Slashdot Mirror
Google in The New York Times
pq writes "The New York Time is running a mainstream review of Google, and how it plans to remain free of banner ads. (NYT, free registration, blah blah.)
" Nice little bit - with a bit of the history to the site and what they plan to do - and check out the other jobs at Google. Head Chef - maybe I wouldn't have to eat packet o' sauce and noodles all the time.
I started using Google a few weeks ago and have not used another search engine since.
It just works, the way a search engine should work.
I can't tell you how many times I have looked at the nonsensicle spew other search engines produce and wonder what their programmers were thinking.
Search results that don't appear to contain ANY of the key words, search results that include page upon page of links to the SAME site (how easy is that to correct - come on). Ever just try to type a company name into the other search engines? You are lucky if their home page pops up in the first ten pages of results.
Google comes pretty damned close to what I would expect from a human with almost encyclopedic knowledge of the web. It comes the closest to ranking relevancy the way humans do. Its a shame it took this long for someone to get it right, but I am glad it's here now.
-josh
Do you know if Google respects the http headers for cache-control and expiration? If they serve pages past their expiration, or serve non-public or dynamic pages, I can understand your concern. However, if they respect the protocols, then how are they doing anything different than a publicly-accessable cache (squid, etc..)? If they respect the caching protocols, then why don't you just configure your server to your preference?
--
Search on "best search engine". altavista and Yahoo are #1 and #2, and whowehere is #4. I honestly don't think these funny results were planted by google on purpose. They do seem to say something about: :-)
A) Google's ranking algorithms-- they apparently aren't kidding when they say that linking is a big factor, and
B) How much vocal hatred there is on the net for M$
----
We all take pink lemonade for granted.
There is no K5 cabal.
I am not the real rusty.
I'm having fun searching for odd stuff though, I must say.
----
We all take pink lemonade for granted.
There is no K5 cabal.
I am not the real rusty.
Google finds the right terms more often than all other search engines I know of combined (!). Google really gets the right results first. Google simply is the best. So I switched to Google on my ISP's homepage.
It didn't last long, and my chief (he's a convinced M$ supporter) discovered the change and asked me why I did it, and what this Gogolele is about. After I showed him the difference searching for some common terms, but also some locally related stuff, on Altavista as well as Google, he was convinced and stopped complaining: "Bravo, you did the right thing - we're always trying to give our clients the best service - and Google fits our needs"
Some of our clients still send me e-mails asking, why I choose this silly beta search engine, which doesn't even find his look-how-cool-I-am personal homepage. But when I ask them to try to search for some terms on both search engines, I silence them easily.
ms
PS: I'm still missing the "Try your query on other engines", when Google doesn't find, what I search for. I don't need to try other search engines, if Google finds the right URL. So this really should be the other way round (I already asked for this in another post on slashdot some months ago).
"In practice, for each Web page Google basically sums the scores of other locations pointing to it. So, when presented with a specific query, Google can respond by quickly retrieving all pages containing the search text and listing them according to their preordained ranks."
n .html
http://www.sciam.com/1999/0699issue/0699raghava
It's a good article on the new wave of search techniques.
L.
Imagine using your same argument to the recording industry lawyers when your local record shop started selling CD copies of music as well as offering the "real thing". Your theory that they are simply providing a "historical record" would be laughed out of court.
Also, simply because an item is available to the public DOES NOT MEAN you lose your rights to protect it or manage it's distribution. Look at all the open source code out there, if we applied YOUR theory, the GPL would not be enforceable since the person made their code PUBLIC hence they lose their rights to protect it.
Your argument is full of holes.
Bad comparison. Try saying Radio acts like a proxy server for CDs ... does that mean the music has no copyright and the artists cannot control how the radio plays it? No way.
I'll tell ya what, you tell me when your company starts giving public access to my content and I'll have my lawyers give 'em a call.
There is such a thing as private use exclusions, look 'em up.
You show me another search engine that offers up my ENTIRE CONTENT without my consent and I'll be after them too.
You are blurring the lines between indexing content for search results and SERVING CONTENT without permission.
I don't think I'm the one needing a bash over the head with the clue-by-four if you ask me.
And just how well would your IT job be paying right now if previous technology companies HAD NOT protected any of their IP smart guy?
You'd be making LESS than me flipping burgers if anyone could come along and steal what your company spent millions developing and then give it away.
It always amazes me how the same people who RELY on these sorts of protections for their pay check, bash those who voice their concerns about losing these rights in this forum.
Truly sad.
God, when will people start READING what people post here instead of reading what they want to rant about?
... it will make you look a little less ignorant in the long run.
When did I EVER say you were wrong for having Netscape cache my page? Never.
The whole point of this discussion is that Google is taking a COPY of my entire content and serving it up without my permission and/or knowledge. It's that simple.
This type of "service" does NOT fall under any fair use or private use exclusion of US copyright law, it is STEALING plain and simple.
Ever wonder why you can make a few copies of pages in a book without a problem, yet if you copy the WHOLE BOOK, you are infringing on their copyright? The SAME EXACT premise is in use in this discussion.
So as my subject line says, try READING what I write before you go off half-cocked asking what the hell is wrong with me
You know, if everyone covers this story (and it looks like just about everyone has) and they keep providing links to Google in reference to the "more evil than Satan himself" phrase, then pretty soon Google will find itself as often referenced in connection to evil, and they'll appear as one of the results to the search...
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
search for the following phrase:
"more evil than Satan himself"
You'll see that Google is actually more accurate and intuitive than many people think.
Cheers to BeDope (www.bedope.com) for pointing this out...
Not that I'm against banner ads, but let's not get crazy. They do plan on adding advertising. Read this little piece of doublespeak ...
http://www.google.com/advertisement.html
"Those who would give up essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin,
Its amazing how Google does great searches and if it doesn't go the bloat route like dejanews did, the good life will never end.
The clean Google interface and great results seems to be one of the greatest gifts of the internet. Its gives me great hope that services such as this are given to the community.
Pass: malda
--
see google's own way of doing it :)
It doesn't handle phrase searches properly, like most search engines.
First, when a word in Initial Caps is typed in, it should default to a phrase search. For example, any three words typed in (Hillary Rodham Clinton) should be assumed to be a phrase first, and all results with this phrase should show up at the top of the page. Then the results in which the three words are not contiguous should appear.
Try searching for "World New York." Do you see any pages with "World New York"? No.
Now try searching for "related:www.worldnewyork.com" The "World New York" pages are in there. Why don't they come up in the phrase search?
I use phrase searching equally as much as majority-word results, so this is a real shortcoming to me.
[Majority-word results are when you type in a bunch of words that you'd like to appear in the results and the pages returned for your search are ranked with those having the majority of the search terms you entered at the top.]
Wordnik, a dictionary project which aims to collect
... and it has NOTHING to do with your ability to comprehend the English language.
I'll respond to all 3 of your posts here to further the cause of letting this flamewar die.
#1- You don't rely on any IP for your paycheck.
Hah, does your job/school have a name, well it's trademarked/copyrighted and people do business/attend due to their reputation attached to that trademarked/copyrighted name. I'm sure your parents also rely on such protections for THEIR livelihood.
#2- You have my site in Netscape's cache.
How many times to I have to say that since you're not REPUBLISHING my site without my permission, that I don't have a problem with the contents of your cache?!? Please for the love of god get a clue about your private use rights and how they relate to copyright law.
#3- Also, what is "entirety"?
Look up "Fair Use" and then maybe you'll have a clue what "entirety" means in regards to copyright law.
This is my last response to you on this since after caching YOUR site, I've realized that rational thought just may very well be impossible for you.
Good day.
Well, I took a lot of heat for my comments about Google.com's practice of caching complete pages and re-serving them without the site owner's permissions.
... or maybe both, but within 24 hours, Goggle.com no longer listed a cached version of ANY of my pages that showed up in their search.
Well, I emailed Google.com telling them to STOP caching the pages on my site and I gave them 3 days to respond. Their FAQ has a very arrogant "answer" for the question "how to I stop Goggle from caching my pages" so I expected a similar email response. I was pleasantly surprised when I got the response. Maybe it was my posts here or my threat of legal action
I still do not like the practice of violating people's copyrights before the fact and forcing site owners to "ask" to stop having their content stolen.
I'm not sure if I'm finished with this issue or the larger issue of the rights of site owners versus the big corporations. We'll see I guess.
Have any of you tried the text only version of Alta Vista. It's results aren't that bad and it's ultra fast even on those slow connections. No banner ads; just beautiful, plain text like a search engine should be. There used to be a link to it off their main page, but they removed it when Compaq took over, but the URL and search engine still work. The URL is http://www.altavista.com/cgi-bin/query?text
However, when I'm unsure of the exact terms to use for a search, or have to experiment to find the right search terms, I still get better results using a ranked metasearch - the best I've found is MetaCrawler.
I can see the fnords!
I know people here hate Copyrights, Patents, Trademarks, etc. ... but where does Google get off caching my site and then SERVING MY COPYRIGHTED CONTENT without my permission?
... uhmmm no. I OWN my content and you will remove it when I say, that's what Copyrights are all about. Much of our legal system is based on the individual rights of property owners, I find it appalling that people would try to throw these rights away for the sake of a search engine.
Their arrogant FAQ answer says a lot about how they feel about this:
Q: How do I request that Google not returned cached material from my site?
A: Google stores many web pages in its cache to retrieve for users as a back-up in case the page's server temporarily fails. If requested to do so by a site owner, Google may remove certain cached content from the Google Search Services. We evaluate requests for removal of cached content on a case-by-case basis and do not guarantee that every request will be granted.
Remove content on a case-by-case basis
Needless to say I will NOT be using Google and they will prompty be placed in the deny section of my robots.txt.
They don't have a brand yet."
And yahoo didn't mean anything other than yippee until three years ago. A lot of the tech press seems to have this feeling that if something isn't "instantly" popular, it won't stick. I remember things that were instantly popular, we called 'em fads and they disappeared after a month.
Google gets my eyeballs 'cause it does what it does the best, period. I would much rather they go the "embedded tech" route vs. the "me2portal", which isn't working for most of them, and definitely won't work for new players.
+&x
"Now if someone else can explain where they saw it before then I'll start being impressed.."
/02/19/0833230.shtml
1) Look at this old article on Slashdot from *February*.
2) Scroll all the way down to the end.
3) Notice part about "more evil than the devil".
4) Be impressed.
http://slashdot.org/articles/99
As a user, I love google's search engine. However, I noticed their 'jobs' page a couple weeks ago. And some of the job offers are really extravagant, especially for a startup firm. It really makes me wonder what they're doing over there. I've seen a few highly sucessfull startup firms, hi-tech firms at that, and they'd never consider hiring a cook or massuese (ph.) If they're willing to hire with such abandon, I wonder how sound their business plan really is....
On another note, I find google's belief that they can create sufficient revenue without banner ads intriguing. Does anyone know how they're doing thus far? They profitable yet...how many years/months away?
I'm working on a project, an internet site, and i'm curious if anyone has any other alternative ways to generate revenues w/o the use of banner ads. Unfortunately, I can't disclose the concept behind the project at this point, but it would be of much help. It is not necessarily going to be commercial,