Honeymoon Over For Google?

scubacuda writes "Business Week has an article on some of the challenges Google faces as it gains popularity. For a while, things were looking good: unobtrusive ads, a hardware search appliance, and the fact that 'google' has become a verb (like xerox, kleenex, hoover, etc.). Now, Yahoo! has dropped the 'exclusive' part of its contract, Overture won a series of key contracts, Verity has announced a deal to purchase Inktomi's assets, and Y! announced it was buying Inktomi's web-search business. And other engines such as WiseNut, Teoma, and FAST now mimic Google's 'popularity placement technology.'"

Kleenex A Verb?

[by Anonymous Coward]

Hey, Kleenex your grammar!

Re:Kleenex A Verb?

[Dirtside (91468)]

Why? Kleenex is a perfectly cromulent verb.

Re:Hoover A Verb?

[slickwillie (34689)]

I think Hoover was a verb in the Great Depression.

Like:

Herbert Hoover: "Prosperity is just around the corner."

Bum: "Hey, Hoover this!"

Re:Kleenex A Verb?

[Jeremi (14640)]

We've never truly seen Google behaving in an aggressive, competitive way

It's ironic that creating a superior product at a low price (free, in this case) is no longer considered "competitive behaviour". These days, you aren't considered "competitive" unless you are engaging in anti-competitive behaviour (customer lock-in, standards pollution, collusion, etc).

Changes nothing

[TheCrimsonUnbeliever (638597)]

It still does not change the fact:

People love google

Everyone is now using it - as it is small - light - fast - easy - and good

People have irc scripts that use it - Embed it in their webpages

I for one hope that google lasts - I would even pay a small amount if it would help keep them going

Re:Changes nothing

[Anonvmous Coward (589068)]

"I for one hope that google lasts - I would even pay a small amount if it would help keep them going"

Gotta wonder what it would take to dethrone Google, thouogh.

Personally, I think their image search is great. If they'd beef that up a bit, I'd be seriously considering a subscription not unlike the kind Slashdot has. $5 for 1,000 image searches or something like that. The catch is that it'd have to be better than the one today. Perhaps if they had a rewards system where you could earn searches by taking pics around the web and logging meta-data for them or something.

Re:Changes nothing

[On Lawn (1073)]

I think their News search is downright revolutionary. Not only do I get news categorized by what people really want to see but I can instantly check out viewpoints from all sides at the same time.

Its now my primary news source.

Re:Changes nothing

[6hill (535468)]

What I find most interesting about the Google News service is its equalising factor when it comes to news sources. NY Times is right alongside Kansas City Star, Slashdot, and Arutz Sheva as an equal news source. No longer does one viewpoint dominate a news item, but instead, there exists a one-stop shop for all takes and opinions on an issue. How fabulous is that?!

This brings a whole new twist to what is a respectable news source and more importantly, maybe also teaches something about how important it is to read also "reputable" news sources (Reuters, BBC, etc.) with healthy scepticism and criticism. How post-modern, this breaking down of establishment as the only reliable source of information.

Re:Changes nothing

[chimpo13 (471212)]

People loved hotbot, and altavista too. And lots of people search on yahoo. If yahoo changes, it'll open a big crack.

Think of a catchy name and start a search engine. Something like "Compuglobalhypermeganet" would do well.

Yes it does...

[registro (608191)]

Google may be great, but it is holding way too much power, and have been behaving lately like a ruthless monopoly [com.com], and has been doing a number of cuestionable things, like aiding the Scientology and China set up barriers to free speech [wired.com].

Google does 90% of the non-msn queries, and that's pretty close to controlling the flow of information on the Internet, something that certainly scare the hell out of many folks out there.

To see other companies truly trying to compete with Google is really very good, good news.

Re:Yes it does...

[nmg (614483)]

Google controls nothing which is not their property to begin with. If Google becomes too abusive, people will go elsewhere. End of story.

Re:Changes nothing

[Psx29 (538840)]

It still does not change the fact: People love google Everyone is now using it - as it is small - light - fast - easy - and good People have irc scripts that use it - Embed it in their webpages I for one hope that google lasts - I would even pay a small amount if it would help keep them going

Isn't this kind of ideology exactly what let to the 'dot-com crash'. People invested lots of capital in companies that people enjoyed but weren't necessarily very profitable. I think google is the latest subject to this phenomenon. Although I could be,and hope that I am, wrong.

Yeah, but they still get the hits

[The_K4 (627653)]

They may start to see more channenges, but by and large people will still "google" things. People who always use google will as long as they remain a great search engine...if they start letting the results slip, then all bets are off.

Re:Yeah, but they still get the hits

[by Anonymous Coward]

the real power is at

http://groups.google.com/

(the artist formerly known as dejanews)

if they start charging for access...i'm screwed...cause i'll HAVE TO PAY!

it's that good!

Google

[by Anonymous Coward]

The honeymoon may be over, but Google is still getting laid.

Want to know why? Press ALT-HOME to find out.
I actually click on Google's ads.

Re:Google

[by Anonymous Coward]

No, silly. ALT-HOME takes you to Slashdot;
Clicking on the URL bar and typing "goo" takes you to Gooogle. :)

Google Easily Explained

[Bonker (243350)]

1. Google has accurate, intelligent search lists.
2. Google does not pollute those lists with advertisements.
3. Google loads quickly and does not attempt to invasively control your machine with javascript or other methods.

If Google changes any one of these three things to make more money based on their popularity, then their popularity will wane and they will eventually make less money.

Note to Google: Don't kill the golden goose just yet.

Re:Google Easily Explained

[Anonymous Hack (637833)]

3. Google loads quickly and does not attempt to invasively control your machine with javascript or other methods.

This is not true, as many Canadian users have known for a while and many Australian users such as myself have just discovered. Google now redirects the front page (www.google.com) to a country-specific front page based on your IP address. Sure, it's a nice service to have local information available (the paid advertisements down the side change to local advertisements, amongst other things), but it really sucks that you're forced to use it. Most users don't know to change their bookmark to http://www.google.com/intl/en/ [google.com] to return to the "real" Google, so they're stuck with it. This was the number one reason why i changed from Alta Vista to Google in the first place, and now i'm really wondering whether i should stick with it. raging.com [raging.com] is Alta Vista's minimal search, and it's just as fast and sleek as google, AND it doesn't assume just because you come from 203.x.x.whatever you're automatically interested in Australian content.

Re:Google Easily Explained

[Edgewize (262271)]

There isn't the purpose of the international Googles. It is /not/ trying to assume that you want Australian content. It is trying to comply with whatever laws exist in your country.

For example, some European countries get very uppity if a search returns sites with pro-Nazi content. Those Google pages have to filter out the things that would be illegal for Google to serve in those countries. Likewise, I'm told that internet pornography is banned in Australia. Now I don't know that for a fact, or whatever other laws there are about content censorship in Australia, but you can see where I'm going with this.

The international Googles are not so much to steer you to nationalized content, but rather to allow Google to comply with international laws.

Re:Google Easily Explained

[egjertse (197141)]

Wrong; the above code causes the query text input box to get focus once the page loads, so you don't have to click it manually to enter a query. A very useful, and common, feature. document.f.q refers to the widget named "q" in the form named "f".

I'm all for it

[dusanv (256645)]

I'm so dependent on Google (professionally & personaly) that it's becoming scary. I don't know what I'd do if disaster struck (they folded, got bought by MS or something similar). As soon as someone comes close to the quality their searches I'll feel better.

Wisenut?

[Sandman1971 (516283)]

Why was wisenut added to this list? Doesn't look like a stable site to me. I'm really sure they're gonna give google a run for their money :P
--------------
The page cannot be displayed
There is a problem with the page you are trying to reach and it cannot be displayed.

Please try the following:

* Click the Refresh button, or try again later.
* Open the www.wisenut.com home page, and then look for links to the information you want.

HTTP 500.100 - Internal Server Error - ASP error
Internet Information Services

Technical Information (for support personnel)

* Error Type:
Microsoft VBScript runtime (0x800A004C)
Path not found /index.html, line 14

* Browser Type:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20021130

* Page:
GET /index.html

* Time:
Tuesday, January 14, 2003, 2:27:11 PM

* More information:
Microsoft Support

Re:Wisenut?

[Sandman1971 (516283)]

But I'm saddened to see yet another Slashdotter using Windows NT 5.1. Surely you can tear yourselves away from the soft, familiar womb that is Windows.... Try it, give it a go, be adventurous. You might never leave the town your were born in, but do something crazy, wild, exciting in your life....

Ya know, I'm kinda getting sick of always seeing this on slashdot.

So I happen to be surfing on my windows box. Yippee! My linux boxes I mostly use as servers (web/mail/firewall),coding and work (I'm a sysadmin in a mostly Sun shop) because that's what they're best at (not to mention one is a P200 that I don't even dare launch X on). I use my windows box to do net stuff (cuz face it, alot of browser plugins and such arent available on windows), gaming and graphics work. I'm thinking of even getting a Mac to do my graphics work instead of doing it on Windows.

Linux is good for some things, Windows for others and Macs for other things. I use whatever platform is best for what I want to do. No OS is the be all and end all of operating systems. They all have their different strengths and weaknesses. So be adventurous, open your mind, don't be narrowminded.

Windows user since 1990
Unix user since 1991 (AIX)
Linux user since 1993-94
Solaris user since 1998
and possible future Mac user

Honeymoon over for Slashdot?

[by Anonymous Coward]

Trouble for /.?

• Too many weak stories, the result of overposting caused by a shoddy revenue model
  
• Too many of those are dupes
  
• A moderation system that promotes closed-minded groupthink and usenet-style trolling, driving away interesting debate and discussion
  
  

Hmmm... looks bad... VA should start shopping this jalopy around...

google, wonderful

[scovetta (632629)]

Google has IMHO the best search-engine technology around. However, the time is coming for more intelligent engines--content based searching is around the corner, and I'm sure that development is being done at Google. I want to search for pictures by content (not by filename). I want a larger set of query commands (NEAR, etc). Kartoo [kartoo.com] has an intuitive (and addicting) interface, and the ties it generates are... cool.
I don't think google losing some contracts will mean very much. Anyone can piggy back off of them, and if they can make a better product, more power to them, but I think google is around to stay.
Any word on an IPO?

Re:google, wonderful

[LostCluster (625375)]

Any word on an IPO?

That'll be the end of Google if that happens. If it does, buy it if you can get into it early on the first day, sell it in the afternoon and then never touch it again.

Google is governed by the rules of designing the best product for the users, and then profits will take care of itself. If they ever got profit-minded ownership, the distingishing feature of having user-friendly ads only will quickly go away because of the demands of investors who'd rather a short term big surge instead of a slow but long and steady return.

What I'd like to know

[TerryAtWork (598364)]

Is whatever happened to Alta Vista. Remember when they ruled the search engine universe?

I first heard of Google when I got a semi-hysterical letter from Assembler God Steve Gibson raving about it.

I didn't abandon AV until after their second edition of Personal Alta Vista insisted on using my browser (where the first edition used a little window) and engendered a whole bunch of 505 errors and became useless.

They HAD to add a layer of complexity... :-(

So whatever DID happen to Alta Vista?

Re:What I'd like to know

[divide overflow (599608)]

[What I'd like to know is] whatever happened to Alta Vista. Remember when they ruled the search engine universe?

The relevant history can be found here [clubi.ie]. AltaVista was probably the single biggest casualty of Google...prior to Google it had the largest index of webpages. But Google did a better job of indexing and presenting the content for people's needs, then the index became the largest on the web. AltaVista lost the race, so much so that most people nowadays have never even heard of AltaVista.

Re:What I'd like to know

[Roosey (465478)]

There's an article that describes its demise pretty well here [guardian.co.uk].

It tried to be a "portal site," only it wasn't a very good one at all. Botched implementation, a cluttered site and a search engine left unimproved sent a lot of users fleeing over time.

I guess they learned their lesson, albeit too late. If you look at their site now as compared to their site in 2000 [archive.org] you can see a significant difference.

Patents?

[tweakt (325224)]

And other engines such as WiseNut, Teoma, and FAST now mimic Google's 'popularity placement technology.

If you can't beat em, sue 'em?

Wrong link to FAST in story

[McDutchie (151611)]

Surffast.com is just a meta search engine, the FAST that is meant here is at alltheweb.com.

PageRank isn't the only thing Google uses...

[sgtsanity (568914)]

Google uses (at the last count I've seen) over 50 different factors in deciding what ranking a website should get on a certain search term. Part of their monthly rankings dance is rebalancing the importance of these factors to try to maintain the integrity of the results. Searchking's earlier lawsuit was over the effects of one earlier dance. PageRank is only the most visible of the components deciding a page's score, due to it's ingeniousness and to it being the only quantitative data released about the evaluation process (because of the google toolbar).

Also, don't forget about google's wildly successful Pigeon rank [google.com] system.

This is good news

[divide overflow (599608)]

Competition between search engines spawned Google. Google did a better job, so it became more popular. If someone else can do a better job...that's progress. Google has a lead and name recognition. If they are smart and keep making good decisions they can stay ahead. Otherwise they will fall into the shadows as AltaVista did years ago.

Google helps decide popularity (such as porn)...

[$$$$$exyGal (638164)]

Google is even used to see what scripting language is being used most by the porn industry [slashdot.org].

There are tons of "races" like that on the Internet. Google gets to decide the winners. Yes, it is just silly fun, but the point is that the masses accept google as the definitive source.

--naked [slashdot.org]

Gartner's priorities

[sczimme (603413)]

From the article:

"Building a channel at the low end is miserable. You have to send people to trade shows where there's no carpet and extension chords are snaking across the floor," says Whit Andrews, an analyst with tech consultancy Gartner.

Gee, I'm glad Gartner has a handle on all this business stuff. No carpet... the horror!

Besides, everyone knows the E-flat diminished ninth is the most dangerous chord; you could lose a finger.

Search

[blackmonday (607916)]

Google's "competitors" are not. Yahoo is now a portal for email and stock quotes. Overture makes money by charging businesses for position in the search results. This is a different approach, because Google's search listings are not compromised. Ads are clearly labeled. Google is wildly profitable too, although Overture breaks a little better than even, hence so much attention by the media. Google has little real "competition", rather "imitators".

Plus, on holidays they have cool little themes for their logo.

Cache?

[Col. Klink (retired) (11632)]

And which of these alternatives have something like google's cache?

Googling.

[NeoSkandranon (515696)]

and the fact that 'google' has become a verb (like xerox, kleenex, hoover, etc.).

Since when was Kleenex a verb? I have never kleenexed something in my life. Perhaps the submitter meant Windex? I've never heard Hoover used as a verb either.

Analysts want more ads???

[fname (199759)]

The article is interesting, and it goes to show you how clueless you can be and still be authoritatively quoted in a major national publication.

Is this logical? 1) Create fast, relevant search engine, 2) users flock to your service becuase it is fast and relevent, 3) add discrete, marked relevant ads, 4) advertisers flock to it. Some bozo in the story wants to add ste 5: Add bigger ads, disguise them in search results. He sees step 6, advertisers flock to it, but misses step 7, customers abandon it, and step 8, advertisers leave in droves. Hmmm. Can anyone say "Altavista." The reporter writing this article should have called this out, because it is so clearly misguided. Better still is a comparison to Yahoo.

Well, let's see. Yahoo! starts out as a fast and lean service, everyone loves and uses it. They decide they need to add content. Then they decide to accept animated ads, flash-ads and pop-ups/ unders. Who loves it now? I use it less, myself.

If I'm Google, I see Yahoo!'s trajectory very clearly and vow not to fall into the same trap. The whole concept of adding ads becuase there will now be public investors is ludicrous. Everyone uses Google because it is fast, lean and relevant. The people in the article who discuss Google adding morer paid listings do not understand Google's appeal. Once the paid, undistinguished ads start, users will flock away in droves. Personally, I'm convinced that Google Inc. is too smart to let that happen.

yeah, if we ignore froogle images news & grou

[*weasel (174362)]

cuz yeah, once you ignore how damn good, clean and fast google is, and then if you ignore images.google news.google froogle.google and the big kahuna: groups.google ...

then if we ignore all the featuers built into the googlebar (still shipping for free without bloatware, adware and spyware mind you) ...

and then if we ignore how tastefully google did the inevitable merge with advertising content. (no pop-ups, no huge flash ads in the middle of the results page : none of that crap) ...

and then if we forget the reasons that Yahoo, inktomi and teoma botched their first chances (selling rankings, intrusive ads, no other added value, no usenet searches) ...

yeah - i suppose if we ignore all of this data, we might think that google was in danger.

c'mon - even when they didn't have competition to speak of, in any arena, they were still innovating. but /. only gets excited by the reactionary and the faux-prognostictors. that google has competition isn't news. saying that google is in trouble, and that's newsworthy is insulting to everyone who has a mental capacity (and memory) beyond a fruitfly.

who?

[kin_korn_karn (466864)]

there are other search engines?

I've seen all the praise for google,

[Mac Degger (576336)]

And I'd like to add to that: they're clean and simple; an epitome of website design.

They're above all easy to use and the results are good. That's really the most important factor, period.

Plus they're innovative and usefull, especially in their field: google images, google news, google answers; those are things which fit so briliantly within a searchengines core business that it's no wonder google does them so well.

I think google will stick around for a while, especially looking at the direction, usefullness and insightfullness of their R&D.

That said: if they start sucking, they're out. But that's life.

Er, no

[The Bungi (221687)]

1. Absolutely the fastest search, period.
2. Relevant results in ~99% of searches (in my experience). Consistently comes up with the most obscure stuff imaginable (and I've checked against other engines)
3. Ads look like ads and they're not masqueraded as results (and yeah, everyone's copying that now, whoopi)
4. Usenet archive. Heeelooooo!!!
5. News meta crawler. Haven't looked at another "portal" since Google News went live.
6. Privately held company. No Yahoo-style pressures for revenue.
7. The Amazing Browser Toolbar. Also copied by everyone now.
8. Excellent site design. Clean, uncluttered, just nice.
9. The Zeitgeist (sp?)
10. Cool company with a sense of humor.

Wake me up when everyone else (especially "wisenut", which I've never heard about before) gets there.

Google.com - Nope..

[WittyName (615844)]

I like Google.ca, the canadian one.

No DMCA takedowns there.

And I am a US resident..

Groups

[ravenwolff (605916)]

The feature I find myself using more and more on Google is its ability to search years worth of newsgroup postings. You can find a wealth of information on there which helps me solve 75% of the problems I run into as a network technician. It's actually made me pretty lazy. How is it that Google obtained this database (I remember news on it years back) and is it possible for other search engines to tap into the database? If not, then Google has it made in my opinion...

Power searching Slashdot with Google

[SilentReproach (91511)]

Use the keywords:

google site:slashdot.org

in Google's search engine to find Slashdot articles related to Google. It sure beats using the slashdot search engine.

Or, here's a quick link to a Google search of Slashdot Google coverage [google.com].

Right...

[houseofmore (313324)]

"And other engines such as WiseNut, Teoma, and FAST now mimic Google's 'popularity placement technology.'"

That's nice. My family mimic normal people, but most people figure it out after not too long.

Re:Google second , according to google

[Idarubicin (579475)]

The problem is that Yahoo appears in a number of contexts on the web not related to search engines.

Try searching for Yahoo -"George W Bush" and watch the number of hits plummet.

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN -1 Overrated

[LostCluster (625375)]

Wrong. A one followed by 100 zeros is a "googol". That was the inspiration for the name "Google", but they intentionally misspelled the name of the number when naming the search engine.

Re:Cease and Desist letter...

[smack_attack (171144)]

Changing the wording [216.239.39.100] of their logo like that makes it appear that you are trying to capture misspelled traffic for your own benefit. I fail to see how it was in any way a parody aside from the changing of the letters and hawking your links [216.239.39.100] and providing an interface to their engine that can easily be construed as "intentionally confusing" to users.