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?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, Kleenex your grammar!

Re:Kleenex A Verb?

[Dirtside]

Why? Kleenex is a perfectly cromulent verb.

Re:Kleenex A Verb?

[zsau]

Furthermore, 'to google' isn't a verb like 'to hoover' is, unless the people who use the latter aren't telling me something.

'To google' means 'to search the web using Google'. 'To hoover' means 'to vacuum-clean'. You could hoover a room with with a Sanyo vacuum cleaner, but you couldn't google for 'conlang' with Alta-Vista.

Re:Hoover A Verb?

[slickwillie]

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?

[Zeinfeld]

Google's lawyers would no doybt insist it is an adjective. Becomming a verb is a very bad thing for dillution claims

Google's recent arrival on the dotcom scene proves that the barriers to entry have not increased over time. Disproving yet another strand of looney analyst think. Remember the days when yahoo was worth $gazillions because it would be the 'portal' through which all e-commerce flowed?

Google displaced the other search engines using technology that was hardly unknown at the time. I think the fact altavista and hotbot did not respond indicates they were engaged in Lotus/Visicalc type sleeping on the job. They were in milk the cash cow mode. I suspect google will stay on top at least as long as it remains independent simply because they are like Microsoft, they keep working on the product as if they were number 3 even when they are number 1 by a long way.

The more interesting dynamic is what will happen after Yahoo switches from Google to inktomi which they just bought. I think this forces Google to go after Yahoo on all fronts. Google can copy Yahoo's stock chat site without much difficulty. The hosted web mail will not take much either. They already have dejanews and an interface to the advertisers. Yahoo meanwhile have let their catalog grow really stale, I don't know anyone who uses it these days except as a backup to google.

So question, if you are Ted Turner and the AOL merger of time warner had not gone through. What would you want to buy now, AOL or Google?

Re:Kleenex A Verb?

[LostCluster]

Google's recent arrival on the dotcom scene proves that the barriers to entry have not increased over time.

But Google staying there, while later-comers such as AllTheWeb and Teoma are stuck at also-ran status, proves the opposite.

Google was just so good it got over the barriers. It hit at a time when AltaVista was sleeping, and Yahoo was busy creating non-search features. It beat the competition, and was able to get people to change their homepages.

Now, the problem is a newcomer has to A: Be better than Google and B: Be able to distact people from Google. Neither is an easy task.

Re:Kleenex A Verb?

[Jeremi]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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.

Dethroning Google

[Per Abrahamsen]

All it would take is hiring a stupid CEO who would turn Google into a portal, or some future buzzword equivalent.

Google is cool because their management have understood what the users wanted, and provided it, in spite of whatever was the "common wisom" among managers at the time.

Re:Changes nothing

[chimpo13]

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.

Re:Changes nothing

[The Man]

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

Yes, but there's a major difference: Google is noticeably better than any other search engine offered to date. So even if other companies can duplicate its quality, people will still use Google. That is the nature of the first mover advantage. This advantage, as so many learned, does not protect you from quantum leaps in technology. Google will fall over and die as soon as someone comes up with something dramatically better - not "about as good" or even "a little better" - dramatically better. Yahoo! is irrelevant in the current market; it's a dinosaur waiting until the end of the extinction to die off, and in any case its search engine is not only not dramatically better than Google, it isn't even nearly as good. Everyone knows it. And almost nobody uses Yahoo! any more for exactly that reason. You want to beat Google, you have to be a lot better. Simple, eh? Now go to it, kids; no whining.

Yes it does...

[registro]

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]

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

Re:Yes it does...

[peter]

> Google controls nothing which is not their property to begin with.

Who cares about property? The thing is, we depend on google to make the Web useful. Think about what it would be like without google. We'd be stuck with search engines like Altavista and Ask Jeeves. They're not bad, and I used to use Altavista before google came along, (I sometimes use jeeves for queries that are better phrased as questions instead of keywords). Still, they certainly aren't up to google's standards.

The situation is like an electricity company in at the start of the industrial age. At first, big deal, it doesn't matter what they do. Once lots of things become dependent on electricity, it becomes something to worry about. Sorry, not awake enough to carry this analogy further. Otherwise, I might say something about gov't regulation, and whether or not it is waranted for search engines. (remember, just because something ends up a certain way because of capitalism doesn't make that way good.)

Re:Yes it does...

[Dun Malg]

Just check for "porn". Do you really think Pornfurniture.com is the most relevant search item for porn? Following pagerank rules it should be way down to result number -3.000

On what do you base that conclusion? The way Google ranks pages, yes it is the most relevant result. I don't doubt that more people link ro furnitureporn.com (you didn't even copy the domain correctly!) than to any other "porn" site there. I know I've seen links to furnitureporn.com in several places. I can't say that about ANY of the others on the first page.

But they do manipulate search results, to force companies to pay for advertisements. That IS the TRUE about Google.

So that's the "true" about Google, eh? And from whom did this "true" come? Please, substantiate your claims with a few factual references. Perhaps you have the URL to Google's "Secret Payment Page For Better Placement"? All I could find is Google's explaination of the PageRank system, which includes this quote:
"And though we do run relevant ads above and next to our results, Google does not sell placement within the results themselves (i.e., no one can buy a higher PageRank). "
Unless you can produce anything more meaningful than ignorant suppositions to support your position, I'm afraid I'm going to have to believe Google.

jackass.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Changes nothing

[Crispin Cowan]

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.

IIRC, in his keynote address [usenix.org] to USENIX LISA 2002 [usenix.org], Jim Reese, Google's Chief Operations Engineer, claimed that Google is profitable.

Crispin
----
Crispin Cowan, Ph.D.
Chief Scientist, WireX Communications, Inc. [wirex.com]
Immunix: [immunix.org] Security Hardened Linux Distribution
Available for purchase [wirex.com]

Re:Changes nothing

[ibennetch]

People love google...Everyone is now using it...

"Back in the day" everyone used Altavista. The boolean searches were unparalleled and it found things no other search engine could find. I also would pay a small amount to keep Google going. i haven't found anything that comes close to Google's ability to find what I'm looking for. But for years I said the same thing about Altavista...I'm not saying Google's time is up yet, but there have been others before that haven't fared very well.

Re:Changes nothing

[First_In_Hell]

I used alta-vista once. I had to write a term paper for my foreign language class and I used their assey translator. I bet you can guess what grade I got.

Yeah, but they still get the hits

[The_K4]

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

[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

[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

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Google

[handsomepete]

about:blank gets Google laid? I think if I about:blanked a girl, I'd get about:slapped.

Google second , according to google

[JohnHegarty]

Searchs on google

Yahoo 86,500,000
Google 19,100,000
Altavista 5,480,000

Re:Google second , according to google

[Idarubicin]

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]

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.

Google Easily Explained

[Bonker]

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

[KiwiSurfer]

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

Well, I got the following JavaScript snippet from http://wwww.google.co.nz/

<script>
document.f.q.focus();
</script>

The above code causes Google to come to the front of all the windows once it load -- which is very irrating especially when I have to use non-tabbed browsers such as MSIE. Google is a very good search engine and this is about the only feature I strongly disklike about it.

Your other points are valid however.

- James

Re:Google Easily Explained

[egjertse]

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".

Re:Google Easily Explained

[Anonymous Hack]

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]

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.

So what?

[almightyjustin]

This seems to me to be a non-issue. So it gives you an Australian version of Google. So what? I went to www.google.com.au, it looks the same as regular Google, by default it still searches the entire Internet.... The only thing that seems to be different is the *additional* option to search only Aussie sites. The ads looked the same too (and if you get ads for services you could actually purchase locally, what's the downside?). I don't get what the problem is. In fact, it's probably better because you wouldn't get DMCA removals and such.

Quibbles with Google

[cheshire_cqx]

I really love google. I remember when AltaVista became a junky, bolated portal loaded with ads and cruft. Google was like a breath of fresh air--light, fast, and accurate.

The quibbles I have with Google are the lack of more advanced search features. This is a design choice to keep thinks fast.

Here's an idea: a paid subscription to Google (GooglePro?) to allow searches with pattern matching, term proximity, non-alpha characters (C#, .NET, 1.5" all stump google), date limits, etc.

Keep the good and add more real features (more steak for more $, not the AltaVista disaster of artificial sizzle only).

I'm all for it

[dusanv]

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.

Re:I'm all for it

[NineNine]

I agree. Google holds *too* much sway on the Web. Their listings either make or break a web site. I know that Google does some very wierd things with some of my listings (first page one day, not in the directory the next), and there's literally nobody to contact, and nothing that I can do about it. I know that other people are in the same boat. I'm all for multiple search engines.

Re:I'm all for it

[jez9999]

Literally nobody to contact? Maybe you should spend 5 minutes browsing Google's website:

Contact page [google.com]

Wisenut?

[Sandman1971]

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?

[caluml]

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

Lol - that's what you get when you try and run enterprise services on non-enterprise OSes... :)

OK, so I'm trolling a bit.. :)

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.... /sarcasm

Re:Wisenut?

[Sandman1971]

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

Re:Wisenut?

[iggymanz]

I do my photo scanning & turbotax on my old windows 98se machine....but you know, that P200 will run X apps just fine, but not most of today's bloated window managers. Just for fun you might want to try lightweight one, just do "X11 lightweight window manager" in google.

Apple Safari

[JHromadka]

Safari [apple.com], Apple's new web browser, has a Google bar in its slimmed-down interface, so Google is getting a few wins these days. You can even click the magnifying glass and pull up past searches.

I don't see Google going away anytime soon. I've never heard of those other engines and do not have any interest in them.

Honeymoon over for Slashdot?

[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...

Bah to others..

[grub]

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

Yeah but they don't have those leet google doodles [google.com] for various holidays and events..

google, wonderful

[scovetta]

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]

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]

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

[prisoner]

who knows but being a part of DEC, they went to Compaq when DEC was sold and then Compaq went to HP so there probably wasn't much focus on making it work. Back in the .com days, i remember hearing people saying that Compaq bought DEC just to get AV.

Re:What I'd like to know

[divide overflow]

[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]

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]

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

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

Competition is good for users

[The Wicked Priest]

With all the recent talk about Google becoming a search monopoly, we should welcome this. This will keep the pressure on Google to remain excellent.

Oh, and I know this sounds a lot like the comment I just made under the KHTML story.

Wrong link to FAST in story

[McDutchie]

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]

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.

"Search Engine" Search

[E-Tigger]

Google: 1, Google 2, Yahoo Yahoo: 1, Google 2, Yahoo Lycos: 1, Lycos 3, Google Altavista: 1, Altavista 2, Google Pretty amazing that Yahoo doesn't clock out on #1 on their own site...

"WWW" Search

[SiMac]

A Google search on "HTTP" is a pretty decent metric of measuring the most popular Web sites, and Yahoo! is listed first.

So, perhaps Google is indeed the most well-known search engine, but Yahoo! is a more popular Web site overall. I would actually trust Google's assessment over any others.

Yes, but a search for "www" returns Google first.

It's the toolbar stupid!

[Skidmarq]

Why is it that Google is the only one out there with a toolbar that:

• makes searches simple
• allows them to be complex if you like
• doesn't innundate you with spyware crap

As far as I'm concerned, the other search engines can do whatever they want, but until they provide a reasonable duplicate of the functionality provided by my precioussss Google toolbar, I'm not switchin'.

Re:It's the toolbar stupid!

[William Tanksley]

If you're using Windows...

As long as you don't mind the name, Dave's Quick Search Taskbar Toolbar Deskbar [notesbydave.com] rocks.

Of COURSE, like any useful search utility, it defaults to Google; but unlike many others, it has a HUGE number of other engines, and lets you add as many more as you want, distinguishing what type of search you want to do by little features of your search (for example, if your "search" looks like a calculator expression, it'll just replace the expression with the answer; if your search ends with a :, it searches a dictionary instead of Google).

The neatest part? It sits in your Start bar, not in your browser window -- so it takes up less useful space, and doesn't need your browser to be open.

Oh, and it works with any browser, not just IE.

I, of course, use it almost entirely with Google -- but this seems to disprove your assertion that if someone else had a nice search bar Google wouldn't be relevant. :-)

Try it! It's good.

-Billy

This is good news

[divide overflow]

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.

Kleenex is a verb?

[caluml]

Since when is that?

I'm going to Kleenex my nose?

mimic all they want

[spazoid12]

I'll still use whichever doesn't do pop-ups and has a results page that is > 80% white space. Just plain simple text, thank you very much. Currently, this means only Google. All that clutter the others have just makes me not care and go somewhere else.

Google also does other stuff like usenet

[Vicegrip]

I know I find google usenet archives very useful.
Their applicance has been mentionned.

The interesting thing about this story is neither I or anybody I know actively uses any of those search engines. And I only use yahoo for email.

Google isn't sitting on their laurels either as their recent hiring suggests. If they keep getting it right on bringing people toghether with the information they want, google will continue rock.

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

[$$$$$exyGal]

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]

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.

The way of the gopher

[I am the blob]

There was a time when I couldn't imagine using a search tool other than gopher. Then there was a time when I could type 'altavista' more quickly than any other string of characters.

It is the nature of things.

Search

[blackmonday]

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.

Google is

[SomeOtherGuy]

At it's worse "google vs. anything else" will become like "VHS vs. Beta" or "MP3 vs. OGG". My wife and grandma both know and love google -- and even if a better technology comes along -- I can guarentee you that google will still command there attention. It was at the right place at the right time providing the right service. For whatever reason (dumb luck, quality) many people have planted their roots in using google as THE search engine -- and most of those groups of people don't pull up their roots that easily.

Re:Google is

[stratjakt]

I remember when Yahoo! was THE search engine. Now it's more of a portal, as they piled on the added services. I remember when Netscape was THE web browser, Wordperfect was THE word processing package, and CorelDraw was THE drawing application.

What makes you think the same thing can't happen to google?

Cache?

[Col. Klink (retired)]

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

Re:Cache?

[Col. Klink (retired)]

Hasn't happened yet. And they respect robots.txt and will remove the cache if you ask them, so I don't imagine it happening anytime soon...

Honeymoon over? Think again...

[Whatthehellever]

Why should this even make news? Sure, there are sites that will mimic Google because they're good. Google is not the only site out there of it's type. It's the users who will choose which one will work best for them. It's good to see some competition.

AOL 8 now includes Google search...

[SirDaShadow]

...so I guess the honeymoon's still on! :)

to google, or not to google

[Anonymous Hack]

I think one of the key things Google had going for it from the start was a funky, easy-to-say name. The marketing guys thought up a wonder there. Probably the only reason it has become "verbified" is because it's the only damn search engine that's easy to say. Remember when Alta Vista was the shiznit? Anyone ever try to say "i'm gonna altavistararaaadiddlyah some page"? It just doesn't work.

Competing makes for better search engines

[acomj]

I mean seriously. Googles very good. But it still is hard to find what you need sometimes. Often the best information doesn't come up when you search. I've been sent links with information from friends of sites I couldn't find when searching.

You can't expect one company to stay on top of anything. There are always companies that want what googles got and are gunning for them. Altavista was once king, as was voodoo and a host of other companies that have fallen from the top.

I say good. Hopefully all search sites get better. Maybe better ai will help? who knows.. These search engines are important to keep the web usefull.

Googling.

[NeoSkandranon]

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.

Er

[zapfie]

Wow.. so in other words.. um.. Google is competing with other companies in the search engine arena? Google is fast, has a clean interface, unobtrusive ads, a good signal to noise ratio, the ability to search anything from webpages to news to store catalogs, and a rabidly loyal following. I see no reason why it will be having a hard time anywhere in the near future.

Analysts want more ads???

[fname]

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.

Is there anyone else who thinks...

[onthefenceman]

...We need "Google" girls? They could have those neat t-shirts with the appropriate number of OOOOs...

Yahoo are *not* dropping Google

[Anonymous Coward]

(posting as AC due to sensitivity of post)

Errr, what in God's name gave you the idea that Yahoo were dropping Google.

Quite the reverse is true, according to a friend of mine who just, oooh, happens to be a search engineer for Yahoo.

Yahoo are furthering integrating Google into their search systems, and are toning down their old hand-moderated systems. I assume this last part is in an attempt to cut staffing costs.

Yahoo have no plans to integrate another major search partner at present (except for ads). I know this because my friend would be one of the people implementing it, and we've talked about it, and he has specifically said it's not happening.

yeah, if we ignore froogle images news & grou

[*weasel]

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.

Re:yeah, if we ignore froogle images news & gr

[metlin]

And don't you forget catalogs.google.com [google.com] - although it is in the Beta stages, amazing stuff.

who?

[kin_korn_karn]

there are other search engines?

Google isn't standing still

[seldolivaw]

Google is innovating its socks off, with google news, image search, Google groups, and all the new stuff coming out of Google labs, like their catalogue shopping engine. I'm all for competition, but you'll have to be pretty amazing to make me give up my googling habit.

(Hey, it is a verb. I just noticed...)

I've seen all the praise for google,

[Mac Degger]

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]

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.

Re:Er, no

[JordoCrouse]

Don't forget Froogle (http://froogle.google.com [google.com]) too! There always seems to be something new and tasty coming out of Google labs... :)

Google.com - Nope..

[WittyName]

I like Google.ca, the canadian one.

No DMCA takedowns there.

And I am a US resident..

Groups

[ravenwolff]

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...

Google will never go away......

[greymond]

how could a company that used Dilbert as a mascot on their logo - ever have their business begin to slip?! :)

Seriously tho - I think Google has a good chance of sticking around just because they have such a large user base - which is mostly due to the fact that A LOT of people who search for "things" don't want to look at a big pile of crap like Alta Vista or Yahoo (although I like yahoo's other features). But the fact remains if I want to look for "fish" I don;t want to a site like Yahoo that has hella ads and flashing images and links ALL OVER THE PAGE. I just want to bring up a page that has a field where I type in what I want and THEN get a page full of ACCURATE links.

I think if google was going to start losing money they could very easily add on a "google-groups" feature and "google - email" and keep a significant amount of people.

Cease and Desist letter...

[pheph]

Google has recently issued a cease and desist letter to Gewgle.com [gewgle.com]. Seems like their humor has run dry as well, as they no longer understand 'humor' or the concept of 'parody'.

Re:Cease and Desist letter...

[smack_attack]

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.

Power searching Slashdot with Google

[SilentReproach]

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]

"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.ca redirect.

[CashCarSTAR]

Google I believe looks at the domain entry and uses that to determine your country of origin, more than likely for marketing reasons (yes it's true)

At work we do not have such an entry so it takes me to google.com. Nothing intrusive.

Re:Google.ca redirect.

[Hamster Of Death]

When it shoves you over to Google.ca, look near the bottom and there is a link to google.com.
If you click this link you get to the regular google.
And for me after clicking this link I no longer get shunted to google.ca.
Plus I think the results are the same no matter which page you go from, so you're not really missing out on anything, you just get a handy little option to search only Canadian web pages.

Re:Google.ca redirect.

[RoundTop-VJAS]

The google.ca site is pretty much the as google.com except for 2 things.

#1) it is a different server, therefore spreading the load for google.

#2) it slightly boosts canadian results, as well as allowing you to search pages in canada only.

I've used it for a while with no problems. I like it.

Re:A common verb like *what*?

[jez9999]

Nor do I ever hear anyone say ... "Hoover up that dirt".

Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally? Because over here, in the UK, it's pretty much replaced 'vacuum' as a verb. People use it uncapitalized all the time. I frequently hear and see "Hoover up that dirt." or whatever. Maybe it's because Hoover was a much bigger brand over here??