has a "no-pass-back" clause.

  14. was good for backlinks... by mcguyver · · Score: 1

    Create your own question, answer it yourself and you have a free back link from answer.google.com...think they have nofollow tags these days for outgoing links but G answers used to be a good source for free links.

  15. The price??? by brunes69 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Yahoo!'s offering continues to flourish, it seems ... so what made Yahoo's service more attractive than Google's?"

    Umm... the price. Google Answers was a bounty-style format for answers- you ask a question, post a sum you're willing to pay for the answer. Someone finds the answer, you pay them.

    Yahoo! answers is totally different. It's bascially a glorified message board with some rating controls - anyone can post a question, and anyone can answer a question. It's totally free.

    Because of this, you see two things if you spend some time looking at Google Answers vs. Yahoo! Answers:

    • Google Answers has more interesting and difficult questions that need some research, whereas Yahoo! Answers has some really lame questions. This is because you don't have to pay a bounty on Yahoo!
    • Google Answers has far less questions being asked, again likely because you have to pay for your answers
    • The Google Answers interface is not as polished.

    I think it's pretty easy to deduce from this what's happened. Google came out with this Answers idea first. BUt like so many projects in the Google incubator, not many people know about it. Combine this with the fact that it is a pay-for service, and you get something that's very underutilized. Normally, Google wouldn't care much about this, since they have oodles of horsepower (look at all the obscure projects going on at Google Labs all the time). But they had to process payments for this thing, that means overhead. And it likely wasn't making any money.

    1. Re:The price??? by LMacG · · Score: 2, Interesting

      According to my customized Google home page, three of the current questions posted on Y! Answers are:

      - Should I send a wedding invitation to people I know can't come?
      - Does Mrs. Claus have a first name?
      - What's the deal with kids wearing their pants below their butts?

      Yep, I'd say "lame" is a good description.

      I can't actually click through to see what's there beyond the questions, because the corporate WebSense filter tells me it's a chat or message board.

      --
      Slightly disreputable, albeit gregarious
    2. Re:The price??? by Firehed · · Score: 1
      I can't actually click through to see what's there beyond the questions, because the corporate WebSense filter tells me it's a chat or message board.

      But it lets you on Slashdot?
      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
    3. Re:The price??? by mariocrux · · Score: 1

      Yes, but those are questions for Yahoo! Ask, not for Yahoo! Answers, it's a different service, thought, those are really lame questions.

    4. Re:The price??? by illuminatedwax · · Score: 1
      Yahoo! Answers has 4 kinds of questions, in order of popularity:
      • The "do you agree with me" questions that are not actually questions, but rather flamebait. Usually these questions look like "Why do Christians believe in a fairy tale?", "Why don't people realize that evolution is a bunch of lies?", "Why are liberals a bunch of pussies?" and generally they'll award the question to whomever best augments their position.
      • Irrelevant "party" questions - generally "what are your favorite" or other joke questions.
      • Legit questions that can range from difficult, requiring a specialist to answer, to middling, which can be answered by a simple Wikipedia query, to blatantly obvious, which generally cover algebra homework and basic US government principles ("Why do people say the US is a Union?"), to disgustingly awful, which generally are questions about life that show how sick humanity is ("HOW DO U GET PREGNANT" "MY PENIS IS TURNING GREEN WHAT SHULD I DO????")
      • Completely unintelligible ("WHAT" or "I NO U R NOT GOIN DOWN 2 U WHAT IS THE DEAL PLZ HELP")
      --
      Did you ever notice that *nix doesn't even cover Linux?
  16. "You've got questions, we've got... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...nothing"

    Q: "What is Radio Shack's slogan?"
    A: Sorry, no new questions are being accepted as this time.

  17. This, people, is... by sheepoo · · Score: 1

    ominous!

  18. Why? Perhaps lack of awareness. by MarkGriz · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Sure most slashdotters knew of Google Answers. But even then, I myself only
    new about it because I saw it mentioned somewhere and decided to check it out.
    If you went to google.com, it wasn't even listed there. There's a good chance that
    90% of the world wasn't even aware of it.

    And honestly, even if *everyone* knew about it, there's only a small fraction that
    are either too busy or too lazy to look it up themselves.

    --
    Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
    1. Re:Why? Perhaps lack of awareness. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If 10% of the world was aware of it (660 million people), they wouldn't be shutting down.

  19. Business 2.0 knew it was coming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Business 2.0 is running a story "How to Succeed in 2007" that features short responses from Sergey Brin and Eric Schmidt. In both the responses they seem to say Google will be cutting back on its features.

    http://money.cnn.com/popups/2006/biz2/howtosucceed /index.html
    http://money.cnn.com/popups/2006/biz2/howtosucceed /12.html

    --Tefen

  20. Answer to "Why is Google Answers Closing?" by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Funny
    Because the format didn't help with definitive answers to imperative questions like whether "our building might be on fire", even though the "experts" supplied the correct answer, sometimes immediately.

    Question
    Subject: google headquarters, flammability of
    Category: Miscellaneous
    Asked by: mala-ga
    List Price: $2.00 Posted: 29 Sep 2004 16:06 PDT
    Expires: 29 Oct 2004 16:06 PDT
    Question ID: 408127

    Is Google HQ on fire right now? My wife drove your campus and saw
    smoke. Are you guys okay? I can probably get a ladder if you need it.

    Answer Log in to add an answer
    There is no answer at this time.

    Comments Log in to add a comment
    Subject: Re: google headquarters, flammability of
    From: antfugue-ga on 30 Sep 2004 11:56 PDT

    The city fire department was practicing on an abandoned building near
    Google HQ. Google HQ's Flamability Index remains unchanged.
    --

    --
    make install -not war

  21. What a bummer! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I used Google Answers quite a bit. It was very helpful and the answers I was looking for were not readily found via Google either. Yahoo Answers is crap, IMHO, just look at last Sunday's Something Awful Weekend Web.

  22. It's hard to compete with "free" by vinn01 · · Score: 2, Interesting


    Silicon Valley is littered with dead companies who have tried to complete with "free". I enjoyed many amusing sales pitches about "value proposition" from start up companies selling overpriced software while free software was available to do nearly the same task. In some cases "free" is worth what you paid for it. In other cases, the free stuff ourshines the for-sale software. Most of the time, it's somewhere in the middle.

    In any case, if there is a competitor offering a free version of the same product that you are selling - you had better have a hell of a sales force and marketing team.

    1. Re:It's hard to compete with "free" by AtomicBomb · · Score: 1

      The problem is the quality of the "Google Answer" is not particularly high. And you cannot really use this sort of the answer to back up anything.

      In 95% of cases, a bit of googling will bring you something of the same quality. I guess the Yahoo Answer is the not the exact reason whey Google Answer folds... This case is more like cannibalism between projects...

  23. Google Answers to share ad revenues by D+H+NG · · Score: 2, Informative

    Although the last day to ask questions is today, us researchers have a month to answer the unanswered questions. Additionally, Google notified the researchers that it will share the ad revenues generated from the questions that we answered. The details haven't been worked out yet, but it should be a nice severance package for some researchers who urgently need it (some researcher's sole income is from Google Answers, such as the extremely popular pinkfreud-ga. What a horrible surprise when we're told that it would end with very short prior notice (2 days ago).

  24. The100HourBoard Alternative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    An Alternative site for getting your answers is The 100 Hour Board.

    Ask a question, get your answer in 100 hours. It's run completely by students who try to provide both accurate and witty responses. One of their mottoes is "Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer".

  25. Ex researchers are building a replacement service by ribuck · · Score: 4, Interesting

    A bunch of soon-to-be-ex-researchers is preparing a replacement service, although it might take a few weeks to get it running. Announcements will be made at http://web-owls.com/, a team blog run by GA Researchers.

    We researchers can see the potential for a new service. Even though the existing service might not suit Google's current needs, it has been popular with researchers, customers and commenters.

    I'm researcher eiffel-ga at Google Answers, and I've enjoyed my four years there even though I only answered 199 questions. All of the researchers are really sad to see the service folding.

    --
    Paid Q&A/Research
  26. answers vs answers by lposeidon · · Score: 0

    "so what made Yahoo's service more attractive than Google's?"

    ironically... yahoo appears to have better seach functionality.

    --
    Lizard "Never let them set limits on your mind!"
  27. It was great.... by viper21 · · Score: 1

    But I think the downfall was the pay-for-answer format as it was implemented. They gave customers too many choices in how to price their questions, which can lead to indecision.

    It would have been interesting to have a 5, 10, 25, 50, 100, 200$ selection as opposed to the freeform input--give people a way to choose from a set range of options instead of giving them the task of identifying a price. It may sound trivial, but for people not familiar with the answers system it might have helped some folks get over the initial hurdle of asking a question.

    That's just my .02.

    In the end, it was a very interesting site to browse from time to time--but I think the open-endedness of things from the perspective of new users probably kept a lot of people from participating.

    --

    We Apprentice Developers and Designers
    1. Re:It was great.... by phoenix.bam! · · Score: 1

      Personally, instead of .02 I was looking more in the area of .50

  28. Should have done like Yahoo by refriedchicken · · Score: 1

    And just search Wikipedia everytime there was a question, because we all know if it is on the internet it is true and accurate. Right slashdot?

  29. It will be missed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hope that they are killing it only to bring out a better incarnation. Google answers was really awesome to browse through and the bounty system made the answers worth reading. Yahoo answers is fun but a complete joke. Ask about anything and you will get a response of, "what? poop on your girlfriend is a niiiiiiccce!" I really enjoyed and valued google answers so I hope that they have something even better in the works.

    1. Re:It will be missed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This might have been the biggest press Google answers has ever received, no wonder they weren't popular.

      The quality was outstanding. Go to the site (answers.google.com), and look at the $200 answers. They are invaluable. The researchers there are great, the depth rivals Wikipedia. I do not see why Google shut its the section down, its not like they have bandwith problems.

  30. Who's yer daddy? by fo0bar · · Score: 4, Funny

    When Google Answers first opened up, I thought I'd find out the answer to the age-old question, who's yer daddy?

    Turns out it's usually the one who married yer mommy. But not always.

    1. Re:Who's yer daddy? by Vintermann · · Score: 1

      The stupid questions are a lot more funny on google answers.

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
  31. Question by Cygnus78 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Has anyone asked if they can keep it open ?

  32. Google has more to lose here than one might think by RareButSeriousSideEf · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So far I've heard reasons for the closure referencing things like there being a mere 800 researchers, the service didn't really take off, it wasn't shaping up as a real long term success prospect, etc...

    Has anyone thought about the other side of this, though? Google is becoming the de-facto data warehouse for the masses, and its success is partly due to peoples' perception (right or wrong) that it will just "always be there." This discontinuation of a service could put a huge dent in that confidence, even if they never make the data unavailable.

    I barely used Google Answers, but did every now and then. I use the hell out of my GMail though, and it's really come to replace my Zip disks & USB sticks as my medium of choice for portable storage. That's happened in part because of that same nebulous feeling of permanence -- that fuzzy belief that Google is big enough that I don't need to worry about them discontinuing anything.

    To me, even though it doesn't affect me much in a direct way, this decision still inflicts the first real injury to my perception of the Google brand. I used to be willing to invest some time kicking the tires of just about any Google offering, since they could afford to keep services out there even when they weren't big winners, just because they were cool. It's a small shift in thinking for me, but I wonder if it might not have a surprisingly large effect on my Google usage habits in the future.

    Just a thought.

    --
    Pi Ran Out
  33. I'd like to see GA integrated into Google Groups by Chris+Chiasson · · Score: 2, Interesting

    One of the problems with Google answers is that the researchers were not experts in the some of the domains in which the questions were asked. It would be better if they could graft the bounty functionality into Google groups itself, IMO.

  34. Re:Google has more to lose here than one might thi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is something seriously wrong with you. They discontinue an underutilized service and you see it as some kind of "injury to [your] perception of the Google brand"? That is completely ridiculous.

    If I stop wearing my old pair of sneakers because they have holes in favor of a pair of real shoes, would you perceive it as my ability to walk upright being suddenly called into question?

  35. Re:I'd like to see GA integrated into Google Group by TheWaz · · Score: 1

    Or they should just pull Cecil Adams into the mix. I always like reading answers which are witty and accompanied with drawings.

  36. Losing trust in Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    This makes sense considering the amount of sophomoric Q&A stuff they have to deal with each day. Not to mention the obsolete code that runs that service. It's dated, man. But this is definitely a business move even though Google Answers is small potatoes.

    There is a detiorating level of trust in Google. Not by the average Jane user but by the Webmaster community. The supplemental index PR fiasco, the PPC landing page bullshit, and now this are leading savvy marketers to seriously doubt them.

    A quote I love:

    "...there are signs that the industry is losing its trust in Google and losing respect for them. Just look at how "AdWordsAdvisor" - a Google rep that visits Webmaster World (but hasn't posted in ages) - tries to clear the air about the trust score for landing pages (another huge issue).

    "Nice try Google. But no go. You're learning that it's not possible to keep an open community relationship with those you depend on and maintain that parochial level of authority. Power = corruption it's that simple and we are all witnessing the opening salvo of a growing corrupt power named Google.

    "Who's so naive that they believe this company won't be evil? How are they any different from any other big business? In the end we've seen this before many times and sadly when it comes to business, ideals are only words on paper. The bottom line drives the decisions."

    Google is arrogant to the Webmaster community, secretive about their practices to a ridiculous extent (ever tried to find anything out about what AdSense ads are being clicked? Ha! And forget everything about link weight in their algorithm, or for that matter, what linking profiles mean altogether considering their link:command is purposefully obfuscated) and it's putting distance between them and the industry.

    And this is still another reflection of that distance. Google Answers RIP. Google Groups Webmaster - barely any answers from them. WebMasterWorld used to have posts by G reps, but guess what? They haven't been heard from except recently to try desperately to clear themselves of rumors.

    Meanwhile most of google's PR w/ the pro web community is thru Matt Cutts. Great - and the sycophantic throngs love the guy - but isn't that too an indication of their parochialism? Here's my Blog, mattcutts.com and I'm here to serve up some Google inside info and you're here to spoon it up! And they do - ever been to a conference? It's a joke.
  37. I get most of my answers by... by RoadWarriorX · · Score: 1

    Googling them! No, really. It's the most novel concept in the world. You should try it some time.

    --

    Coderz 4 Life
  38. Bad News for Google Stock by ghempton · · Score: 1

    I think that this is fairly significant because google has been often viewed as an invincible company that excels at everything. Having public news on one of its failings will be bad for its image.

    1. Re:Bad News for Google Stock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, and Microsoft Windows, or any other operating system really, are used because they never crash or have security issues. I guess Apple and Microsoft have tarnished images as a result of not being the invincible company they were viewed as during their up start?

  39. Obvious competition by Luminus · · Score: 1
    From http://www.chacha.com/.I can't believe this wasn't brought up already (at least in my threshold). If you don't think chacha is catching on, see:

    http://www.pbnation.com/showthread.php?t=1872475

    http://www.genmay.net/showthread.php?s=a69fba41b66 d1eff21a2f920476dbe65&t=691767

    http://chachachats.wordpress.com/

    http://www.rotteneggs.com/r3/show/se/700-forum-dis play_topic-0-1-1298121.html

    Just to name a few places where it's not only mentioned, but enjoyed and abused far more than google answers ever could have been, in less than 3 months of chacha's running.

  40. It must be said by Jorkapp · · Score: 2, Funny

    I was going to get a Google answer as to why Google answers was closing their doors, but alas.

    --
    Frink: Nice try floyd, but you were designed for scrubbing, and scrubbing is what you shall do.
  41. Did anyone think to ask them - by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "What steps could Google Answers take to remain viable?"

  42. Re:I'd like to see GA integrated into Google Group by nevesis · · Score: 1

    Google Groups is just a glorified Usenet portal.

    While your idea may hold some weight -- it would be much easier to reach the target audience with the kind of diverse segregation that Usenet offers -- it would be too .. obnoxious .. to try to integrate such a radically different Google Groups with Usenet. And I sure don't want Google Groups to abandon it's Usenet archive.

  43. Niche information is NOT cheap, Google messed up by nevesis · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Google Answers was great. Although I was never qualified as a researcher, I am an expert in my field, and would love to spend my free time answering people's questions for a moderate additional income.

    On the other hand, when I have a question which I don't know the answer, can't easily find the answer, and don't have the time to dig for the answer -- Google connects me to someone who does/can.

    Most importantly, Google Answers was a way for me to buy expensive specialized niche information for cheap.

    For example, I could purchase a Q4 2006 ODM report to tell me which ODM Dell is currently using to manufacture the XPS M2010. I could purchase additional reports to tell me how much was designed by the ODM, and how much (if any) by Dell. I could easily spend $5,000 on these reports. OR I could post a $200 bounty on Google Answers and likely get an answer -- continually raising it until I did.

    I'm obviously in the computer hardware business. But most any business could find these services useful. Niche reports such as the one I mentioned are very, very expensive.

    Google should never have abandoned Answers. With a 10% Google Fee and some marketing towards business men, Answers could have been profitable.

    see: digitimes.com, stratfor.com, et al

  44. Did it fail, or did Google just lost interest? by porkribs · · Score: 1

    When Google answers first started, and for the few years thereafter, most questions would be grabbed and locked by researchers within minutes of the question's posting. But over the last couple of years fewer and fewer questions were locked, meaning fewer and fewer researchers were taking questions. The last six months or so, almost no questions were locked.

    So it wasn't that people weren't trying to use the service - people were asking lots of questions but Google didn't keep up the number of researchers they needed to answer the questions. Something happened on the Google end, and I'm not sure what.

    At the time, I went to Google answers and asked the question "What happened to all the researchers?" Within half an hour the editors at Google answers removed my question. Their official reason? "We removed this question from the site, and you will not be charged for it, because we just don't feel comfortable charging you for an answer that you could get for free by emailing us at answers-support@google.com".

    So I did. I sent them email that asked "What Happened to Google Answers? Where are all the researchers?" and they sent this non-answer back: "Because each Researcher chooses which questions to answer, it is not our policy to speculate on why specific questions have gone unanswered."

    To sum up: People were using the service. Google didn't keep up the number of researchers they needed to in order to provide the service. Why they opted to go this route is a mystery.

  45. Question answering requires HUMAN INPUT by mi · · Score: 1

    And handling human input is not Google's core strength. They are excellent at searching through texts, finding patterns, etc. But offering answers from humans (beyond simply "googling it") is something else — not that they can't do it, just that it is not employing their major strength...

    So their offering was not better than Yahoo!'s (probably even worse), and hence they wisely killed it...

    I suspect, their image-tagging project will suffer a similar fate. That it still exists is, probably, due to absence of competition (unlike the "Answers").

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  46. Re:I'd like to see GA integrated into Google Group by 5ynic · · Score: 1

    Brilliant. Yes yes yes!

    --
    ceci n'est pas un sig
  47. Had to happen sometime by JourneyExpertApe · · Score: 1

    Google Answers has been around for a while, and I don't think it would ever reach the scale that would be necessary to make it profitable for them. If you add up the amounts offered for all the questions in a day and multiply by 0.25 (or whatever Google's take is) you get a pretty insignificant amount for a multi-billion dollar company. A drop in the bucket. And, when you figure in the costs of hosting and administering the site, overseeing all the disputes and whatnot, it becomes more of a burden than anything else. It was a good service, but it just wasn't going to work for them financially.

    --
    If you can read this sig, you're too close.
  48. You mean Chinegro by Mustang+Matt · · Score: 1

    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Chi negro

    There was a movie where a woman actually defined the different kinds of intrebred races. Can't remember it for the life of me.

    Aha! Domino (2005)
    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0421054/quotes

    Some of her other ones were Blactino, blackasian, hispasian, koreagro, Japegro, Chispanic, koreaspanic, and japanic.

    I didn't know whether to laugh or cry.

    --
    The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
    1. Re:You mean Chinegro by rgravina · · Score: 1
      I didn't know whether to laugh or cry

      Yeah I've seen Domino, and I think it was intended to be funny (as was!) :) She even prepared a chart!

  49. Make it commission based ? by dindi · · Score: 1

    I suck as a marketer, that is a fact, but I am wondering why they do not make it just commission based : google gets a cut of paid, good answers from whoever who is in the field.

    I mean if they have $$$ coming in, why just cut the service? Maybe too much dudes sitting there on a fixed salary and doing nothing ?

    hmm...

    1. Re:Make it commission based ? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      BUch of dudes sitting there use google to answer the questions for google answers...

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  50. New Google Answers Google Group by mtalbot6 · · Score: 1

    A Google Group has been created for those that miss google answers. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/GAalumni/about From pinkfreud of GA: Thank you very much for the five stars and the generous tip! Regarding my post-GA whereabouts, I am a member of a Google Group that is open to anyone who cares about Google Answers: http://groups-beta.google.com/group/GAalumni/about ~pinkfreud

  51. Re:I'd like to see GA integrated into Google Group by mtalbot6 · · Score: 1

    From GA - Thank you very much for the five stars and the generous tip! Regarding my post-GA whereabouts, I am a member of a Google Group that is open to anyone who cares about Google Answers: http://groups-beta.google.com/group/GAalumni/about ~pinkfreud

  52. It failed...Hybrids. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Thankfully this is becoming even more common with all the interacial dating."

    Just wait till we all start dating outside our species.

  53. Wikipedia search sucks by v4vijayakumar · · Score: 1

    people never wanted to read the documents, they always wanted to discuss/question/argue. This is why Usenet newsgroups still survives in age of web pages. Wikipedia has similar thing called reference desk. This is a good solution from Wikipedia, but Wikipedia search sucks. It would be better, If you could access question directly (of course "_" between words, blah_blah_blah), than Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Computing/2006_N ovember_30#blah_blah_blah

  54. WebQuotes went bye bye too by z4ce · · Score: 1

    WebQuotes disappeared from google labs recently too.. and didn't appear to graduate to anywhere.. too bad. It must be part of that focus on core products that Larry was talking about a few months ago..

  55. Re:Google has more to lose here than one might thi by nametaken · · Score: 1


    I was actually just trying to remember if I'd heard of another Google service that went away, and how tragic it would be if they did. However, I figured that was the first sign that they were turning into any more mature (read: less cool) company. All of the other major web service companies have opened and closed, or completely reincarnated a bunch of services. I guess it's a sign of weakness I hadn't seen from Google yet.

    OTOH, I guess if you had to pick a Google service that I wouldn't shed tears over, it would be Google Answers. The funny part is, now I want to know of a good site that does the same thing [paid style q&a].

  56. Replaced by ChaCha by Robotech_Master · · Score: 1

    Seriously, ChaCha.com seems to be a sort of stripped-down version of Google Answers: a way to get help from a real live person in finding the answer to your search problem. Faster, too. And cheaper. It's not surprising Google Answers would go under...

    --
    Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
  57. Campaign to save Google Answers by __aaijsn7246 · · Score: 1

    If Google Answers were an independent company, Google would pay $100 million or more for it.

    I believe that it is less "evil" to keep Google Answers than to end it so suddenly, at Christmastime, when many people depend on it for a living. Many Researchers are disabled or senior citizens, and every researcher does their own bit to help the world through their research. There is no reason for Google to give up on it rather than improving it.

    Help keep Google Answers by signing this petition!

    http://www.petitiononline.com/ganswers
    http://www.savegoogleanswers.com/

    And last, but not least, the YouTube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4E5btrmqyA

  58. Re:I'd like to see GA integrated into Google Group by Chris+Chiasson · · Score: 1

    There are many features of Google Groups that are not present in the Usenet groups that it allows people to view through the same interface. Take a look at the groups-beta website. File uploads and web pages could be just the beginning...

  59. Re:Google has more to lose here than one might thi by brightmidnight · · Score: 1

    What a great comment. I never heard of Google Answers until a few months ago when a friend became involved with it. I found myself loving the service. My friend is deeply upset at the loss of it. I don't see how the service cost Google money, since the customers paid for the questions and Google got 25% of the cut. It's just that Google hasn't cared about it in about three years. Anyway, a petition has been created to save the service (or just to let Google know that it will not end quietly): http://petitiononline.com/ganswers http://www.savegoogleanswers.com/ And this is a great video on how Yahoo Answers is not a replacement for GA: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4E5btrmqyA

    --
    -- Save Google Answers! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4E5btrmqyA