Slashdot Mirror


Yahoo Edges out Google in Customer Satisfaction

athloi writes "The University of Michigan's American Consumer Satisfaction Index shows some significant shifts this year in consumer satisfaction among several major online players: Google, Yahoo, Ask, and AOL. For one, Google no longer holds first place. 'The ACSI report notes that Yahoo's jump into first place was a 4 percent increase over its score from last year, while Google saw a 4 percent decrease during the same time period. ACSI says that to the untrained eye, Google's home page today looks almost identical to the way it looked years ago. This is where Google's simplicity is apparently hurting it in the long-term, as new users just aren't seeing Google's new offerings--such as increased storage options, additions to Google Maps, and tweaks to Google Image Search--right in front of their faces like they do with other sites.'"

35 of 212 comments (clear)

  1. Good ping times by suso · · Score: 4, Funny

    Yeah, I have no gripes with Yahoo, they always return my ping requests within milliseconds.

    1. Re:Good ping times by CastrTroy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not only that, who are their customers? Users might be more appropriate wording. It's not like many (any) people actually pay money to these companies for their services.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    2. Re:Good ping times by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yes you are right. I did my own study on this, and here are my results:

      Pinging www.yahoo-ht3.akadns.net [209.131.36.158] with 32 bytes of data:

      Reply from 209.131.36.158: bytes=32 time=5ms TTL=50
      Reply from 209.131.36.158: bytes=32 time=4ms TTL=51
      Reply from 209.131.36.158: bytes=32 time=5ms TTL=50
      Reply from 209.131.36.158: bytes=32 time=5ms TTL=51

      Ping statistics for 209.131.36.158:
              Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
      Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
              Minimum = 4ms, Maximum = 5ms, Average = 4ms

      --------------------

      Pinging www.l.google.com [74.125.19.103] with 32 bytes of data:

      Reply from 74.125.19.103: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=238
      Reply from 74.125.19.103: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=238
      Reply from 74.125.19.103: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=238
      Reply from 74.125.19.103: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=238

      Ping statistics for 74.125.19.103:
              Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
      Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
              Minimum = 6ms, Maximum = 6ms, Average = 6ms

      As the above scientific study shows, Yahoo wins hands down by a margin of 1.25ms!

    3. Re:Good ping times by wwwillem · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Ehhhh:

      bash-3.00$ ping -s www.yahoo.com
      PING www.yahoo.com: 56 data bytes
      64 bytes from f1.www.vip.mud.yahoo.com (209.191.93.52): icmp_seq=0. time=57.436 ms
      64 bytes from f1.www.vip.mud.yahoo.com (209.191.93.52): icmp_seq=1. time=53.995 ms

      bash-3.00$ ping -s www.google.com
      PING www.google.com: 56 data bytes
      64 bytes from qb-in-f147.google.com (72.14.205.147): icmp_seq=0. time=7.700 ms
      64 bytes from qb-in-f147.google.com (72.14.205.147): icmp_seq=1. time=7.029 ms

      Over here 7.5 ms is still faster than 55 ms. :)

      --
      Browsers shouldn't have a back button!! It's all about going forward...
    4. Re:Good ping times by Phroggy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I wonder how much bandwidth yahoo.com uses just for ICMP traffic alone. There are thousands of machines out there that ping yahoo.com to test Internet connectivity. I wonder how much of the Internet would break horribly if Yahoo decided to firewall pings?

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
  2. Yahoo! - it's the new AOL. by seanadams.com · · Score: 4, Funny

    Who exactly takes these surveys? Isn't it largely midwestern housewives who have time to answer the phone during the day, and are happy just to have someone to talk to?

    1. Re:Yahoo! - it's the new AOL. by Sciros · · Score: 5, Funny

      Hey, who are you calling largely?!

      It's true we just sit around the house, and I mean literally *around the house,* and have no-one to talk to, but that doesn't give you the right to make fun of our weight!

      (Ok I had 1 hour of sleep and I don't know how many coffees. Please excuse!)

      --
      I like basketball!!1!
    2. Re:Yahoo! - it's the new AOL. by JesseL · · Score: 2, Funny

      There will always be money to be made in catering to morons, but it's not really something we all need to aspire to.

      --
      "Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
    3. Re:Yahoo! - it's the new AOL. by Sergeant+Pepper · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, his implication had nothing at all to do with that. Statistically, it is very difficult to conduct a survey that is unbiased and this one most likely was biased. If they send papers to people requesting a response it could have self-selection bias. If they call people that is another type of bias because your results would be more geared towards some groups of people than others (people who work from home, the unemployed, housewives, etc.).

      I'd like to see how they conducted their survey (too lazy to RTFA) but I would almost guarantee that there was some sort of bias present. As for whether or not it affected the outcome... that's a horse of a different color.

    4. Re:Yahoo! - it's the new AOL. by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You got modded Funny, undeservedly so. That's a good question, and (with Sargeant Pepper above) I agree: how reliable are these surveys? Who actually answers them anymore? Not younger people, who have an unlisted cell phone for VoIP. (Thanks, earlier telecom/telemarketing practices!) Not people with a life, who view it as a mark of shame to be suckered into taking a survey. Not people an office number you random-dialed, who will leap on any excuse not to talk. ("Oh, sorry, can't do that on company time" *reload Slashdot*) So who's left? A REALLY ****in' skewed sample!

  3. Spot on by Prysorra · · Score: 3, Interesting

    At least with google maps.

    Take a look at yahoo maps. It's ..... done. Those whole world is there.

    Now when I want to see if google maps added any countries, I have to go to a BLOGSPOT blog. (http://googlemapsmania.blogspot.com/)

    They're waaaayy too slow actually actually finalize a product. Check out the labs. (labs.google.com).

    What....*what* is still beta???

    1. Re:Spot on by IANAAC · · Score: 3, Informative

      Take a look at yahoo maps. It's ..... done. Those whole world is there.

      Even for parts of the US...

      There have been times I've entered an address in google maps and it's come back empty. I can go to yahoo maps and enter the same thing and get a valid result.

      It used to be that google maps had the edge with its hybrid and satellite views, but yahoo has all that now too.

    2. Re:Spot on by FJR1300+Rider · · Score: 5, Informative

      Done? Well, hardly! Yahoo Maps are junk, full stop. Take a look at this map of Boadilla del Monte, Spain, where I live:

      http://maps.yahoo.com/broadband#mvt=h&q1=calle+gre gorio+maranon%2C+boadilla+del+monte%2C+spain&trf=0 &lon=-3.892947&lat=40.406177&mag=2

      (Please zoom to street level. Btw is there anything in Yahoo Maps similar to Google's "Link to this Page"? Can't find it anywhere, it's hard to believe such a basic functionality is missing, and yet it's... done!)

      Now the same spot in Google Maps:

      http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=b oadilla+del+monte,+spain&ie=UTF8&ll=40.404657,-3.8 94675&spn=0.012876,0.020514&t=h&z=16&om=1

      Can you spot the differences? And please note that Google Maps is a couple of years outdated! Yahoo must be 5 years old, M50 ring road isn't even there!

      http://maps.yahoo.com/broadband#mvt=h&q1=aeropuert o+de+madrid-barajas%2C+madrid%2C+spain&trf=0&lon=- 3.583539&lat=40.493698&mag=3

      Please zoom to street level. This is Barajas, Madrid's Airport. That big building site you see is T4, the new terminal, the one that has been opened since February 2006.

      http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=a venida+de+aragon,+madrid&sll=40.416706,-3.703269&s spn=0.205974,0.328217&ie=UTF8&ll=40.490843,-3.5920 79&spn=0.012859,0.020514&t=h&z=16&om=1

      Similarly, Real Madrid's (David Beckham's former club) new training grounds:

      http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=a venida+de+aragon,+madrid&sll=40.416706,-3.703269&s spn=0.205974,0.328217&ie=UTF8&ll=40.478439,-3.6132 36&spn=0.012862,0.020514&t=h&z=16&om=1

      Nowhere to be seen on Yahoo Maps.

      This is the Cuatro Torres (Four Towers) Business Area, named after the 4 skyscrapers that are being erected there for the past two years or so. Strangely enough, Yahoo still seems to think it's Real Madrid's old training grounds!

      http://maps.yahoo.com/broadband#mvt=h&q1=calle+man uel+caldeiro%2C+madrid%2C+spain&trf=0&lon=-3.68568 8&lat=40.476579&mag=2

      Now contrast with Google Maps:

      http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl

    3. Re:Spot on by jeevesbond · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Take a look at yahoo maps. It's ..... done. Those whole world is there.

      It's done, in unbearably slow Flash. I can't use Yahoo maps at all, it's a PITArse! Agreed that Google should spend more time on finishing/maintaining products than creating new ones, but Yahoo's binary-cruft-o-maps are not a shining example the rest of the world should follow!

      It's difficult to believe the article's weird supposition that Google's ultra-clean home page is somehow hurting them, that was one of the main reasons I--and many people I know--switched away from Yahoo! (that and Yahoo!'s paid search results), and I thought people hated change?!

      --
      I'm going to transform myself into a mighty hawk. Either that or I'll just go and work at Dixons, haven't decided yet.
    4. Re:Spot on by fm6 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I've said it many times before, but maybe this time people will stop and think before dismissing me as a troll.

      Google does not know how to produce mature applications. They only hire brilliant people (or people who are good at passing themselves as brilliant; and yes I do have specific individuals in mind) and they let people work pretty much without supervision. Plus, they have a rule that all developers must spend a fixed percentage of time on unassigned projects!

      So basically, their developers never have to do anything they don't really want to do. I've worked in organizations that fostered this kind of working environment (though usually not intentionally) and here's what happens: developers spend all their time finding intellectually challenging work to do, and just ignore all the boring stuff. So you get lots of kewl new features, but nobody's squashing bugs or polishing the GUI, or doing any of the other boring chores you need to polish the rough edges off a product.

      You mention Yahoo maps versus Google maps. For a long time, the technology behind Google maps was way superior to Yahoo's. In some ways, it still is. (Yahoo doesn't let you change your route with a simple drag.) But Yahoo has always been ahead of Google in the boring-but-necessary stuff, like providing simple drop-down lists of your memorized locations. Google didn't even have memorized locations for a long time, and when they finally implemented it, they used a weird keyword system that's a pain to use.

      Google really needs to hire some relatively stupid plodders to go in and clean up stuff. Hey, I'm available!

    5. Re:Spot on by garcia · · Score: 5, Informative

      It used to be that google maps had the edge with its hybrid and satellite views, but yahoo has all that now too.

      Fuck Yahoo and Google. As shitty as it is for me to say this, Microsoft's Live Maps' (in many areas) aerial photos (taken very recently from less than 100 yards and 360 degrees) blows Yahoo, Ask, Google, etc away.

      I still use Google Maps/Earth, especially w/topo via GPSVisualizer, plotting shit for work, and viewing converted ARCView files (shapefiles) but when I'm researching a place to camp, a house to buy, or to quickly survey an area we will be visiting, it's Microsoft's Live Maps. I'm very disappointed that Google hasn't kept up and I'm not sure why.

    6. Re:Spot on by hibiki_r · · Score: 2, Interesting

      As far as Spain is concerned, it's hard to argue that yahoo has way less info than google maps. If you thought things look bad in Madrid, try a smaller city, Like Oviedo: The detailed maps are not even there.

    7. Re:Spot on by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 3, Interesting

      They only hire brilliant people (or people who are good at passing themselves as brilliant).

      don't believe this! they look for robots and coders (not really engineers) who pass multiple phone interview quizzes and tests that really test nothing other than giving the interviewer an ego boost. if you're right out of school you might do ok; but if you have actual field and industry experience and are a bit more seasoned than just being a human coding engine, they won't want you.

      (ask me how I know...)

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    8. Re:Spot on by thePsychologist · · Score: 2, Interesting

      However, Google maps has the advantages:

      -Can modify driving route directly from the map by dragging a square
      -Doesn't require flash

      --
      "What lies behind us, and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us." Ralph Waldo Emerson
    9. Re:Spot on by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Seriously, Yahoo Maps is rubbish. And I'm not even talking about the ugly and unfriendly interface.

      since I said not so flattering things about google in my last post, I'll even it up by speaking in their favor.

      I block flash and just don't ever install that software. flash tends to be mostly ads and I can easily live without the other bits that aren't ads.

      given that I block flash, I didn't even SEE yahoo's maps. I got some 'you must upgrade flash' page, instead.

      otoh, the google map you linked to (boadilla del monte) came up quickly and displayed well.

      so at this point, unless I'm willing to install flash - I can't even RUN yahoo's maps on my browser (latest firefox on freebsd; and I just refuse to install any flash libs on my system. I'm just that way.)

      ok, google wins on the map issue - for me, at least. I'll give the devil its due ;)

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    10. Re:Spot on by fm6 · · Score: 3, Funny

      If you learned to use the shift key, your resume would probably come across better.

    11. Re:Spot on by inKubus · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually, they are hiring 100 sales managers and sales reps for every programmer, hardware tech or other technical position. They don't want experienced programmers because they are more expensive and are tough to brainwash. Not to say they aren't doing well with what they have. But the model is to build a large computer out of commodity parts and do stuff with it. That's about it. And of course grow and multiply like a virus, just asking cheap techs for more hardware when it needs it. They've basically managed to program themselves a growing business. And as long as there's a web, we'll need it. The problem is the web growth is slowing in the US. India and China and the rest of Asia is still growing rapidly. Google is not very present there but Yahoo has made it a priority almost since day one. Probably due to the fact that one of the founders is Asian. So Yahoo wins as far as services growth. Yahoo knows they can keep up with the indexing by just having a lot of humans sorting their index, and using some of the tech they might have reverse engineered from Google. And Yahoo has a society built around it. I rather like it. Although I use Google for technical searches.

      --
      Cool! Amazing Toys.
  4. Perhaps... by ral315 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Perhaps the best move is to have some Google Blog entries on the main page. If done tactfully, they could easily inform users of new updates without becoming as bloated as Yahoo has.

  5. I personally like the homepage by poor_boi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I like the wild stab at blaming Google's "simplistic" homepage as being the cause of their lack of customer satisfaction. The quick-to-load, non-headache inducing simple Google homepage is one of the reasons that drew me in to Google, and is one of the reasons that keeps me coming back. But maybe I'm just a geek that way and other people want their homepages to look like a neon strip mall.

  6. Of course... by JesseL · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm sure that far more people still use Google, and most of those people would be even less satisfied with Yahoo!.

    --
    "Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
  7. Simplicity by bmw · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The simplicity of their site and the fact that Google *hasn't* changed their front page to include the usual bloat is exactly what keeps some of us using it. I know that more users equals more money and maybe the masses want more crap on the main page (maybe they don't) but sometimes it may be better to worry about quality more than quantity. That's one of the things that has made Google so strong over the years. They haven't (yet) sacrificed their quality just to be mainstream and I think that has worked very well for them so far. The day that Google loses their simplicity on the main search page is the day I find an alternative.

  8. Actually... by AKAImBatman · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is where Google's simplicity is apparently hurting it in the long-term, as new users just aren't seeing Google's new offerings--such as increased storage options, additions to Google Maps, and tweaks to Google Image Search--right in front of their faces like they do with other sites.

    It's not their simplicity that's hurting them, it's that they've failed to follow through on their success. The search engine was an amazing tool, and GMail was absolutely wonderful. But after that they had quite a few missteps. Maps was initially less useful than, say, MapQuest due to poor directions. This was eventually improved upon, but now Google is fighting the first-impression syndrome. Similarly, Google Video failed to appeal to most users. Google eventually gave up and bought their competitor: YouTube. Which sent the message that Google Video was as much of a failure as everyone thought it was.

    Then you've got increasing complaints about their AdSense and AdWords services. Various webmasters complaining that they were kicked out of the program for no discernible reason. AdWords advertisers who say that they're getting charged for links they didn't get. Etc.

    It all adds up to an age old problem: It's hard to maintain the top position. All the eyeballs are focused on you, and if you don't deliver you're going to get heavily criticized for it.
    1. Re:Actually... by FreeKill · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's sort of exactly what I was going to say. I think Google is getting kind of a bad reputation for being "too good" for their customers. Especially when it comes to adwords/adsense. Take a look at sites like http://forums.digitalpoint.com/ and you can find literally thousands of people who were dumped by Google with nothing more then a lockout of their account and an ambiguous email. That kind of customer service will get you nowhere. Also, they have a brutal history with some of their apps when it comes to just dumping existing users. Their recent fiasco Google video subscribers (http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/11/12532 37) is a prime example of that.

  9. Re:Perhaps... by dotpavan · · Score: 2, Insightful
    new users just aren't seeing Google's new offerings--such as increased storage options, additions to Google Maps, and tweaks to Google Image Search--right in front of their faces like they do with other sites.,br>

    has anyone ever seen Google advertise its arsenal of products? except for this spoof commercial. Google's USP is that they have these details sneak in via various news items, and rest is left to the hype, and over zealous fans keep digging for minuscule details. Irony is that one of the largest ad agencies doesn't resort to (or believe in?) advertising (except for some adsense keywords)

  10. I am to only one by trjonescp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    who immediately opened a new tab and brought up yahoo.com to see a cluttered page (although less so than it used to be) and a Flash advertisement and sat there scratching my head with a "Huh?" look on my face?

    --
    Only speak when it improves the silence.
    1. Re:I am to only one by AltGrendel · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Probably.

      The rest of us are using Adblock.

      --
      The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination

      - Douglas Adams

  11. What Google needs... by Jugalator · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What Google needs is not to change its clean search engine, but just provide a new service, maybe text linked to from the search engine place... Called something like "Google Center" which is more of a portal, or at least news page. I know their blogs announcing stuff like Google Earth updates or whatever, but I don't think a blog is efficient enough in format. The page could collate news from different major areas (search, Google Earth, Gmail, ...) along with having a "Misc" section where you have links to stories announcing other more minor things.

    Just some one stop place where people can actually get an overview of not just their services, but the news on their services.

    --
    Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
  12. All the time. by C10H14N2 · · Score: 2, Interesting


    Like, every time I open FireFox or OperaMini. ...and then there are things like this:

    Search:
    http://youtube.com/watch?v=fwTQKZ-j6Fk
    Earth:
    http://youtube.com/watch?v=DletSFRKS7M
    Search Appliance:
    http://youtube.com/watch?v=QQWn0kkWX8E ...and of course...

    Maps:
    http://youtube.com/watch?v=Ug_dIOE7x8Q

  13. I'm ready now by tknd · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm ready to switch search engines now. It's getting harder every day to actually use Google's search to find useful results. People are continuously attempting to SEO their ebusinesses onto the front page of Google. So rather than returning useful resources I basically get advertisements in the search results. Add on the side ads and sometimes the ads that appear at the top and I begin to wonder why I even tried it in the first place. Unfortunately I haven't seen a compelling alternative and I think even if one did show up, Google would just buy them out.

  14. Re:Perhaps... by arashi+no+garou · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Yahoo has "fanbois"? The only people I know who prefer Yahoo to anything else are either middle-aged women or cops (sometimes both). Strangely enough, most cops I know -- and I work with lots of them every day -- are suspicious of Google. Ask them to Google something and they invariably pull up Yahoo or MSN. Do they perhaps know something we don't?