Honeymoon Over For Google? 448
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? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Kleenex A Verb? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Kleenex A Verb? (Score:3, Insightful)
'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? (Score:5, Funny)
Like:
Herbert Hoover: "Prosperity is just around the corner."
Bum: "Hey, Hoover this!"
Re:Kleenex A Verb? (Score:4, Insightful)
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? (Score:4, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Funny)
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 (Score:3, Informative)
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... (Score:5, Insightful)
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... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Yes it does... (Score:3, Interesting)
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... (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Changes nothing (Score:3, Interesting)
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 (Score:3, Interesting)
"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 (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah, but they still get the hits (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Yeah, but they still get the hits (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Funny)
Want to know why? Press ALT-HOME to find out.
I actually click on Google's ads.
Re:Google (Score:5, Funny)
Clicking on the URL bar and typing "goo" takes you to Gooogle.
Re:Google (Score:4, Funny)
Google second , according to google (Score:3, Informative)
Yahoo 86,500,000
Google 19,100,000
Altavista 5,480,000
Re:Google second , according to google (Score:4, Funny)
Try searching for Yahoo -"George W Bush" and watch the number of hits plummet.
Re:MOD PARENT DOWN -1 Overrated (Score:4, Informative)
Google Easily Explained (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:2, Informative)
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 (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Google Easily Explained (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
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? (Score:4, Interesting)
Quibbles with Google (Score:3, Interesting)
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#,
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'm all for it (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I'm all for it (Score:2)
Contact page [google.com]
Wisenut? (Score:5, Funny)
--------------
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
* Browser Type:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20021130
* Page:
GET
* Time:
Tuesday, January 14, 2003, 2:27:11 PM
* More information:
Microsoft Support
Re:Wisenut? (Score:3, Funny)
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....
Re:Wisenut? (Score:5, Interesting)
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? (Score:3, Offtopic)
Apple Safari (Score:3, Informative)
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? (Score:5, Funny)
Trouble for
Hmmm... looks bad... VA should start shopping this jalopy around...
Bah to others.. (Score:3, Funny)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:2)
Re:What I'd like to know (Score:4, Informative)
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 (Score:4, Interesting)
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? (Score:5, Funny)
If you can't beat em, sue 'em?
Competition is good for users (Score:2, Interesting)
Oh, and I know this sounds a lot like the comment I just made under the KHTML story.
Wrong link to FAST in story (Score:5, Informative)
PageRank isn't the only thing Google uses... (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:2, Interesting)
"WWW" Search (Score:2)
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! (Score:3, Insightful)
- 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! (Score:3, Interesting)
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
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
Kleenex is a verb? (Score:2)
I'm going to Kleenex my nose?
mimic all they want (Score:2, Interesting)
Google also does other stuff like usenet (Score:2)
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)... (Score:4, Interesting)
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 (Score:4, Funny)
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 (Score:2, Insightful)
It is the nature of things.
Search (Score:4, Insightful)
Plus, on holidays they have cool little themes for their logo.
Google is (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Google is (Score:2, Insightful)
What makes you think the same thing can't happen to google?
Cache? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Cache? (Score:3, Informative)
Honeymoon over? Think again... (Score:2, Insightful)
AOL 8 now includes Google search... (Score:3, Informative)
to google, or not to google (Score:2, Interesting)
Competing makes for better search engines (Score:3, Insightful)
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. (Score:5, Funny)
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
Analysts want more ads??? (Score:5, Insightful)
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... (Score:2, Funny)
Yahoo are *not* dropping Google (Score:2, Interesting)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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
Re:yeah, if we ignore froogle images news & gr (Score:3, Insightful)
who? (Score:5, Funny)
Google isn't standing still (Score:2, Insightful)
(Hey, it is a verb. I just noticed...)
I've seen all the praise for google, (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
- Absolutely the fastest search, period.
- 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)
- Ads look like ads and they're not masqueraded as results (and yeah, everyone's copying that now, whoopi)
- Usenet archive. Heeelooooo!!!
- News meta crawler. Haven't looked at another "portal" since Google News went live.
- Privately held company. No Yahoo-style pressures for revenue.
- The Amazing Browser Toolbar. Also copied by everyone now.
- Excellent site design. Clean, uncluttered, just nice.
- The Zeitgeist (sp?)
- 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 (Score:3, Interesting)
Google.com - Nope.. (Score:5, Informative)
No DMCA takedowns there.
And I am a US resident..
Groups (Score:4, Insightful)
Google will never go away...... (Score:3, Interesting)
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... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Cease and Desist letter... (Score:5, Interesting)
Power searching Slashdot with Google (Score:5, Informative)
Or, here's a quick link to a Google search of Slashdot Google coverage [google.com].
Right... (Score:5, Funny)
That's nice. My family mimic normal people, but most people figure it out after not too long.
Re:Google.ca redirect. (Score:3, Informative)
At work we do not have such an entry so it takes me to google.com. Nothing intrusive.
Re:Google.ca redirect. (Score:2, Interesting)
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. (Score:2, Informative)
#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*? (Score:3, Informative)
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??