Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Lycos: Can't Get There From Here

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the aint-that-harsh dept.

rockville writes "I found this from Robot Wisdom, then I tried it myself: when you search Lycos for Excite, Yahoo, or Infoseek, you get a pretty strange result " I guess I can understand the reasons behind doing that, but it still feels kinda wrong. What do you think?

8 of 249 comments (clear)

  1. Delightfuly recursive! by plunge · · Score: 3

    click here to search for yahoo on lycos You get their page asking you to please consider them first. Read through as tears come to your eyes. Then- after they're done pitching to you, they finally say, basically: "Okay, if you still want to search for Yahoo on Lycos, click here. Guess where this link takes you? Read through again as tears come to your eyes....

  2. I can't blame them. by nicksand · · Score: 3
    Why should they feel obligated to send people to their competitors? Remember that these search engines live off advertising. Sending people away to (potentially) better places will be like biting the hand that feeds them.

    Besides, any dip who can't figure out that yahoo is located at yahoo.com, or infoseek at infoseek.com, deserves what they get.

    Conclusion: there is nothing to get your panties in a knot about here. The actions of Lycos aren't harmful or menancing.

    1. Re:I can't blame them. by RSevrinsky · · Score: 3
      Besides, any dip who can't figure out that yahoo is located at yahoo.com, or infoseek at infoseek.com, deserves what they get.

      Actually, I had a good reason for using one search engine to find another just last week.

      I was at a branch of the New York Public Library. They've been switching over from dumb terminals (which you can use from home - just telnet to nyplgate.nypl.org and login as "leo") to a Windows-based GUI, hybridized with a Netscape browser. However, to prevent the average user from surfing the Web on machines obstensibly set up for searching the library catalog, URLs cannot be entered into the Location field and the Open Page dialog is disabled.

      As I was on the road during my lunch hour, and needed to check an address for my next stop, I spent about 5 minutes coming to the realization I have described above. Fortunately, the NYPL GUI helpfully links you to "approved" or "recommended" web resources, such as other libraries and literary sites. It took me about another minute to find an "approved" site that got me to Yahoo. From there, I went to AltaVista. From there, I could have gone anywhere -- with or without the ability to explicitly enter the URL.

      WRT to the library, this whole incident demonstrates the idiocy of the library's effort to disable normal browser usage. The web is too interconnected to give a user a tiny subsection, short of not actually connecting to the Internet and using cached/offline versions of the "accepted" pages.

      But, much more importantly, WRT to search engines confusing or removing their competitors from their search databases, it runs contrary to the spirit of the web and their entire raison d'etre. You want to find out about Yahoo on Lycos? No problem! Here's Yahoo itself, here's a parody site, here's a testimonial for Oracle. Search engines are expected to rate according to relevance, but not to editorialize. It's unprofessional, and confusing as all hell to the newbies.

      If a search engine wants to distinguish itself on technical merits (like Google) or excellent design, it shouldn't act like a sleazy appliance salesman ("you don't wanna shop there, buddy...I gotta great deal for you right here....")

      - Richie

  3. Guarantee by RobertGraham · · Score: 4
    From their page: "And we guarantee that you'll like us."

    Um, what if I don't? Do I get my money back?

  4. Content Neutrality threatened by Naive Marketers by Effugas · · Score: 5

    In philosophy and law, there's the concept of "content neutrality". To condense it down to its core, it basically means that busineses and structures don't care *what* they're working with; they merely work with whatever the customer provides.

    In computing terms, most processes that take data in from a pipe are content neutral--it doesn't matter what you toss into mmencode, or tr, or mail. The apps perform a function on content--whatever that content happens to be is irrelevant.

    The key to Content Neutrality is consistency. It's not enough to merely be "sometimes" or "usually" neutral.

    Content Neutrality forms the protective construct in law that insulates from liability, for example, web site providers for the contents of their customer's web pages, email providers for the words and possible contraband relayed blindly over their networks, and telephone companies from being liable for bomb threats made over their lines.

    If web site providers constantly monitor any of their sites, they're liable to constantly monitor all of them. The same goes for voice and email providers, who would quickly go out of business if they had to make sure no contraband speech passed over their lines. Telephone providers do not monitor any lines for contraband--that's not their job. Making sure a line exists is.

    Content Neutrality gives the information industry it's primary shield against those who would exploit their infrastructure to blindly suppress both the criminal and the innocent.

    Content Neutrality is also the only thing protecting the entire search engine industry from instant extinction.

    What happens if I find a kiddie porn site through Google(as far as I can tell, it can find anything)?) What happens when some 12 year old kid at the local library finds www.whitehouseinterns.com off Yahoo? Or when anyone picks a song off of mp3.lycos.com? (Half of the Lycos employees who are reading this just went ghost pale.)

    By preventing searches for site competitors from bringing up standard spider results, Lycos is accepting the role of gatekeeper, verifying that users aren't going to be led anywhere they shouldn't be led.

    This Is Not A Position Lycos Wants To Be In!!!

    Such a precedent means that Lycos would have to proactively verify the age of those who find sex sites through their search engine--after all, young children shouldn't be led to X rated sites. It means that Lycos could be held responsible for guiding people to fan sites--after all, illicit photography scanned from magazines should not be republished. Anything and everything Lycos does would have to go through an insurmountable gauntlet of legal checks before a return could be allowed, all because Lycos chose to sacrifice their content neutrality for the sirens of market share and myopia.

    This is no joke. Content Neutrality is the reason why you can call MCI via AT&T Long Distance and ask them to change your service, rather then having your call redirected to a Ma Bell hard sell sales associate.

    Somebody needs to slap Lycos's lawyers around a bit--someone fell asleep at the wheel.

    Yours Truly,

    Dan Kaminsky
    DoxPara Research
    http://www.doxpara.com

  5. Re:Pinko Commie BASTARDS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3

    If he's fucking you in the ass, then technically, he's still filling your cavity.

  6. Re:Content Neutrality threatened by Naive Marketer by kuro5hin · · Score: 3

    Google doesn't seed their results. This has been explained here many many times before. They are not doing the same thing. It's simply a weird emergent behaviour of their search algorithms.

    ----
    Morning gray ignites a twisted mass of colors shapes and sounds

    --
    There is no K5 cabal.
    I am not the real rusty.
  7. Re:Content Neutrality threatened by Naive Marketer by Effugas · · Score: 5

    Someone might also want to inform our good
    friends over at Google about this.

    It is hard to justify "worst operating system"
    coming up with www.microsoft.com. Especially
    when I think only the word operating is on the
    page.

    The same is also with "best operating system"
    coming up with linux.com

    Also "more evil than satan" also takes you through
    to microsoft.com.

    Sure this is funny and all but why is this any
    different to the Lycos case.

    Your post is more unintentionally relevant than you might think.

    According to Google's scans, Microsoft is more closely associated with people writing on their web pages "worst operating system" than anyone else. Similarly, Linux gets the best operating system treatment.

    Google is not a dumb engine--instead of merely rating by what's on the page, it rates by how people refer to the contents *of* the page. This is an incredibly cheap way to "borrow" intelligence from systems that can process complex information neurologically(human brains) and insert it into systems that can only marginally approximate that kind of intelligence.

    Google executes its intelligence gathering in a Content Neutral manner, thus insulating it from any libel/slander that might result from returning certain values. Because Google didn't rig the system to have it return Microsoft as More Evil Than Satan, it's not their fault that that was the top hit.

    If, however, Google removed that response, they'd be responsible for removing every response that could possibly be interpreted as slanderous. Note, this isn't the same as changing the algorithm to be more accurate--this is programming a specific "don't return this".

    Yours Truly,

    Dan Kaminsky
    DoxPara Research
    http://www.doxpara.com