Slashdot Mirror


Google Expands to 'Universal' Search

ppadala writes "Google today unveiled its uber search which allows you to search for text, images, news etc. together. This is the result of unifying various search engines that Google developed for web, images, news etc. Google's main page and the results page are also sporting a polished look with a top menu bar sporting various search items."

16 of 138 comments (clear)

  1. Didn't Y! have this already ? by Gopal.V · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If I remember correctly, Yahoo's oneSearch already did this ? Except it doesn't seem to be available for regular search.

    On the other hand, I've been playing around with the Alpha (Beta) search, which seems to be much cooler. But only available for australia (the cool interface must be due to their uber-cool office).

    Heh, to put it mildly ... everybody's doin' it :)
    1. Re:Didn't Y! have this already ? by panaceaa · · Score: 4, Informative

      There's major advantages to Google universal search over Yahoo! oneSearch Yahoo!'s Alpha (Beta) Search. First, file type suggestions (e.g. Video, News, Images) are suggested based on where valuable content exists. If you search for "Google", you get Web and News on the header since there's a lot of web content and news about Google. But you don't get "Video," since there aren't many valuable videos about Google on the current web. (You can still get video by clicking on the top header, though, but it's not a suggested search.)

      On the contrary, with Alpha(Beta) search you always get the YouTube, Wikipedia and Yahoo! News links on the right sidebar. There's no feedback as to whether they're potentially interesting until you click on them and judge for yourself. Same thing goes with Yahoo! oneSearch -- it's just a bunch of data listed on one page, without much filtering by possibly relevant datatypes.

      But my favorite part of Google universal search, and I must admit that I work at Google on unrelated projects, is the ability to play videos right in the search results! I haven't seen anything like it on other major search engines. And it's great that the videos aren't off to the side, or up at the top -- they're mixed in the normal results and ranked quite appropriately! Which is great for me because it shows me how relevant the video actually is, whereas videos on the right hand side of Alpha(Beta) may be relevant or may be irrelevant, but with no guidance given.

    2. Re:Didn't Y! have this already ? by panaceaa · · Score: 4, Informative

      It doesn't violate my NDA (well, actually, my employment agreement) because it's public information. There's lots of stuff I know that I can't talk about, but if a web site's written a story about Google, or Google's issued a press release, I'm free to link people to those pages, dictate what they say, and provide my opinion so long as there's not forward looking statements or an appearance that I'm talking on behalf of Google. When I previously worked at Adobe I could do the same thing after I signed a blogging agreement.

  2. Why not Live or Yahoo stories? by choseph · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why is this news -- because it is Google? The whole article is filled with "Google understands blah blah...but all their competitors do too and have been doing the same thing".
    No hot grits, but you can see natalie portman images inlined in the search results in live.com and that has been there for a while now. http://search.live.com/results.aspx?q=natalie+port man&form=QBRE

    Directly from the article:
    Google's competitors have also begun integrating results from their engines in various ways and with different approaches, but with the same goal in mind: improve the search experience for users.

    1. Re:Why not Live or Yahoo stories? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      IIRC you could get Natalie Portman images inlined in Google search results before 'Microsoft Windows Live! Search' even existed. This is about improvements in the integration with video et all and the first major interface change to Google in a while.

    2. Re:Why not Live or Yahoo stories? by bertramwooster · · Score: 4, Funny

      Dude, you just slashdotted search.live.com!!! They are probably not used to such load.

    3. Re:Why not Live or Yahoo stories? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      There's a subtle difference here, actually. I should state now that like a previous poster, I work for the big G, but not on universal search.

      The OneBoxes you have seen on Google for years and you see now on Live/Yahoo search are useful as far as they go, but are limited architecturally. They're basically an intersection between {your query, top N popular queries on image/book/whatever search}. So if you're searching for an image of something on web search that isn't a hot celebrity, you probably won't see the box.

      That's a problem because you won't see the onebox for queries that should probably show it. Fixing it is hard, for scale reasons. As the post on the Google Blog implies, there are "issues" with sending every query from the massive web search traffic stream to every property. What's more, even if you could do that, how do you decide when to show the onebox? Even though you can now search images/books/videos for every web search query, it doesn't necessarily make sense to include results, especially not at the top. So you need to blend them into the web results somehow. But PageRank is no use here, how do you rank a book against a web page? So you need new algorithms too.

      I will admit that at first this looks simply like moving the onebox around the page a bit. In fact it's the groundwork for much more than that - it's building a "search engine" instead of a "web search engine with extra bits". If you do a query and there are 5 relevant books, 3 relevant web pages and 2 relevant pictures, then that's what you'll see instead of today where you have (maybe) a onebox and then 10 web pages.

  3. Where is the distributed community search? by Morgaine · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Although everyone loves Google at the present time, it's still always puzzled me that people aren't working on a distributed search mechanism that could potentially be far more capable and powerful than Google.

    After all, individual sites are far better placed to index their resources than a generic crawler can ever be, for a number of reasons. They have far more efficient access to their local data for starters, and are able to do the indexing instantaneously as things change. Individual sites are also able to apply semantic information since they know what their sites are actually about, whereas a generic engine cannot possibly know.

    The sheer power available in a distributed search system would also be massively beyond anything that even the mighty Google could ever supply, for all the usual reasons associated with distribution and distributed computation.

    Once you recurse more than a few levels down a parallel distributed search tree, the available processing power and bandwidth just go totally astronomic. What's more, simply limiting the degree of query recursion would allow you to tailor your desired results/time behaviour, and since the intelligent tagging at each site would contain hugely more semantic information than currently, you could direct your searches far more effectively too.

    And it wouldn't be slower ether, because the distributed indexes are easily gathered by caching aggregators, and competition would no doubt provide plenty of those.

    I know that several distributed search efforts do exist, but the point here is that they have virtually zero takeup, largely because of the dominance of Google and the general state of happiness with centralized search technology. While centralization works more or less OK for now, distribution has the potential to provide a vastly superior search system in ALL respects.

    We really should be looking at it more seriously.

    --
    "The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
    1. Re:Where is the distributed community search? by GeneJoker · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Search for: "Business Software Solutions"

      Results:

      www.lolita-ultracore.com reports that it has a 100% relevance score for "Business Software Solutions".

      www.geocities.com/mykawaiiwebcam reports that it has a 100% relevance score for "Business Software Solutions".

      www.we-report-that-we-have-a-100%-relevance-score- for-everything.com reports that it has a 100% relevance score for "Business Software Solutions".

  4. Re:Apple will sue by ubrgeek · · Score: 4, Funny

    I doubt they have a trademark on everything beginning with "i" (otherwise my buddy igor is in trouble ;)) but could this be a deeper beta-beta-beta of the Apple/Google partnership everyone keeps mumbling about? Otherwise, I agree - It does lend itself to people pointing out the "i-linkage" between Apple and Google, and free publicity for both can only be good ...

    --
    Bark less. Wag more.
  5. Re:Google? by vivaoporto · · Score: 4, Funny

    Do you want to know...._what_ _it_ is....? Google is everywhere. It's all around us, even in this very room. You can see it when you look out your window or when you turn on your television. You can feel it when you go to work, when you go to work, when you pay your taxes. Google is the world that has been pulled over your eyes, to blind you from the truth. A prison...for your mind....Unfortunately, no one can be..._told_ what Google is...you have to see it for yourself.

    This is your _last chance_. After this, there is no turning back.....You take the blue pill, the story ends. You wake up and believe...whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill.....you stay in wonderland...and I show you just how deep the rabbit hole goes.

  6. Terrible interface by Rik+Sweeney · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I hate the way they've stuffed the options up into the top left hand corner. Now I have the drag the damn mouse up there, click on the link I want, then drag the damn mouse back to type in what I need.

    Granted, the focus moves the search box but the search results page looks clumsy and is unintuitive.

    Google, change it back. There's no shame in admitting you made a mistake.

    1. Re:Terrible interface by ghoul · · Score: 4, Informative

      I also hate that switching is not automatic. Earlier if I tyoed in something in the search box and click on news it would search the text already typed in in news search and show the results. Now if I click news whatever I had typed in disappears and it shows the default news page and I have to type it in again.

      --
      **Life is too short to be serious**
    2. Re:Terrible interface by Cato · · Score: 4, Informative

      Exactly - and now I have to enable JavaScript for the whole of Google.com, or the entire menu bar vanishes! Not hard to do with Firefox's NoScript extension, but Google needs to have a sensible fallback when JavaScript is disabled.

      Getting something this basic and visible so badly wrong is not a good sign - it's hardly rocket science to provide fallbacks...

  7. Clusty by s122604 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    www.clusty.com I'm loving this search engine. Besides the big G I find its the only one worth trying. It is especially good when your search terms are ambiguous or have multiple meanings. For example "Web Service". That has a meeting and a connotation for developers, but a much more accepted connotation to the public at large... Clusty immediately separates these into nodes so you can focus on what you are looking for... Now if they only let you set up your own clusters (nodes) It would totally rock.

  8. Re:Apple will sue by Red+Flayer · · Score: 4, Funny

    (otherwise my buddy igor is in trouble ;))
    Do you have any iDea if he writes his name as iGor?

    Oh crap, I wrote "iDea", I expect a cease-and-desist letter now for that little iTem of trademark violation.

    Oh crap, I did it again. Dammit!
    --
    "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai