Slashdot Mirror
Firefox Creator No Longer Trusts Google
watashi writes "Blake Ross the man whose scratched itch became the Firefox browser explains on his blog why he has a problem with Google's policy of promoting their own products over competitors' in search results. His main gripe is that the tips (e.g. "Want to share pictures? Try Google Picasa") result in an inability for other products (perhaps even Parakey?) to compete for the top slot on Google."
Wah. Why shouldn't Google put their own products first? Name me one other company that wouldn't do the same thing.
My scratched itch became ringworm.
I wish I had more ambition. And less fungus.
This is the third reference I have seen to Parakey in the past two days, yet when you go to their sight, it's nothing more than a solicitation for an email address for a product announcement. Anyone care to explain what it is? (I know, I know, Google it, but then again, wouldn't that go against the intent of the article? ;-)
My mom always said, "Jim, you're 1 in a million." Given the current population, there are 7000 of me. God help us all!
It's a business. Maybe he should run his own search engine, spend millions+ on hardware and then not profit from it.
In other words, I don't have a problem with this in the least.
I would rather them concentrate on fixing the memory leaks then who they should trust.
Google's site, Google's rules. Don't like it? You have other choices. Unlike Microsoft products, it's not like many of us are locked into using Google. Just the way I see it.
It's no longer cool to be whining about Microsoft. That's why everyone is starting to whine about Google.
So he's upset that Google's own product is suggested when he searches for something related to his own project? WTF? Just like everyone else has said, they're a business. I don't blame them at all.
Is he going to stop trusting MS if they suggest Internet Explorer on MSN when he searches for "web browser"? OK, bad example, he probably doesn't trust them anyways... but it's the same idea.
Some people seem to find it incomprehensible that a person might genuinely put others' interests above his own. This has nothing to do with Parakey, which won't even exist for some time. You would think this statement from the post would defuse conspiracy theorists: "I believe, for instance, that shipping Internet Explorer with Windows was a good move." Hmm, doesn't that hurt Firefox?
I wrote about the issue because I believe it's important. You are, of course, welcome to disagree.
Google might be capable of the same kind of shenanigans (e.g.) Microsoft or Real are capable of, but they haven't demonstrated it in the same palpable manner.
(Disclaimer: Didn't RTFB.)
Google isn't some public service that needs to be "fair." If consumers start to feel like google's self-promotion degrades the quality of the (free, bear in mind) service they provide, then they will stop using it.
People need to stop treating really good ideas like something that we have a right to have.
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun the frumious Bandersnatch.
Didn't Google object having Microsoft put their own site as default search engine of IE7?
Of course, Google lost that one too, though in this case, as I understand it, there is no way to ever get the top spot from the ones Google wants their stuff at the top, whereas you could configure IE7 to use another search engine.
I know I don't.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
I remember people here screaming about Microsoft placing their results first. Oh, it's okay now for Google to do it. You bitches.
MOD PARENT UP. I never had the insight before I readed this post. I will NO LONGER consider the invest in Google!
Can you believe an ad-supported free service would be SO BOLD as to put THEIR OWN ADS into the results? What a bunch of Nazis, I bet they vote republican and sacrifice fuzzy animals to lord satan. That's just criminal, like an organization putting their own preferred home page on a new browser installation.
People who think they know everything really piss off those of us that actually do.
> Google can make a Picasa ad say "Easier to use than Kodak," but Kodak cannot
> create an ad that reads "Easier to use than Picasa."
Where is the support for this claim? Neither would be trademark infringement.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
One thing that I haven't seen anyone else mention yet is, regardless of if Google dominates search and search advertisement or not, they have an opportunity cost in that they could be advertising something for someone else in the space they take for themselves. This is true even if it's in a space of the page that isn't used for AdWords (Seriously, what would YOU pay to place a link to your site on Google's front page? What do you think Amazon, Netflix, or WalMart would pay, given the chance?). If Google gives up a click that they would get money for in order to promote something of their own, so be it. They are, after all, paying for it!
My Blog: http://nic.dreamhost.com/
Okay, I'll take the bait: no, none of this is based on any atom of truth.
If you want to slander someone with unsubstantiated crap, please tell us who you are to add credibility to your claim.
Last time I checked, Mozilla owed a huge debt of gratitude to Google. Wasn't it Google that helped them get off the ground by making browser development a financially viable business model, and even helped distribute the browser with the Google Pack? In fact, they even describe Firefox as helping you "browse the web quickly and securely." I didn't see Yahoo, MSN, or Ask pushing Firefox the way Google did. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you.
Yeah, some stuff google does might justify a feeling of distrust. But ad placement for their in-house products? Not having ads for Outlook on Mozilla's homepage doesn't make Mozilla less trustworthy.
Mommy, mommy, Google is advertising his products instead of mine again, scold him!!! Damn that google.
"I see undead people" Warcraft III - Necromancer
It's not up to us how google returns it's results, it's google's. Why must you argue a point that cannot be changed by you anyhow?
:(){
"People need to stop treating really good ideas like something that we have a right to have."
Scapermoya, meet Thomas Jefferson.
Okay, so Google pushes their own products ahead of everyone else's. Would someone please name me a company that produces a product but pushes someone else's product ahead of their own? I guess you expect Ford to start selling Chryslers, eh? I bet you think Apple will start positively advertising the availability of Windows Vista, too.
Grow up. Google is a company. It can preach all the "do no evil" it wants to. But ultimately it will behave like a corporation. And putting your own product first is not "evil".
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
It is not about the priority they give to there own products! It is completely fine as they are not public entities. What Blake is saying, is that they should mark it as a tip, like they do for the paid adds with colors.
Respect for Firefox decreased? You must be kidding!
I for one don't trust about no. 1 position of Picasa anymore!
Wait, so are you a Google acountant or a security professional. Don't tell me you changed jobs yesterday.
I'll go back to the comment I made about television and newspapers last time this story hit Slashdot:
Does CBS bitch that NBC doesn't let it advertise its shows on NBC? (Or at the least, if CBS managed to, give its own properties prime ad spots?)
Does the Toronto Sun bitch that The Toronto Star doesn't put Sun advertisements in?
Does it make you happy you're so strange?
What are all the beatnik asshats going to do now?
Two of their mighty kingdoms of enlightenment and knowledge are warring with one another. where can they turn?
Had this same shit involved two large companies that don't hide the fact that they make a profit (MS comes to mind) we'd be hearing all kinds of shit instead of millions of fanbois running to defend their loyalist camps.
Mwuahahaha. Run fagbois! run to linus and suck on his teat begging for guidance in these darkest of days.
the rest of the world is laughing at you.
It's understandable. Firefox was a rallying cry against Microsoft, the monopoly, the company that only cared about making money, not following standards and playing friendly. But now Firefox is controlled by a for-profit company (the Mozilla Corporation), it is heavily backed by Google, a ginormous for-profit company, and he is starting to get nervous that Firefox is becoming the very thing that people were fighting against when they so openly accepted it.
So, he is going to be extra vocal about not playing fair.
1 (short ton / firkin) = 89.1432354 slugs / keg
Good eye. I am surprised that you are not modded up. I seriously doubt that this guy works both coasts and in 2 totally different professions.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Best Comment I've read all day.
interesting resume you have from what I can gather in your previous posts... you worked for Barclay's of England, you were also a network admin for 3500 nodes in a big corporation, now you're an accountant at google.. Nice work.
Wait, so are you a Google acountant or a security professional. Don't tell me you changed jobs yesterday.
Maybe he/she/it is a CIA plant who got confused about which cover story they were using this month. Either than or they have a multiple personality disorder where each personality holds down a different job at opposite ends of the country.Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
from other posts he says he worked at barclay's so id give him at least the benefit of the doubt.
Given that every post he makes is fake, I think you may be on to something there.
There's some interesting behavior I've never noticed before- Searching for photo sharing in Firefox produces no "blue box" sponsored links at the top. Searching in IE6 produced a "blue box" with 3 links (winkflash.com, photos.aol.com, twango.com), but after refreshing the search the ads were not present the second time or subsequent refreshes. Closing & reopening IE6 reproduced the same results. Closing, reopening IE6, and searching a third time did not produce the ad box. After writing the response to this point I just closed, reopened, & researched in IE6 and the box is back with 2 links.
I'm sure there's some logical explanation for the behavior, anyone have any insight?
Newsflash: Google is not a public service, it is a company that is in business to make money. Promoting its products over others? How is that bad?
> Wait, so are you a Google acountant or a security professional. Don't tell me you changed jobs yesterday.
He didn't say he was a security professional - he said he worked "...for an Internet Security firm". I guess it isn't possible that such a firm might need an accountant or anything?
-- PGP keyID: 0x4C95994D
He works for a few others too... try googling "I work with" OR "I work for" trisexualpuppy
OK, so let's just uninstall Google...
Ya, that is definitely a lot quicker than going through his posting history manually..
+ trisexualpuppy+site%3Aslashdot.org&btnG=Google+Sea rch&meta=
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22I+work%22
"Parakey is a Web-based computer user interface proposed by Firefox creator Blake Ross. Ross describes it as a 'a Web operating system that can do everything an OS can do.' The idea behind it is to make image, video, and text transfer to the web easier."
Even the Wikipedia article is awfully short for a computer tech topic. Is this just a proposal? Vaporvare? If not, does anyone have a link to something more substantial about it?
You might guess it from the summary, but the implication is that Ross has a potential motive other than promoting blind ranking for its own ostensibly good sake.
And yes, I'm bitter, because I had to learn it the hard way...
You worked for 30 years at barclays (that makes you 50+) yet your nick is "TrisexualPuppy".... Either you're full of shit or you're a pedophile.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
This would be First Post!
That gives inaccurate results because it shows other posters who had "I work" within the post on the same page as TSP.
Would Google complain if Microsoft informed users about Live Search when they typed Google.com into Internet Explorer's address bar? Don't roll your eyes: it would just be another innocuous tip presented to a user en route to a destination.
IIRC lot of people shouted UNFAIR on top of their voice when microsoft made msn the default search engine on IE??? hypocrites.
...as long as their ad results are clearly distinguishable from the real results. I don't have a problem with the ads of a different background color at the top or side... it's the ad results injected into the middle of the real results with only a faint horizontal line to separate them, that I find objectionable. What's worse is Google doesn't do it all the time, so they tend to catch people off guard.
DRM 'manages access' in the same way that a prison 'manages freedom'
I guess he finally realized how the capitalist system works.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
There's a lot of people saying "what's the problem? Who wouldn't want their own products showing up first? Name me one company that wouldn't do it?...If you don't like Google results, then use Yahoo or MSN..."
Those are all true and valid. Yet search engines are the gateway to the internet. We do need to watch over it to make sure markets remain reasonably separate. Sure there's always choice, just like theres choice for other people to use other OS, carriers...Most of the time this is done in fields where there is a monopoly (telecommunications...), but many of the concerns are shared here. What if they block/push down results to upcoming competitors? What if they keep dead links of competitor sites up longer on purpose...I don't really see a problem right now, but I wouldn't say it can't ever happen.
Dude, you are TSP.
This will get modded down but if Apple somehow got into the search market and started advertising itunes or doing exactly what google is doing you'll have the same assholes saying "Well its not evil because X,Y, and Z is doing it" or "Steve Jobs is an innovator". You guys just have underdog syndrome. If this was 1999 all over again not a bad word would be mentioned about google. Shut the fuck up, its a company, they make money, they do not have a monopoly. If you don't agree get some vulture capitalists and some programmers and compete. You people sicken me with your arm chair intellect.
I work for Google; So I am really getting a kick out of most of these replies. Some of you guys are very good at making it sound like you know what you are talking about. But trust me.... You don't. I think you just want to make yourself sound smart, when in reality you don't know what you are talking about. This is how bad info gets passed around. If you dont know about the topic....Dont make yourself sound like you do. Cos some nerds believe anything they hear
There was a similar discussion on Reddit (yeah, I know, sorry) which showed what an arrogant, ignorant baffoon he is. This is not a big deal, it really isn't, and he fails to see the opposite point of view at all and instead likes to shoot off with completely ridiculous analogies. Epitome of a non-story.
I find it unusual that the Slashdot story frames my post in terms of advertisers given that the meat of the post begins:
The post does discuss the implications of these tips from many perspectives, but I'm most concerned about their impact on users. I believe they're harmful because some users are going to end up not using the best products and services. And no, that's not "best" in my eyes; that's best in the world's judgment, which Google claims to reflect in its results.
It sounds to me like it's nothing more than a popularity contest. Of course, when a "strong-arm" already in light of the contemporary public sees an opportunity that is making great strides (perhaps by analyzing its own data) it decides to compete in that arena. Of course, a company which creates search engines may decide to create other things as well. I'm sure that a company which was quite adept at creating "buggy-whips", for every person who owned horses, was probably not tarred and feathered for ditching them to create automobiles. But then again, I wasn't around during the "buggy-whipping" days.
What plug-ins do you have that keep you using Firefox? I use Opera pretty much exclusively...I'm curious to see if I'm missing something.
So Blake Ross is going to suggest to people that they try Internet Explorer for a bit every time they open up FireFox? Or put IE plugins on the Mozilla page? Because right now all Mozilla does is push Mozilla products...
It's not like Google has a monopoly on search engines. People use Google because it's the best. If you care about seeing non-Google ads at the top of your search results, use a different engine -- there are plenty of alternatives.
For example, type in the word "finance" as your search query and you will see that finance.yahoo.com is returned BEFORE finance.google.com
1) Denounce self anonymously ...
2) Post logged-in denial
3) Instant karma!
4)
5) Profit
We recently had heard in the office over one of the Yellow Machine that's made by Anthology Solutions.
I think what Blake is trying to say, is that Google has created a modern day internet-ified "vertical monopoly" over certain kinds of software.
Traditionally, vertical monopolies simply came about when companies purchased every level of manufacturing from resource acquisition to brick and mortar product retailers. Nowadays, especially in the burgeoning industry of internet-based software solutions, there is no 'resource acquisition' or 'brick and mortar product retailers.' Instead there is 'source code' and 'web advertising.'
With Picasa/Google Calendar/Google Maps, Google has absolute control and ownership over every stage of development from 'source code' to 'web advertising.'
Now the typical argument is "so what? isn't that what companies are supposed to do?" and that argument is absolutely right. Companies truly do aim for complete monopolization of an industry, either vertically or horizontally. This allows them to minimize costs, and ultimately deliver a better product to consumers.
In an idealistic world there is absolutely nothing wrong with this. If Linux was the only operating system in the world, there would be no "compatibility problems" (see Apple Computer, for an example of just such a OS->Hardware vertical monopoly). Problematically, Google is not Apple. Apple is 15% of the market. Google is nearly 80% (in its respective field).
If Google is allowed to continue it's course of action, it will be as if Microsoft decided to start selling computer hardware (like Apple). This can be very bad for consumers. Say Microsoft wants to "buy marketshare" and gives away free laptops that are fast, problem free, and run windows (yeah, yeah, yeah, oxymoron, don't belong in the same sentence, your jokes aren't that clever so suspend your disbelief for the sake of argument).
That's great... people start making accessories that only work with Microsoft laptops because they have 90% marketshare (see iPod). Soon all the other laptop companies go out of business because who can compete with a free laptop that's faster and better than yours? Now Microsoft laptops determine what new features are allowed (if iPod says no wireless connectivity, consumers don't get wireless connectivity. Thank God for big companies like Microsoft willing to step up to the plate... too bad Apple's marketing has made the iPod 'too cool' for the Zune, so consumers will have to wait for Steve Jobs to decide we're ready for wi-fi mp3 players before we can trade songs with each other on the go. Normally in a non-monopolized industry, one company would introduce wireless connectivity, and everybody else would follow to "keep up" but with iPods dominating the marketplace, smaller companies can all add wireless connectivity and Apple can simply "not care.")
1 year later, Microsoft decides to jack up the price of the laptops to $2000. No other companies exist, and consumers must deal with it because all other choices are gone.
So that's why monopolies are bad... I thought you all knew that, but from the comments I've seen so far it seems like that's not the case. Just because it's in the best interest for the company, doesn't mean it isn't ultimately bad for consumers.
If Google (with an immense market share of web advertising/search advertising) kicks out competitors in picture management software by giving away Picasa and minimizing advertising exposure of other companies, the other companies will go out of business and we will view/organize our pictures at the whim of Google.
If Google truly "does no evil" and never ever screws us over in the future, that's fine. But someday, the current CEO's/board of directors will move on, and somebody a little more greedy may take their place.
It's best not to let any company achieve that much power over any area of industry.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
He wears a lot of hats. He's also been working for Barclay's (banking) in the UK for the past 30 years.
kettle, pot, black
Engineering is the art of compromise.
how typical
From DEC. 27, I work in Washington for an Internet Security firm.
On Dec. 28, I presently work for Google.. and then you talk about Google internal as though you have been there awhile.
Look, I am guessing that you are TSP. I have read some of your posts and some are interesting, but this was a total conflict between the 2. It was a good catch by a.d.trick. And neither my post nor a.d.trick was a troll. It is obvious that he was right on the money and I backed him up. It is better for you to simply move on or admit that you were wrong.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
does this mean that Microsoft Live Search or Yahoo is better?
And yet, 7/20 of his latest comments are 3 or more, with some still being +5
Mods: I feel cheated
Nature journal lied in Britannica vs Wikipedia Ask to retrac
I think we can all agree that Google has incredible power. They mean the difference between a paycheck and an unemployment check for--i'm guessing--millions of Americans. I was a developer consulting a web retailer during the September/October 2005 "Jagger" updates. This website went from page 10 on their top phrases to the first page above the fold. Two months later they were number 1 where they still are to this very day.
The difference? Pre Jagger sales averaged $110,000/mo less $20,000 in adwords. Post Jagger sales were $140,000/mo with nothing in adwords. Six hundred thousand dollars a year from an algorithm update.
This puts Google in the league of "Common Carriers." They're not nearly as vital as, say, the electric company--If google went dark today the other search engines would absorb the traffic--but their power doesn't come to them at no charge. They are benefiting greatly from this power, as you can see in their market cap. Google isn't a 1-company bubble, it's doing well because it has a unique amount of leverage and power in markets and technologies that almost surely will be the foundation of the global economy. In exchange for this massive power, Google has a responsibility to be a responsible corporate citizen.
And let's face it--if you called AT&T 411 for the number to your local Cable Internet company and the woman wouldn't tell you without first giving you the name and number of their own internet service, people would justify complain. This is similar. We expect our "utilities" to be fair abiters in exchange for a captive audience. The time has come that we start considering Google in the same light.
You got me. I had qualms at first about "Blake Ross was bribed by a lobby" showing up in searches of my name for all eternity, but then I thought--wait, I can get some karma points!
To solidify the illusion, I prepared another comment and posted it simultaneously.
You're right there, but changing jobs from one side of the US to the other in a days notice is pretty spectacular.
Thank you, that was incredibly informative and way more than I had hoped for when I asked the question.
So, uh, when are they going to fix this?
My guess is that Blake is just irritated that a search on Google for the term "web browser" brings up Opera first and Firefox second :)
Personally I'd rather have my idiots at home glued to the TV than out doing idiotic things
Oh, okey let me try. SerialDogma is a cheat who stole my wife, burnt down my house, and killed my cat.
Clicking 'Post Anonymously'...
Submitting...
>SerialDogma is a cheat who stole my wife, burnt down my house, and killed my cat.
I am sadly forced to rase to the bait, none of those scandalous allegations have any element of truth, and the fact this troll posts as an AC further shows this.
"This is not about telling Google what to do or not, it's about telling Google's _users_ that they are being duped when they search for particular types of software. It's Google's right to do so, and it's people's right to know."
Great. Now all you have to prove is that they're duping people, otherwise slashdot doesn't have anything but a knee-jerk story that is wasting everyone's time.
Pushing their programs on people just because they bought one of their programs.... oh wait.
Seriously though, Firefox/mozilla and all are great programs but if there's one complain I have its Firefox and Thunderbird have 0 interconnectivity. Who would make two important internet interfacing tools and NOT have them connect except through predetermined protocols?
The reason I bring this up is simple. Why should we care what Firefox says because he did something I don't agree with. Obviously people do but the point stands that even though he did create Firefox he's not a genius, he has given us an alternative, but people believe he's made mistakes, whether it be slow program initalization, lack of mandatory add ons, or non existant interopability. But at the very core of these issues, they are trade offs not mistakes. Similar to how Google likely trades off revenues for putting their tools first. But the simple fact is that's how Google runs their business. When Firefox has a document editor, spreadsheet viewer, picture organizer, and a little tool that scratches my back when I'm too drunk or tired to do it that I can call Brenda we'll talk about which way is "right".
Simply put though Google has the goods that I use. I'm not going to stop using them because of something like this. If they are giving me the best options second or third and the google branded option first that's pretty much the exact same thing every company has done.
Btw there's a critical difference between google and Microsoft. I'm not paying out the ass to use Google's products, I've yet to send google a dime, so if they want first place in advertising that's fine as long as it's a free product. If anyone should be pissed it's the advertisers but guess what? I'm not one of them, if google can't hold advertisers they are in trouble (and they know that) but only time will tell what they do.
Just as a point, since it was mentioned in a number of other posts above, I noticed a while ago that "Don't be Evil" isn't anywhere on Google's site any more. I didn't waste too much time digging around, but it wasn't in plain view or in any of the common docs like their mission statement.
I think it's safe to say that "Don't be Evil" *WAS* their motto.
Who is Firefox creator? Why it makes the news? Who cares?
It is not a Microsoft product. Case in point check out the Microsoft Support pages half the text is cut off the end of the page in Firefox so your are forced to read it in Internet Explorer. Was it a simple mistake by the web designers? No its been forced that way.
MSN (Windows Live Messenger (tm)): When I use the "check mail" function does it load the default browser? No it loads IE whatever your browser default is. You are forced to use it otherwise you can not use that function properly.
The Google website isn't forcing anyone use that link.
Now go to the blog in the article...
There are bandwidth hungry Firefox adverts everywhere (obviously) but I find it ironic that someone who recommends his products on his own blogging website blasts another website for recommending their products on their website.
Google will be sponsoring SCALE 5x in Feb 2007 at the LAX Westin.
pop will eat itself
(forgive me, but let me go on a rant...)
which is to say that the common fancy becomes so common that it's commonality becomes a point of contention and leads to the fancy's demise. We're just about there with the ubiquity of google now just like we've been there before with IBM and at&t and ford and pan am.... this is the cyclic nature of (near)natural monopolies. Their success is their importance is their weight which means every step they take is heavy and is heard. Of course they can't be trusted; their success means that they've become "the man". It's easy to look sceptically upon them. How dare they self-agrandize. How dare they try to shape the world into their vision. Aren't they being irresponsible in propogating that vision?
It's very easy to be egalitarian in the face of such things. Big bad google is the new big bad wolf... They don't care about me, they only care about their stock price, which is all their stock holders (read: owners, read: larry and sergey) care about.
(The egalitarian view is always in conflict with the view of any particular hive, otherwise you're just kissing up to the masses and appear wishy washy)
From the google IPO filing:
Kumbaya: "We aspire to make Google an institution that makes the world a better place. And now, we are in the process of establishing the Google Foundation. We intend to contribute significant resources to the foundation, including employee time and approximately 1 percent of Google's equity and profits in some form."
in present time that rings: "we have a foundation for good to offset our foundation of commerce. Hopefully it will mitigate the evil enough for your tastes"...
but now we're at the "what have you done for me lately" phase with the over arching question of "prove to me it's not just the money". They have a particular PR battle on their hands since they are so much better off with us on their side. I mean, what if we all of the sudden realized that other search products were at least as good?
but they're not. Right? The other tools aren't as familiar or as elegant or as relevant. So at the end of the day this argument is moot. You can grumble as you use google or you can nod, but nine time out of ten the big G is still your dog when it comes to playing fetch with the net.
this space intentionally left blank (oops)
It's not at all the same as Microsoft installing IE by deafult to their OS.
It's more like Microsoft showing an add for IE when their OS starts up.
To be the same, google would install all their products onto your pc the first time you do a search. That's more like it.
And when someone is searching for a tool, and google happens to have it, it's a good result if they say 'here use google earth'. Because I got what I was looking for.
It does show othe results. Personally, I'd try the google one out first because of the name. But nothing stops me from using the others. Google's software comming up first is a good search result/rating. Because it's right there... practicly on the same server.
If it came up 10 pages into the results, it would be a horrible search result. Because I couldve found something from a company I know and trust, rather from spys.us
> The issue is that Google is biased, and people who use Google should know that when they do searches, so they aren't being duped.
:]
Good to know. Now, where can I find an unbiased search engine for comparison?
--
Tip: This is sarcasm, not an actual tip.
Oh look whose blog has dropped off the first page.
Here's what Google has to say about it: clicky
Basically, they're competing with everyone else fairly. They're not favoring their own ads. And IMHO, if they did put their own ads on top, it would be fine. But then they should expect some people to choose overture for keywords that google grab for themselves.
That's why Google needs a NEAR operator, like in glark.
The command glark -a 5 "I work" TrisexualPuppy finds "I work" and TrisexualPuppy separated by not more than five lines.
factor 966971: 966971
- in here he claims to work for google's accounting department
- in here he claims to write video game reviews
- in here he claims to be a systems administrator working for a 3500-employee corporation
- in here he claims to be "an active lesbian"
- in here he claims to have worked "in the UK for Barklay's for 30 years"
- in here he claims to "work in Washington for an Internet Security firm" (while in here he claims to be "planning on travelling to DC" to attend president Ford's funeral).
- in here he claims to have met Sheldon Cohen, a psychologist and researcher at Carnegie Mellon University, and also reading "few of his papers on the immune system". Then he pastes a link to a wikipedia article which doesn't even exist.
All this was extracted from TransexualPuppy's last 25 posts. And of course, the confession right out of the wolf's mouth: Taken from here Mod him accordingly.Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
So wait, Google are pushing their own products on their website? The nerve!
(^_^)
It's 2006; the era of McCarthyism is dead. Is there really a reason why people still use the word "Communist" as a sort of bogeyman? China's leaders aren't evil because they're communists (and, by the way, they aren't); they're evil because they're evil.
With spending like this, exactly what are "conservatives" conserving?
I find it more more annoying that Google insists that localized versions of Firefox automatically default to that locale's official language, and won't let you change this default no matter what. I live in Japan, and yes, I speak and read Japanese, but I'd prefer my searches not be limited by language. I have to click "search the entire web" every single time, which means searching twice. No other search engine has this built-in limitation.
Ironically, Yahoo! is the search engine of choice in Japan, and doesn't discriminate against language. Also, their results are often better than Google's.
"Give a man fire, and he'll be warm for a day; set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life
I've been a big Google fan for many years now since I started using them in 2000. I was the sort of idiot who got people to try them out in the early days and changed my clients' default search engines to them :) But now... man, the results they're dredging up in the last few weeks have been so atrocious I'm trying to jump ship to another search engine with a clean design and actually good results (still looking though.. Yahoo has nice results, but is surrounded by spam and distractions).
I think people have celebrated Google a lot in the past couple of years while they've been on top and the largest, most popular search engine. Some of the other respondents talk about tall poppy syndrome, but Google have been a much celebrated tall poppy for a while now. I think the reason for the whining is legitimate here and based on things like quirky advertising, piss-poor search results, and the lack of any great new developments from Google since Gmail in 2004.
What would stop anyone from just purchasing easement rights and running their own power lines, too? After all, it's just a matter of start-up capital, right?
The idea that any johnny-come-lately can do what you say is just fantasy. Look at Microsoft: Their trying to do it and it's costing them BILLIONS OF DOLLARS to build the necessary infrastructure.
THIS is why I group Google with the likes of 'Common Carriers.' It *obviously* doesn't meet the legal definition. In fact, pointing that out, as someone did, is silly. If it did we wouldn't be talking about this because the FCC would have put their boot in Googles face a long time ago.
Somebody said that I "contradict myself" in my GP post. Unfortunately, this person has some simple comprehension issues: My point was that it *should* include Google, it has nothing to do with whether or not it *does*.
Google has built--at the cost of many many billions of dollars--a service that is nearly impossible today to compete with. It's naive to think that 2 coders and a dream could do the same. This isn't 1998 anymore.
Firefox promoting commercial companies bookmarks by default?
Why do you see the speck of chaff that is in your brother's eye, but don't consider the beam that is in your own eye?
I got all the proof I needed the other day... Did a quick search for the pictures that got Ms. Neveda in trouble. Google came up with family friendly versions and stock publicity photos. Had to visit Yahoo to find the money shots.
Seriously though--it isn't hard to change one's home page. Back in the day Yahoo.com was everybody's search engine of choice. Then AltaVista came on the seem and there were mass changes to the home page settings in browsers across the country. Google came along and became #1 in a short period of time. But as fast as Google became #1--the next greatest thing can take that top spot.
Newsflash people: Google is a company that is in the game to make money. "Do No Evil" .. what a joke. Google is going to do what's in it's own best interest. All smart companies do. So enough of this outrage. Some of you people act like little kids who've just found out there's no Santa Clause. Google screwing someone or some thing to make money? No shit. Deal with it. This crap from Google will continue so stop worshiping them like they are the second coming of Jesus Christ. They are not. If screwing someone will result in making some money they will opt to do it. It's just a matter of degree. It's time to recognize that and deal with it.
Look, I am guessing that you are TSP
What does that mean?Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. -- Susan Ertz
nevermind, shortened his name, I get it. at least I know a few other things TSP stands for now.
Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. -- Susan Ertz
Try: http://search.live.com/results.aspx?q=mail&mkt=en- US&FORM=LVCP&go.x=0&go.y=0&go=Search
o gle+Search
I don't see "Hotmail" in the first place. but..
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=mail&btnG=Go
I see "Gmail" in the first place.
Music is the sedative for mind...
"- Ads by Google -
Google Analytics: MV & NY
Job openings for experienced Sales Executives and Account Managers
www.google.com/jobs
Google Video Uploader
Upload & share videos with friends or with the world - free
video.google.com
PayPal Merchant Services
Credit Card & Bank Account Payments Full Integration with Your Website
www.PayPal.com"
Hehehehe
http://www.gigablast.com. It has its own crawler system, its database is bigger than Yahoo's, and it is not doing the self-centricity Google for which Google is increasingly famous. Try it next time you search, you will come up with hits which Google buries or does not have at all.
J.E.B.
Joshua Corps
These people killed in the name of communism disagree with your flippant, jejune dismissal
of their fate, and your attempt to apologize for their executioners.
Mao Ze-Dong (China, 1958-61 and 1966-69) 49,000,000 ("great leap forward" and "cultural revolution")
Jozef Stalin (USSR, 1934-39) 13,000,000 (the purges)
Pol Pot (Cambodia, 1975-79) 1,700,000
Kim Il Sung (North Korea, 1948-94) 1.6 million (purges and concentration camps)
Leonid Brezhnev (Afghanistan, 1979-1982) 900,000
Slobodan Milosevic (Yugoslavia, 1992-96) 180,000
Vladimir Ilich Lenin (USSR, 1917-20) 30,000 (dissidents executed)
Fidel Castro (Cuba, 1959-1999) 30,000
Nope. Your link is clearly marked "Troll". If true, it would be "Informative". Do you have any _real_ evidence?
Google is a private companey. They pay for there own systems that they allow you to use. Why on earth should you be able to tell google what it can do with its own system?
If they want to put a big huge pucture of Rush Limbaughs ass up there they may do so, and you can not make them change it. There customers will leave but the ass shal' remain. This is a cultural problem.. You cant marry queers, you cant smoke this or that, you cant drink at these times. Why? It's like people are nosey little old ladies, saying "Ohh dear.. you cant do that.. that would be wrong."
If you like something better use it and shut up.. I'll be using Google.
Bringing liberty to the masses. - http://freetalklive.com/
_Every_ post fake? But... he just said... and...
Oh, dear.
(You don't suppose he's Cretan, by any chance?)
Who knows what else Google does with all that information?
I wanted to create a gmail account for online accounts so I wouldn't have to use my own domain email address. I get my email from GoDaddy through my domain and I have a "catch all" email address so that all email that does not have a specific recipient goes to this account. This allows me to give a different email address to each person.
So... I emailed a gmail invitation to an email address at my domain, an address that I had never used before and have not used since. Well, guess what? This address started getting SPAM as soon as I sent this invitation! I know, I know, SPAMMERS use sometimes "sophisticated" means to get new addresses, but... I still tend to think Google sold my email address to SPAMMERS.
Ok, look, we all have our issues; now google is being accused of the same marketing tactics MSBill uses. Ok, maybe not fair, but it IS their search engine...
So, someone wants you to use THEIR product... At least they have the intent of HELPING you, instead of making you pay for their software, and then paying for their support.
Besides, it will take a 1000 pound Gorilla to beat up on the 900 pound MSGorillaBasic. At least their corporate philosophy is do no harm, instead of make them pay for every single file access. You have to make money providing the kinds of services they do; at least the people they charge aren't the End Users... They put the screws to the people I despise... Advertisers.
What, pray tell is wrong with THAT?!?!?!
The previous post was brought to you by TSP, the troll that keeps on trolling.
But...if he works for Google how can you trust the search results?
First, Google is not a monopoly by definition because there are other search engines out there that are available (and frequently used). Just because you only use Google doesn't mean everyone does. Being the largest fish in the sea doesn't make you the only fish in the sea.
Second, legally, Google is innocent until proven guilty where it resides. In the legal system a monopoly is similar in respects to a convicted felon. Google was never convicted, nor even charge as a monopoly, and as such are innocent of that charge until proven otherwise. The alternative would be to settle charges and admit to being a monopoly without being convicted, but this has not happen as there have been NO charges as such.
Until they meet either of those situations, they are most certainly not a monopoly. Believe it or not, there are still people that search on the internet and do not even know what Google is.
That's in part due to the fact that TrisexualPuppy copies other people's posts.
Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
he claims to be an accountant and a systems administrator in two different posts. He claims to work in Washington and the UK in two different posts. He claims to be an american and dutch in two different posts. He copies and pastes other people's posts, including from and to the same discussion. There is no hiding. TrisexualPuppy is a troll.
If you really thought you could do a better job than Google, you could write up a business plan and you would have no trouble getting all sorts of people offering to invest, assuming you were right. Google knows this, which helps keep them on their toes. If they fail, someone else will realize it and step up to the plate. You don't have to start a business with the money you found in your couch; that's what capital markets are for. Seriously, if you have a good idea, and can convince other people, all those greedy capitalists will line up at your door to give you money so they can get more in return.
The "barrier to entry" is that it takes a lot of resources to run a web site, and google does a good job already.
Great rhetorical strategy, btw: assume "free market" to mean "that purely hypothetical construct designed to illustrate a few basic principles, but makes unrealistic assumptions", disingenuously pretend that anybody who advocates laissez-faire and secure property rights is actually advocating for that hypothetical, and then simply point out it doesn't exist. Holy shit! They never thought of that! You should run for office with that logic.
When I type in google.com and search for maps it is because I want Google Maps. I'm not scrolling down to maps.yahoo.com, otherwise I would go to yahoo.com and search for maps. I want to know when Google offers a solution to a problem I have. I know Google's quality and can trust them. While I do use gmail I don't use their desktop search, nor their browser mod. Its just dumb to get all upset that Google is inking these on their page when I make searches relevent to their product. Stop being a sobbing little girl and appreciate the fact that they don't have tons of ads or deceptively alter their search results.
to what this article talks about, Google actually does a good job of being open to other company's products. E.g. Has anyone tried to search for an address in google? The search results actually let you pick between Google Maps , Yahoo Maps and Mapquest to link the address on their respective map searches. I was stunned when I first saw that. I think that's pretty awesome. I would expect them to direct you straight to Google maps. But I guess it also is cocky in a way - we know we're better than the competition so we'll give you the choice to pick your favorite map tool but we know you're going choose us! haha! Ps. I just don't understand why people are always making a big deal about companies trying to push their products through via whatever channel they have available... Obviously the people who make such news and post such blogs did not go to business school. My response to that firefox guy.. go get an MBA dimwit.
Yeah, and I bet he's not even trisexual!
I just googled for share pictures and there were i) 2 ads by third parties ii) search results with solutions from yahoo, microsoft and and copycats (picato and the like). Picasa came at the end of the second page. The opposite of self promotion, imho.
I don't get it; Blake Ross gets modded informative, and I only get +2 Funny. Slashdot moderators you should feel ashamed!
They are clearly telling you this is an add for one of their own products, not trying to make you think its a real link. ;)
People can try Picasa, realise it sucks and move on. Make a better product and they might buy it from you
Where Google does evil is in the totally crappy design of google groups and all the javascript junk they put on the pages.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
like why the ff2.0 user's gmail vanished before they upgrade it to 2.0.0.1