Slashdot Mirror


Google Sees Biggest Search Traffic Drop Since 2009 As Yahoo Gains Ground

helix2301 writes: Google's grip on the Internet search market loosened in December, as the search engine saw its largest drop since 2009. That loss was Yahoo's gain, as the Marissa Mayer-helmed company added almost 2% from November to December to bring its market share back into double digits. Google's lead remains overwhelming, with just more than three-quarters of search, according to SatCounter Global Stats. Microsoft's Bing gained some momentum to take 12.5% of the market. Yahoo now has 10.4%. All other search engines combined to take 1.9%.

155 comments

  1. Thank the Mozilla Foundation by DrunkenTerror · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Thank you Mozilla!

    1. Re:Thank the Mozilla Foundation by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Thank them? They changed the default search provider on all my existing Firefox profiles without my permission during the last update. I have about twelve different Firefox profiles for different things (-no-remote is your friend) and I was quite annoyed to have to change it back to my preferred setting on every single one of them. I don't begrudge them for the search deal, it was bound to happen with Google pushing Chrome so heavily, but leave the existing people alone, mmm'kay?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    2. Re:Thank the Mozilla Foundation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you change the default from Google? If so, then you might have a case (some people allegedly ran into that, at least). Otherwise if you left it as "default", that means if Mozilla changes the default, you live with it. Unless you donate to Mozilla regularly, this should really be something you're willing to accept as the cost of Mozilla having to chase after their best source of funding. If you disagree then you really need to take stock of how lucky you are that Mozilla can continue to make their browser in an era where the three biggest tech giants are actually vying for control of the web, rather than just letting Mozilla wag the dog.

    3. Re:Thank the Mozilla Foundation by SeaFox · · Score: 2

      I don't begrudge them for the search deal, it was bound to happen with Google pushing Chrome so heavily, but leave the existing people alone, mmm'kay?

      While I don't condone changes without the user's permission (my install of Pale Moon recently replaced my Adblock Plus with Adblock Lattitude, which appears to be a fork, without my permission), making people change was probably something Mozilla would have had to do for the referral deal to begin with. Only having the search provider change apply to new installs wouldn't have made a big difference to Yahoo -- because Firefox is in decline and there aren't a lot of new users coming to it.

    4. Re:Thank the Mozilla Foundation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not just Firefox changed, even Dolphin, on Android, changed my default search engine to Yahoo.

    5. Re:Thank the Mozilla Foundation by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      It was a minor annoyance; I certainly understand it even though it annoyed the piss out of me for about two weeks. Probably wouldn't have cared but for my Rube Goldberg setup of different profiles for different sites that I only launch every few days, so I kept running into it again and again. :)

      I wish them luck, they're up against some powerful players. I use their mobile browser too FWIW; I find that it's better than Chrome on my Kitkat device, though of course Chrome is my fallback for the handful of sites that don't like Firefox mobile for whatever reason. On my desktop they get 95+% of my browsing, Chrome there is confined to G+ and a handful of other Google sites I access regularly.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    6. Re:Thank the Mozilla Foundation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is a small factor. People are simply awakening to the Google Monster shoulder-surfing every click, evbery email, every search. And they, the people, have had enough. ..or at least I hope and pray that is the effect we are seeing..

    7. Re:Thank the Mozilla Foundation by Noah+Haders · · Score: 2

      this is why I use duckduckgo. a business built on a model of respecting user's privacy. obv there's no way to be sure, but at least their TOS is customer friendly rather than customer-hostile. also, !bangs ftw

    8. Re:Thank the Mozilla Foundation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait until the Apple contract expires and Apple drops them! They will take a huge hit then!

    9. Re:Thank the Mozilla Foundation by Tridus · · Score: 1

      You really believe it was that and not that the default changed in the #3 browser?

      That's so naive it's comical.

      --
      -- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
    10. Re:Thank the Mozilla Foundation by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      It was a minor annoyance; I certainly understand it even though it annoyed the piss out of me for about two weeks. Probably wouldn't have cared but for my Rube Goldberg setup of different profiles for different sites that I only launch every few days, so I kept running into it again and again. :)

      Time to take more control over things. I've set up all my different website searches as Quick Search bookmarks in Firefox, and got rid of the search bar. So Mozilla changing their default provider didn't effect me one iota. Same as I don't pay attention to how much of a mess Yahoo/Google/Microsoft make of their webmail interfaces because I access all three from Thunderbird as IMAP accounts.

    11. Re:Thank the Mozilla Foundation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, thank them - they're opening your eyes to choice, by defaulting to a provider that won't track you if you don't want them to (unlike Google...) and in the process preventing a monopoly/duopoly by bringing a third player back into the game.

    12. Re:Thank the Mozilla Foundation by pegdhcp · · Score: 1

      It was fortunate for me then; I have uninstalled Mozilla some time back due to both problems during the installation of Adblock plus and serious performance issues, especially on Google services that I use extensively... I realized that only thing that is not irreplaceable in Mozilla (aside from buggy sync of bookmarks) was GreaseMonkey, which was not vital...

    13. Re:Thank the Mozilla Foundation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What shitty, apologist reasoning. When I have something running on my computer, it comes with a default configuration file fixed at the time of installation, and that default becomes my initial and current configuration until I change it - not until the developer decides it wants to change my configuration to make more money.

      The only reason I use Firefox is that the older features it hasn't fucked up yet still make it better than the alternatives, and the only reason I upgrade is because I want the version which has received most eyes when it comes to security.

    14. Re:Thank the Mozilla Foundation by tepples · · Score: 1

      When I have something running on my computer, it comes with a default configuration file fixed at the time of installation, and that default becomes my initial and current configuration until I change it

      Would you prefer to continue to use SSL2, SSH1, broken cipher suites, and other configurations since discovered to be insecure, solely on the grounds that enabling them was the default a decade and a half ago when you first installed your OS?

    15. Re:Thank the Mozilla Foundation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you....ICEWEASEL!

    16. Re:Thank the Mozilla Foundation by davydagger · · Score: 1

      Wait, you haven't re-installed your OS since a decade an a half ago? WHAT!!!!!! So basicly for anyone still running windows 98 second edition with a pentium three in 256 MB of RAM on a 20 GB Hard Disk.

    17. Re:Thank the Mozilla Foundation by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      Yeah but no one else is silly enough to have 12 profiles. Besides every one who doesn't use Google has to do switch. So I can't muster up any sympathy.

  2. firefox makes yahoo default now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    clearly that 'default search provider' makes a big difference.

  3. Isn't Yahoo search just Google? by Karmashock · · Score: 1

    I thought they subcontracted through google such that a search in yahoo is ultimately queried by google? No?

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    1. Re:Isn't Yahoo search just Google? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I thought they subcontracted through google such that a search in yahoo is ultimately queried by google? No?

      Used to. Now they're subcontracted to Bing, I think.

    2. Re:Isn't Yahoo search just Google? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nope, they use bing.

    3. Re:Isn't Yahoo search just Google? by KugelKurt · · Score: 1

      Used to.

      No.

    4. Re:Isn't Yahoo search just Google? by jeepies · · Score: 2

      Yahoo has "Powered by Bing" at the bottom of all their searches. It's not that hard to check.

    5. Re:Isn't Yahoo search just Google? by oneeyed2 · · Score: 1

      Yes. Yahoo search was powered by Google circa 2000. It then changed to Inktomi a few years after. I remember switching to Google from Yahoo back then since it cut back on ads, I didn't use the web directory feature anymore and Inktomi's results format wasn't to my liking. Bad move on the part of Yahoo at the time I think, they only realized too late they had given a taste of a simpler/less cluttered competitor to most of their users...

    6. Re:Isn't Yahoo search just Google? by KugelKurt · · Score: 1

      Yahoo has "Powered by Bing" at the bottom of all their searches. It's not that hard to check.

      So? The claim was that before the Bing switch, Yahoo used Google. That's false. Yahoo had their own search technology which they then licensed to Microsoft.

    7. Re:Isn't Yahoo search just Google? by KugelKurt · · Score: 1

      Yahoo search was powered by Google circa 2000.
      It then changed to Inktomi a few years after.

      Yahoo used Google in 2000 but bought them and Overture/Altavista in 2002.
      Yahoo did not switch from a Google back-end to Bing's.

  4. Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    Firefox switched to Yahoo. That's it.

  5. Why break out Bing and Yahoo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yahoo search is powered by Bing so why bother?

  6. Firefox? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Yahoo as the default search engine will likely be the nail in the coffin for Firefox. I hope it was worth the money.

    1. Re:Firefox? by BronsCon · · Score: 3, Informative

      Why? Take the 2 seconds to change the default from Yahoo to Google if you care (I do and I did). If you don't care, you won't even notice, anyway.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    2. Re:Firefox? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not everyone is tech savvy. I changed mine back to my preferred search provider the first day and cursed the switch without my knowledge. My Darling Wife was mystified and frustrated she was getting shitty low-quality search results and I looked over and realized she didn't even notice it wasn't the same search engine. Fixed that, and she went right back to a search engine that doesn't totally suck. Which Yahoo! still does.

    3. Re:Firefox? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Wow, a Yahoo shill! I didn't think such a thing existed

    4. Re:Firefox? by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      My moderation and your unwillingness to attach your name to your remarks seem to indicate that your argument doesn't hold much weight. I have to ask you, though, where did you find a woman who knows how to identify quality search results, but who doesn't know how to tell which search engine they're coming from, let alone change search providers? My wife, not tech savvy by any means, was the one who informed me that Firefox was dropping Google as the default several days in advance of the release in which they did so. The day of the release, she reminded me that I'd need to change the default when I installed it; not that I needed the reminder. My point is, if my wife, a professional craft hobbyist, that is to say she does arts and crafts all day to pass the time, can figure it out *in advance*, I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that anyone who legitimately cares was able to figure it out pretty quickly. Clearly, despite the browser with 23.6% of the market changing its default search provider, Google only lost 2% market share; seems something like 91.525% of Firefox users who use the search field figured it out.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
  7. Is Firefox switching the cause by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

    I wonder how much of this is due to Firefox switching the default search engine. I figured it would only change for new machines, but it actually changed the search engine on existing installs, at least for my machines.

    --

    Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    1. Re:Is Firefox switching the cause by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yahoo made them a better offer this time, at least for North American searches. That, and Google has been treating Firefox pretty poorly lately, turning off non-DASH video streams on YouTube before Firefox was ready for it, etc, so I'm not surprised that they would feel less inclined to stick with Google in the end. Regardless, I believe the default in Europe is still Google, so it's not a clear-cut thing.

    2. Re:Is Firefox switching the cause by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you had manually set the search it should have left it alone, but most people just used the default setting which was Google. That default changed so suddenly you were using Yahoo...of course with Google being the default before there was no need to actually change anything before

    3. Re: Is Firefox switching the cause by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not the case. Firefox blasted away settings of those who weren't using Google as well as those who were.

      It's a nice thought to blame the user, but the devs are at fault here... or possibly management.

  8. This just in by koan · · Score: 1

    Soulskill hired by Yahoo.

    Now that that's out of the way I'll say it again, why does Yahoo still exist.

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    1. Re:This just in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So I can scrape my news in the morning?

    2. Re:This just in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yahoo uses Bing, and thus is connected to Microsoft...
      So - Firefox has sold their open source soul to an open source hating company..
      It would not surprise me if in the short term there will be closed source "blobs" in Firefox for your "convinience".
      Follow the money trail my dear...

    3. Re:This just in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dear Marissa Mayer,
      We do not care about you or your company as much as you would like us to. Please accept that and go away.

    4. Re: This just in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yahoo only uses Bing results for US search, and their current CEO came on after the 10 year deal was made. In 5 years, when their contract is up, Yahoo plans to run their own search results again. They are actively developing it.

      Also of note, Microsoft has open sourced .Net and other key stuff. Seems their new CEO might not be as open source hating as Balmer and Gates. I'm not saying MS is now OSS friendly, but things are changing over there. It might be in 5 years we will be able to say that about them.

  9. Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess it pays to sponsor Firefox.

  10. Have you ever noticed that ... by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 2

    ... ever since the first search engine (altavista) appeared the search paradigm has essentially remained unchanged? ... and it's getting stale ...

    Can't the search engine companies, and I don't care if it's Bing, Google or Yahoo, come up with something new? Something that is disruptively simple and yet extra-ordinarily innovative?

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:Have you ever noticed that ... by TheCycoONE · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Just case sensitivity and the ability to include symbols would be sufficiently disruptive for me.

    2. Re:Have you ever noticed that ... by jc42 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      ... ever since the first search engine (altavista) appeared the search paradigm has essentially remained unchanged? ... and it's getting stale ...

      Can't the search engine companies, and I don't care if it's Bing, Google or Yahoo, come up with something new? Something that is disruptively simple and yet extra-ordinarily innovative?

      Nah; they can't do that. The reason is simple: They're now big, established companies, and big, established companies never, ever innovate. To them, "innovation" means making a few superficial tweaks to the product's appearance, while loudly proclaiming "New! Improved!". Any true change is a threat to the product that provides their current income.

      If you want something that actually works differently, you have to go with the experimental, upstart companies. Most of them will eventually fail, of course, or if they start to succeed, they'll be bought out by one of the big guys, who will quietly shut them down. Or maybe they'll be sued out of existence by all the big guys via their list of vague patents. But a few will become "the next Google" or whatever was the successful upstart 1was called 0 years ago in their field. Then they'll no longer innovate in any meaningful sense.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    3. Re:Have you ever noticed that ... by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I couldn't disagree more. I remember pre-Google search days quite well, and it was awful. You ended up wading through page after page after page of irrelevant crap because those search engines simply ranked pages based only on their content, and it was stupidly easy to game. Tag clouds were a direct result of this. Google entered the field and made every other search engine obsolete almost overnight, because the damn thing actually worked. In fact, it worked so well that you were even pretty likely to get the result you wanted in the very first slot - thus, the "I'm Feeling Lucky" button, which in other engines might as well have been labeled "I Feel Like I Might Have Won the Lottery".

      Even today, I use Google, because every time I experiment with another search engine, the results simply aren't as good. With Google search, I nearly always find what I'm looking for right at the top of my search. It's unbelievably rare that I have to traverse to a second page.

      BTW, in case you haven't noticed, Google search actually does a lot more than simply search now. It's allows you to find out a lot of basic facts without even leaving the search page. For instance, try typing in calories in an apple or dollars to yen. They even present those results to me before I finish typing.

      I'm sure that Google is working on new ways to improve search... after all, it's what drives eyeballs to their advertisements, so they have a huge incentive to make it work better, faster, and more intuitively than anyone else. My guess is that searches will continue to be able to answer more detailed and specific questions that people have rather than only point them to pages that have the answers. What other innovations, who can say? But I think we're past the big "disruptive" search breakthroughs - that happened once, and it was Google inventing search that actually worked.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    4. Re:Have you ever noticed that ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      I would like Google and Bing to stop correcting me. And "correcting me". And +"correcting me" -"correction" me.

      Is it too much to search for what I explicitly ask for?

    5. Re:Have you ever noticed that ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > altavista

      Which was superior to Google in some ways. It had the NEAR keyword which helped filter pages that had keywords scattered across a page. By providing results that only included matches where the words are close, the search are often of much higher relevance than the matches where the words are scattered across a large page. For example, searching for "select from" returns pages that have nothing to do with SQL while "select NEAR from" returns pages that are more likely to be related to SQL. I miss that feature several times a week when trying to find something with Google.

    6. Re:Have you ever noticed that ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NEAR keyword

      stackoverflow.com is a great resource, but most of the search results you find for that site with Google are useless because stackoverflow.com shotguns/keyword spams pages by showing a dozen or more subjects from other posts. Very often the question doesn't contain anything you're searching for. My last search was for "maven clean," and none of the stackoverflow.com results from the first few pages had anything to do with Maven. They were about "git clean" rather than "mvn clean," but their keyword spam on the right column mentioned Maven. It's annoying.

    7. Re:Have you ever noticed that ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You ended up wading through page after page after page of irrelevant crap

      Curiously enough, that's my current experience with Google.

    8. Re:Have you ever noticed that ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      YouTube is absolutely the worst about this. Sometimes I can't find any resemblance between the results and the search terms I used.

      Something else that annoys the hell out of me is when I'm searching for something that simply doesn't exist, yet rather than tell me that, the search engines waste my time for ten minutes by giving me results for something else.

      I imagine "______, a search engine for those who know how to search" would obtain 10% market share almost instantly.

    9. Re:Have you ever noticed that ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is there a search engine that takes regex yet?

    10. Re:Have you ever noticed that ... by Feral+Nerd · · Score: 1

      Even today, I use Google, because every time I experiment with another search engine, the results simply aren't as good. With Google search, I nearly always find what I'm looking for right at the top of my search. It's unbelievably rare that I have to traverse to a second page.

      BTW, in case you haven't noticed, Google search actually does a lot more than simply search now.

      I have been using Bing for a over a year now and as long as I am searching in english the results aren't really that different from Googles. My chief complaints about Bing are that it sucks to varying degrees for searching in many languages other than english and that it does not offer the ability to time limit searches like Google does. Bing's image search also contains less noise than Google's and is IMHO it's a bit better. The trivia matches you mentioned are also a minor plus for Google, Bing also enables me to find how many calories there are in an apple pretty efficiently, but even so trivia results are hardly something that would cause me to rule out using Bing.

    11. Re:Have you ever noticed that ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wanted to see what a 2D block based results set would look like so I used Yahoo API to make an experimental search interface:
      http://www.HopBlocks.com/

      Then I added a proxied keyword hi-lighting preview panel so I don't even have to visit pages.
      I use it for my own searches but you are free to try it.

      Jonathan

    12. Re:Have you ever noticed that ... by tepples · · Score: 1

      Probably not, unless you can describe an efficient way to organize a full-text index for regex.

    13. Re:Have you ever noticed that ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I tried the apple and Dollar thing on Yahoo and it worked similar to Google.

    14. Re:Have you ever noticed that ... by ljw1004 · · Score: 1

      With Google search, I nearly always find what I'm looking for right at the top of my search

      Good for you. With google, I normally find five paid ads at the top of my search that aren't relevant. I have to scroll down to see the surprisingly small number of non-ad results that fit on the first page. Then there are another two paid ads underneath them. Bing is typically no better.

    15. Re:Have you ever noticed that ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It isn't trivia. It is called 'meta' search. It is something that Fast Search (now SharePoint's search) used to do for all sorts of corporate and public search engines and pretty much pioneered it. Wolfram is probably best at it now which is why Siri uses it. The Bing team have one goal and that is to crush Google at regular search sadly. They have had great starts to shopping(heck they had the best at one point), better ad networks, mobile, etc. and all were killed as they weren't directly attacking Google.

    16. Re:Have you ever noticed that ... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      I can remember when Altavista wasn't like that. Then it tried to become a vertol, or something like that.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    17. Re:Have you ever noticed that ... by TheCycoONE · · Score: 1

      That problem was solved, and there's a handy open source project aimed at full text indexing local source code for fast search based on it: http://swtch.com/~rsc/regexp/r...

      The original was kinda buggy for me, but this fork is working well: https://github.com/junkblocker...

    18. Re: Have you ever noticed that ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Webcrawler predated AltaVista by a year (AltaVista didn't appear until 95). BraWler was the first search engine to provide full text results, which means it was the first search engine as we know it today. The first search engine was W3catalog which went live a year before webcrawler (1993).

      There wasn't much pornography on W3Catalog; i was much happier to use webcrawler. Eventually the purpose built porn search engines (such as Bing, though Bing was not first) were released and the world was forever changed.

  11. Google Censorship by hyades1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    As a resident of Canada, I find that Google has put a search filter in place that I can't get around. Basically, it makes me type in specific words like "breasts" or "naked" if I want to see picture results including such things. I don't spend a lot of time looking for pornography, but I don't want to worry that 10% of the the Ontario Museum's art collection is off limits to me unless I specifically go on a search for boobies.

    No doubt this protects Miss Grundy and her fellow church ladies from the sight of the occasional naked breast, but I find it offensive and paternalistic, and as a result, I've cut back quite a lot on my use of Google.

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    1. Re:Google Censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Turn off safe search?

    2. Re:Google Censorship by quenda · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Basically, it makes me type in specific words like "breasts" or "naked" if I want to see picture results including such things.

      I think your memory is faulty. Safe-search will block nudity (Google is American), but is not over-ridden by such keywords.
      Remember the internet is so full of porn that the problem is not so much finding it, as avoiding it when you don't want it.
      So google tries to filter out porn unless certain keywords are seen. "naked" will disable the filter, but "breasts" will not. Try doing an image search on each and see the difference.
      Or vulva vs vulva nude . In a google search, nude=porn.

              So how do we find "nude art" - I see about 50% art, and a lot of non-medical vulva close-ups. Enabling safe-seach does not help as "nude" is removed from your search terms.
          Easy! Add -porn. https://www.google.com/search?...

      Since google appears quite capable of separating nudes from porn, I don't see why they cannot offer it as an easy option in the search filter settings.
      It could even be made the default setting outside the US and middle east, where people (vocal minority?) are not too shocked at nudes when searching for gallery art or baby feeding :-)

    3. Re:Google Censorship by WinstonWolfIT · · Score: 3, Funny

      Ah, I was wondering where Britney Spears disappeared to.

    4. Re:Google Censorship by AbRASiON · · Score: 1

      This person is correct, google fiddled with the adult search algorithm and broke it from standard 'google behaviour' the change is quite lame.

    5. Re:Google Censorship by houghi · · Score: 1

      Old Google Image Search does not only give you back the old layout. It also gives you the old way of searching.

      Basically it adds &safe=off If you are able to edit your search enigine, you could do something like:
      http://images.google.co.uk/images?sout=1&tbs=isz:lt,islt:4mp,qdr:m&safe=off&q=tits
      This will search 4MegaPixel images in the last month with no filtering with the search "tits". Compare that with
      http://images.google.co.uk/images?sout=1&q=tits

      By adding stuff to the URL you can easily define your search. Very handy if you always want to use the same filters. Will also work for the other searches. Parameters here and some extra in the discussion below it.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    6. Re:Google Censorship by AbRASiON · · Score: 1

      This person is incorrect and should be moderated down.

      Anyone on slashdot will know googles algorithm pretty well, it's very powerful and works exactly how most people would want a search to work, the use of quotation marks the use of the site:.com etc - it's robust and logical.

      When I search for a porn star INFAMOUS for a scene of having her ass gaped wide open by 3 black men and there's a famous shot of this, when I google her name the VERY FIRST RESULT in images, should be that image - and it used to be!
      It might not be nice but that's the facts, that's how it worked and it was bloody useful if you're on an adult material hunt.

      Now you would need to put that persons name in, EVEN with safe search off, you will NOT see said image, you'll get a couple of dodgy ones, nothing distinct. You need to specifically type "actress name, ass stretch" or something like that.
      Is this a nice topic? No
      Are google censoring their old classic algorithm for something more draconian? Yes
      Does disabling safe search fix it?
      No, definitely not.

      There's a 500 page google groups discussion on this very topic, I'm subscribed to it and it is still getting replies 2.5 years on since they made the change.

      Finally the person who pointed out this is actually filtering out art, is not only spot on but it's an interesting negative side effect which is not directly related to me finding nasty images.

    7. Re:Google Censorship by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      Thank you for this! Your help is very much appreciated.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    8. Re:Google Censorship by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      It seems I'm saying "Thank You" a lot as a result of my comment. You definitely earned one. And thanks, too, for going the extra mile to provide an excellent example of the way their new, censorship-friendly search works.

      As I said, I don't spend a lot of time looking for porn. On the other hand, I don't like some search engine screwing with MY search results because they're intent on sucking up to religious types and parents who can't be bothered to actually parent their kids.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    9. Re:Google Censorship by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      I think your grasp of this subject is flawed. The situation is exactly as I described it.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  12. Duck Duck Go by Snotnose · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I switched to ddg a year or two back because I thought google had too much information on me. Maybe 2-3 times a week I need to revert to a google search, but ddg is fine for 99% of my searches.

    1. Re:Duck Duck Go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1

      I try to lead a Google-free life and DDG is my go-to search engine. Any others I should be considering?

    2. Re:Duck Duck Go by Kernel+Krumpit · · Score: 1

      Doesn't everyone use DDG yet? Absolutely shocking! All my clients do and, they know why [adblockplus and scriptblock would be two of many reasons].

      --
      May the lies we live by make us strong, healthy, happy and wise - Kurt Vonnegut.
    3. Re:Duck Duck Go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      +1

      I try to lead a Google-free life and DDG is my go-to search engine. Any others I should be considering?

      Yes, https://ixquick.com or https://startpage.com

    4. Re:Duck Duck Go by Kernel+Krumpit · · Score: 0

      No!

      --
      May the lies we live by make us strong, healthy, happy and wise - Kurt Vonnegut.
    5. Re:Duck Duck Go by rewarp · · Score: 1

      Startpage has been my default since the Snowden leak. I have had to switch back to Google less than 10 times for the past year for some obscure error codes and other unsatisfactory search results.

      --
      In adding a sig, for no other reason, than for aesthetics.
    6. Re:Duck Duck Go by Kernel+Krumpit · · Score: 1

      Always good to have a Plan B. Always. Well done...

      --
      May the lies we live by make us strong, healthy, happy and wise - Kurt Vonnegut.
    7. Re:Duck Duck Go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. There's really no benefit. Your personal browser fingerprint can identify you, so what does it matter?

      Also, who are these idiots using yahoo? I don't like google, but jesus, at least google.com isn't spammy as fucking shit like yahoo is.

    8. Re:Duck Duck Go by MooseTick · · Score: 2

      A browser fingerprint is not that perfect. I've done an in-depth analysis looking at 4.4 billion hits and user agents are not that unique. From that I found 4.3 million unique user agents. About 9% of the overall daily traffic contained user agents that were only seen from a unique IP address. So, there is less than a 1 in 10 chance you can be fingerprinted. And, if/when you ever update your OS or browser there is a good chance you will be lost in the crowd again.

    9. Re:Duck Duck Go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For me it was the adverts, I have 'do not track' and yet Google would present me with personalized advertising, and my wife with her personalized advertising. They are clearly profiling PCs behind the NAT even if you say do not track.

      I decided it was enough and Google had become too invasive. I went through my Android tablets and was horrified to find that turning off location still permitted Google to track me, they have their own separate settings and watch the local WIFI for triangulation data, and the services run even if you turn off the feature they provide. Which is deeply troubling.

      I really want Google out, and a lot of small providers in. DDG was the obvious choice for search. Webmail has been ditched post NSA, so my gmail account has gone too to be replaced by an ISP mail.

      Like many, post Snowden we need to move away from these big US services.

    10. Re:Duck Duck Go by amber_of_luxor · · Score: 1

      For most sites, the two most critical things to track you are:
      * Originating IP Address;
      * User-Agent String;

      However, I've noticed an increasing number of sites that are not functional, when there is no referring header, or when adblock, or one of its variants is installed.

      --
      Wind Beneath Thy Wings
    11. Re:Duck Duck Go by KugelKurt · · Score: 1

      No. There's really no benefit. Your personal browser fingerprint can identify you, so what does it matter?

      Browser fingerbrinting relies on stuff like installed fonts, screen resolution, etc. – i.e. things not tweakable on many mobile platforms.

    12. Re:Duck Duck Go by Kernel+Krumpit · · Score: 0

      who are all these idiots using Google might be a question too?

      --
      May the lies we live by make us strong, healthy, happy and wise - Kurt Vonnegut.
    13. Re:Duck Duck Go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Baidu!


      HAHAHAH!

    14. Re:Duck Duck Go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I decided it was enough and Google had become too invasive. I went through my Android tablets and was horrified to find that turning off location still permitted Google to track me, they have their own separate settings and watch the local WIFI for triangulation data, and the services run even if you turn off the feature they provide. Which is deeply troubling.

      Instead of calling it "invasive" or "troubling", why not call it what it is: Evil.

      (Any company that tells you it won't be evil, is like a used car salesman telling you he's honest. If they have to say they are, they aren't.)

    15. Re:Duck Duck Go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DuckDuckGo (no spaces, dude), is da BOMB!

    16. Re:Duck Duck Go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I ever heard they are people who depend on MICROSOFT OPERATING SYSTEMS! Talk about screwing the pooch!

    17. Re:Duck Duck Go by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      Same here, DDG more than covers what I need. There's few things I need google for and half the time it's that I'm just not happy with DDG's image results so I'll check google and unfortunately often google won't have what I want either.

    18. Re:Duck Duck Go by swillden · · Score: 1

      For me it was the adverts, I have 'do not track' and yet Google would present me with personalized advertising, and my wife with her personalized advertising. They are clearly profiling PCs behind the NAT even if you say do not track.

      If you don't like personalized advertising (personally, if I have to see ads, I prefer that they're things I might actually care about, but YMMV), what you need to do is opt out of personalized advertising. Google provides a web control panel that allows you to opt out, but that sets an opt out cookie, which can get lost. So the easy and permanent way to opt out is to install the opt-out plugin Google provides: https://www.google.com/setting.... If you want to know exactly what that plugin does, it's open source: http://code.google.com/p/googl...

      AFAIK, Google does not pay attention to the "Do Not Track" setting in browsers: https://support.google.com/chr...

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    19. Re:Duck Duck Go by RyoShin · · Score: 1

      I did so in response to FireFox's default being changed to Yahoo!; I knew I didn't want Y!, but I didn't really want to go back to Google for the same reasons as you. DuckDuckGo was one of the other options immediately available (dunno if it came with it or I had installed that as an option years ago) and now I use that for my default.

      I miss some stuff about Google search--like the "instant facts" that often told me what I wanted to know, directly on the search results page--but I also find DDG to be competent enough to turn to Google very little.

  13. Google Now by Phil+Urich · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Google is actually trying to do exactly this with Google Now; predictively presenting you with information you'd otherwise be searching for is simple yet fairly innovative, arguably, and they're positioning it as the next advance in search. One might argue about the philosophy or practicality of that, but they are at least explicitly trying to completely remake what a search engine/page is.

    It's certainly noticed that I go up to my local university campus in the afternoon on a specific day every week (although it doesn't know why...yet) and when I pop open the Search app it already shows at the top result, before I even have the chance to enter a search for bus and train schedules, a set of routes and times for transit up to campus. There as sense in which that's all just an obvious outgrowth of networked data, so perhaps calling it "extra-ordinarily innovative" is a stretch, but it's definitely something new for a search engine, and at least for me (again, your mileage may vary, especially vis-a-vis privacy concerns) is very convenient.

    --
    I remember sigs. Oh, a simpler time!
    1. Re:Google Now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Google has been doing this for a while. For example, I travel to Chicago to DC a lot. The day before I leave, It shows my upcoming flight, gate information, when and if the flight gets delayed, weather in Chicago, suggests to me times when I should should leave my house to get to the airport on time based on traffic. When I land at my destination, it provides useful travel time and methods to get to the hotel it knows I have a reservation at, reminds me of the check in times AND also destinations in that city I typically frequent when I am there like my companies down town office and to our data center about 40 miles outside of town. A lot more and this is without me doing anything to input any of this, it is just there one click away. Sure, a lot of the suggestions are made based on my incoming emails it is scanning and my current location which a lot of people may not like but without me manually asking for all of that information or my adding and asking for it, how else could all of that possibly work? I am fine with that as long as Google continues to provide a service that I am directly benefiting from. Simply giving me only targeted ads like other search engines and services do based on information they collect from me provides ME no direct benefit, it only benefits that service and potentially those paying for those targeted ads. My AMEX is collecting my data every time I use the card. What do I get from that? Nothing except them trying to steer me to buying something from one of their partners. That is useless to me.

    2. Re:Google Now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reply to my own post, same AC here.

      Another thing I've noticed is Google was always showing me travel time to my office in downtown DC every morning. A few months ago I started working from home a lot. Eventually it stopped showing me that in the morning and started showing my travel time to my wife's office about noon everyday. I met her for lunch 3 or 4 times a week since I've been working from home. I believe on days I do go into the office it does not show me travel time to her office around lunch.

  14. Yes, it is the cause by Phil+Urich · · Score: 3, Interesting

    TFA almost says as much, basically, with Google losing 2.1% share, Yahoo gaining 1.8%, Bing gaining 0.4% and all others combined losing 0.1%. It's a pretty dramatic win for Yahoo and considering it occurs right after Firefox switched, I think it's pretty clearly that.

    I had to help the non-technical staff around my office because they were utterly confused when suddenly they started getting Yahoo results rather than Google, and sites they used to find so easily weren't showing up in their searches. I too had thought it was only going to be for new installs; was a bit of a rude awakening.

    --
    I remember sigs. Oh, a simpler time!
    1. Re:Yes, it is the cause by beakerMeep · · Score: 1

      Is it? How many people switched back after being switched without being asked?

      It might be but TFA is useless as far as details go.

      --
      meep
    2. Re:Yes, it is the cause by mysidia · · Score: 1

      I had to help the non-technical staff around my office because they were utterly confused when suddenly they started getting Yahoo results rather than Google, and sites they used to find so easily weren't showing up in their searches.

      Sounds like they were in need to switch to another search engine. If you're going to a search engine to find a specific website, then you are doing it wrong.

      We have this feature called bookmarks for navigating to sites that you know about.

    3. Re:Yes, it is the cause by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if you have a lot of bookmarks, the bookmarks are searchable, which is a great feature. Unfortunately, you can't search the current content of the pages they point to. Perhaps one of the browser makers will add a feature that lets you find the bookmark you're looking for when you only remember a bit of a phrase that should be on the page.

    4. Re:Yes, it is the cause by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      Should be possible to search the cache. Perhaps an extension?

    5. Re: Yes, it is the cause by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google is like a bookmarks search that knows about the current content, rather than shitty stale content from my cache.

      There's nothing wrong with using search engines instead of bookmarks. There is something wrong with using search engines when you already know the url (don't type Facebook.com into search) or when doing things like seach for "Facebook login" and blindly clicking the top result. Blindly clicking results is a good way to end up at a malicious site, and typing the url in your search is just a wasteful extra step.

  15. If you had selected something... by jopsen · · Score: 5, Interesting

    leave the existing people alone, mmm'kay?

    If you had chosen a search engine it would have... Only the default changed.
    IMO, I don't see a way to do this painlessly...

    Either way, I've actually started using yahoo in Firefox, and barely notice the difference.

    1. Re:If you had selected something... by amiga3D · · Score: 2

      Ah...that's what happened. I wondered how it got screwed up. I noticed one day that my searches weren't working the way I expected and I noticed I was suddenly using yahoo. I couldn't figure what the hell had happened. I changed it back to google and it stayed there but I was wondering.

    2. Re:If you had selected something... by CyberInferno · · Score: 2

      Either way, I've actually started using yahoo in Firefox, and barely notice the difference.

      If you're using Yahoo and barely noticing a difference, you should switch it to Bing.

      Bing powers Yahoo's search engine, and you get Bing Rewards points which you can redeem for real things. Bing has bought me $5 Starbucks cards at least once a month since I started using the rewards program.

    3. Re:If you had selected something... by Rob+Y. · · Score: 1

      If you had chosen a search engine it would have... Only the default changed.
      IMO, I don't see a way to do this painlessly...

      Perhaps. But they were pretty sneaky about it, saying as how the new search box simply says 'Search' with an hourglass icon. I believe it used to show your selected search engine's icon there. So they were deliberately (or contractually) deceiving you about the switch, IMHO.

      --
      Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
    4. Re:If you had selected something... by eihab · · Score: 1

      A couple of my installations with Bing set as the default search engine got switched to Yahoo after the update.

      Could've been a fluke during the update. It didn't bother me, it was easy enough to switch back to Bing.

      --
      If you can't mod them join them.
    5. Re:If you had selected something... by RyoShin · · Score: 1

      When I realized the difference after I upgraded, I actually changed my search engine to DuckDuckGo because I wanted to give that a shot rather than defaulting back to Google. So even if people didn't stick with Yahoo, the change may have helped other search providers.

  16. I was just about to say that 2 -- firefox & ya by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 2

    From November: http://tech.slashdot.org/story...
    "Google's 10-year run as Firefox's default search engine is over. Yahoo wants more search traffic, and a deal with Mozilla will bring it. In a major departure for both Mozilla and Yahoo, Firefox's default search engine is switching from Google to Yahoo in the United States."

    --
    A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
  17. Safe Search is never 100% off now by Phil+Urich · · Score: 4, Informative

    Turn off safe search?

    Actually, back in December 2012 Google tweaked things so that SafeSearch is, to a limited degree, always on; unless you explicitly search for "pornographic" materials they will generally filter out such results. As a Google rep put it in a statement to the press,

    We are not censoring any adult content, and want to show users exactly what they are looking for -- but we aim not to show sexually-explicit results unless a user is specifically searching for them.

    --
    I remember sigs. Oh, a simpler time!
    1. Re:Safe Search is never 100% off now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Has anyone compared the Google and Yahoo image search results for `MILF`?

      *Here* is where the search wars will be won - not even joking (much..) either.

    2. Re:Safe Search is never 100% off now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. After Google tweaked safe search I switched to Yahoo whenever I searched for images. I find it somewhat hypocritical how Google pushes openness and sensitivity but dictates what I can search for like some Baptist Sunday school teacher.

  18. Still not part of the lexicon by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 1

    Good for them but I highly doubt the phrase "Yahoo it" will catch on.

    1. Re:Still not part of the lexicon by KugelKurt · · Score: 1

      Good for them but I highly doubt the phrase "Yahoo it" will catch on.

      Why shoukd it? Search is not Yahoo's primary product. The web portal is.

    2. Re:Still not part of the lexicon by WinstonWolfIT · · Score: 1

      How about Google it on Yahoo?

  19. Google No. 1 by thuongsykx · · Score: 0

    On the Internet search market google No.1

    --
    http://chanhdaomy.com/
  20. Bling... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The only reason Bing has 12.5% of the market is because it is the default search engine for any MS-based product, including (especially) its cell phones. Most people switch to Google as quickly as possible, but some just keep the defaults.

    1. Re:Bling... by KugelKurt · · Score: 1

      The only reason Bing has 12.5% of the market is because it is the default search engine for any MS-based product, including (especially) its cell phones. Most people switch to Google as quickly as possible, but some just keep the defaults.

      I doubt Windows Phone has a market share big enough to make a dent. More likely Siri from iOS.

  21. tor exit nodes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google started blocking all tor exit nodes from submitting querries. Naturally the searching is going to have to go somewhere else.
    Someone who isn't blocking tor exit nodes.
    I've noticed other sites(cloudflare.com, etc) are blocking the exit nodes as well.

  22. Yahoo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's "Yah Who". Wait, I'll google it.

  23. Oh firefox changed its default? by n3r0.m4dski11z · · Score: 1

    I thought it was a mass revolt because of privacy issues. Silly me, no one cares about that.

    Just me and Kasabian...

    --
    -
  24. Firefox made MICROSOFT BING the default. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 2

    "Firefox makes Yahoo default"

    No, Firefox made Microsoft Bing search the default now: Advertise on the Yahoo Bing Network.

    That's giving some people the EEDIE Jeebies. Will Microsoft Embrace, Extend, then Demonically Implement Evil?

    If Microsoft stops providing Bing search, many people will desert Yahoo, stop seeing Yahoo ads, and Yahoo may slowly (quickly?) die.

  25. So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People are just getting worse results now. Say what you want about Google, but it still gives good search results.

    Yahoo! has been providing shit services, including search, since 1995. And for some of us actually getting the results we're looking for is what's most important, followed closely by not using Microsoft.

  26. Google is blocked in China, Yahoo is not by Nocturrne · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Level playing field? I think not.

    1. Re:Google is blocked in China, Yahoo is not by americanpossum · · Score: 1

      I'm a foreigner living in China right now, and you're right in that I tend to use Yahoo because it loads faster than Bing and I don't have to initialize a VPN to use it. However, the locals don't know how to use anything outside of Baidu, so I doubt that Chinese searches are significantly changing these statistics. There's only ~0.6 million foreigners in the country, and those in offices tend to have VPNs available, so I'm sure that they're still using Google on a regular basis.

    2. Re:Google is blocked in China, Yahoo is not by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      Who uses google in China? They use their own homegrown search.

    3. Re:Google is blocked in China, Yahoo is not by Nocturrne · · Score: 1

      I've lived in China for most of the last 15yrs. Everyone used to use google until it was blocked. People in the tech/electronics industry still use it, with VPN, if they can. Baidu and other Chinese search engines are nothing in comparison to google - they are extremely limited and aggressively filtered and monitored. They think they are promoting the development of domestic Chinese tech companies, but all they are really doing is creating corrupt monopolies and isolating their own people from the rest of the world.

  27. More about DIE, the Demonic Insertion of Evil by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 2

    More about DIE, the possible Demonic Insertion of Evil:

    If Microsoft eventually stops providing Bing search to Yahoo, Yahoo would no longer pay Mozilla to trick Firefox users into searching with Bing by switching to Bing as the default search engine, instead of Google search.

    Then Mozilla would have less money to develop Firefox. Would Microsoft's Internet Explorer then become the most-used browser?

  28. Stats not what they claim? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The stats look like bollocks. Google isn't available in China, where Baidu reigns supreme. Presumably someone forgot to tell us that this refers just to the USA, if the numbers mean anything.

  29. Fonts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Not so, you missed fonts, screen res, installed plugins and all the other data. Using just the user agent and ip address is not enough, but there are plenty of parameters available to the browser to take it to 1:1.

    https://panopticlick.eff.org/

  30. Competition is good by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    As much as MS and to a lessor extent partner Yahoo have ticked me off many times in the past, I still don't want a near monopoly in Search Land. Google is getting arrogant in some areas and they need to be kept in check.

  31. Why bother searching. by sgt+scrub · · Score: 2

    Real masochists slam their keyboard into their face until the site they are trying to reach comes up.

    --
    Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
  32. Sorry, but no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As much as I distrust Google for privacy they have innovated quite a bit, sometimes competing with other big players. As one easy example: G+ was supposed to be a safer version of Facebook/Myspace with stronger controls. If the whistle blowers had not pegged Google they could have easily picked up a huge amount of Facebook users. Today people don't trust either (or remain in blissful delusion but that's another story) so Google gained no market share in something that they could have owned a majority of.

    This shows that companies do innovate when they get large, it's that they are doing other things that make the innovation pointless to potential consumers.

  33. 2009 results v 2014/5 by warp_kez · · Score: 2

    2009 Search: Blue tits = Cyanistes caeruleus
    2014 Search: Blue tits = girls of Avatar

    1. Re:2009 results v 2014/5 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You didn't actually check did you. It's still birds.

  34. Anyone else find Google 'pretty bad' anyway? by hughbar · · Score: 1

    I use DuckDuckGo for the most part now. It's imperfect but, like many UK people, I dislike the tax-avoidance [edging on tax evasion], the hyper-intrusion and the unhealthy dominance of Google [and Amazon]. Before anyone from the US jumps on me, I would do the same for a UK [or French etc. etc.] owned organisation that displayed the same 'symptoms'.

    However, when I do use Google, usually via DuckDuckGo with !g, I notice that the results seem to be less relevant each month. I know they play around constantly with the algorithms and personal profiles [hence as an anonymous Googler, I get something less than optimal] but it's just 'not very good' now. As programmer I often go straight to Stack Exchange anyway, short-circuiting the search engine bit entirely.

    --
    On y va, qui mal y pense!
  35. Browser default search engine? by lippydude · · Score: 1

    Would this have anything to do with both Firefox and iExplorer now using Bing as the default search engine. Not to mention Windows apps that use Bing to do searches, which cannot be changed to any other search engine.

  36. Microsoft pays people to use Bing! by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "... Bing Rewards points ..."

    Microsoft pays people to use Bing!

    So, any supposed "popularity" of Bing (But It's Not Good) is at least partly due to the fact that Microsoft PAYS people to use it.

    To me, that's another example of Microsoft DIE, the Dastardly Inclusion of Evil.

    Bing Rewards FAQ quote: "I'm not a US resident, can I still join Bing Rewards? No, only U.S. residents (50 U.S. States and D.C.) are eligible to join Bing Rewards. Also, you can't earn or redeem credits when you're traveling outside of the US."

    1. Re:Microsoft pays people to use Bing! by davydagger · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Microsoft knows how to market to one type of person and one type of person only, the corporate purchasing manager. Both at OEMs, and at large corporations. Thats the only type of person who likes microsoft. Everyone else uses their products begrungingly. The word "Windows" in correlation to phone operating system is such a toxic brand name, I am damn supprised MS has continued to make windows phones. You couldn't put a gun to someone's head and make them use a windows phone, of which they had a 5 year head start on blackberry and apple, and still lost.

      The only brand MS has that people don't hate is X-Box, and thats runs a giant loss for the company.

  37. Google's counterpart to the NEAR operator by tepples · · Score: 1

    It had the NEAR keyword which helped filter pages that had keywords scattered across a page

    Google has something similar: the asterisk in a quoted phrase. For example, "foo * bar" will look for pages containing foo, then zero or a small number of words, then bar.

  38. Carrier-grade NAT by tepples · · Score: 1

    In the era of carrier-grade NAT on IPv4, "originating IP address" just identifies what city you're in at best.

  39. Show me the CARFAX by tepples · · Score: 1

    Any company that tells you it won't be evil, is like a used car salesman telling you he's honest. If they have to say they are, they aren't.

    Does "We offer CARFAX reports" on the dealership's door count as "having to say they are"?

  40. Houyhnhnm Land (OMG ponies) by tepples · · Score: 1

    Especially given the negative product placement the brand got in Gulliver's Travels, in which the Yahoos are a tribe of hunter-gatherer humans living on the border of what is essentially Equestria from My Little Pony.

  41. Verizon Wireless by tepples · · Score: 1

    A lot of Verizon-branded Android phones have shipped with Bing.

  42. Mayer-helmed - what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did I just read "Mayer-helmed"? Isn't "Yahoo, led by Marissa Mayer" sufficiently clear? Do we really need this kind of garbled phrase?

  43. Upgrade != reinstall by tepples · · Score: 1

    A continuous chain of upgrades from Windows 98se to Windows XP to Windows 7 to Windows 8.1, or from Ubuntu 4.something to 14.04, is plausible. Someone's done it all the way from Windows 1 to 7.

    1. Re: Upgrade != reinstall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Big issue is that Windows makes key decisions related to boot up during install and these make it difficult and sometimes impossible to move an HAD from one motherboard to another without reinstallation. Sysprep helped pre-Windows Vista, but wasn't perfect. Vista and Windows 7 have some imaging tool that I've not played with, so maybe those handle better.

      Needless to say, I'm not convinced someone could have a continuous upgrade stream of Windows from 1.0 to Win 7 without occasionally reinstalling. With Ubuntu, this is absolutely possible.

  44. mod parent up by Shakrai · · Score: 1

    That's an awesome find. Thank you very much for sharing it. :)

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  45. Much oblige !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wanted to see what a 2D block based results set would look like so I used Yahoo API to make an experimental search interface:
    http://www.hopblocks.com/

    Then I added a proxied keyword hi-lighting preview panel so I don't even have to visit pages.
    I use it for my own searches but you are free to try it

    Very interesting !

    Many thanks for sharing your site !!

  46. Yahoo has serious problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yahoo mail crashes often under Firefox, installed on a vanilla Fedora 21 workstation, and is incredibly slow when it isn't crashing.

    I've had to switch to Google Chrome to read my Yahoo mail!

    To use a Yahoo product, I have to use their competitor's browser! That's not a sign of a healthy company.

    Maybe it's time to switch to gmail.

  47. Build your own Google type light weight search by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Build your own Google type light weight search engine at your home
    http://www.nagaiah.com/google....

  48. Yahoo search somehow became the default on Chrome by TimJones55 · · Score: 1

    The default search engine on Chrome on the family computer used to be Google until it mysteriously switched to Yahoo. I switched it back a couple of times thinking that someone keeps installing something that does this, until once it switched back to Yahoo when no one other than me had used it. I fixed the issue by resetting Chrome's settings. Hmmm...