Submitting a review for consideration is easy; please first read Slashdot's book review guidelines. Updated: 2008114 by samzenpus
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.
first post (Score:3, Insightful)
first post. guess nobody cares about this one.
Re:first post (Score:4, Funny)
You see, it's a technique. It takes years of practice. First, you drink a shit load of caffeine. Then, after it gets in your system, you bring up Slashdot. Then, and only then, you get in touch with your inner self, connect with the Universe, and connect with your higher power as you see Him.
Now, type blindingly fast "First Post". Hopefully, it will come out fist5 posts. See how I did that?
Again.
firsyt posts.
See?
Now, you try.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Fist Prost. or
Frost Piss. or
Frosty Piss. or
Some comment questioning the sexual orientation of
Some comment about defecation and Obama. or
Some comment about
Some random text that links to some picture of goatse on a malicious site.
Which means, that you really are new around here.
Last! Ummm... wait... (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyway, Google started with a search methodology that was dreamed up by two guys in their spare time. Obviously, it was a good one. Still, seems to me that Microsoft and Yahoo, with all their money and competent programmers, simply need to come up with a better one. Otherwise, what else can they bring to the table?
Re:Last! Ummm... wait... (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if you tie two rocks together, it doesn't mean they'll float. MS and Yahoo need to look into R&D, not merger - this move makes no sense.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Search quality isn't the only issue; Google is bringing in more advertising money (and at a higher rate). Yahoo! and Microsoft combined could well do better than either alone (all they have to do is convince advertising customers that they are providing better value).
I don't use Yahoo! or Microsoft for searching much so I don't really have any idea, but I have heard at least rumblings that they aren't too far from what Google offers.
Re: (Score:2)
The danger is that search is not "Good Enough". Microsoft can't beat Linux servers because kernels are "Good Enough", but it can win in the office suite space.
In a design problem like "search the web, and return the most popular and relevant sites from the input phrase", there is just not a lot of scope to make massive improvements. Google's pagerank algorithm was probably the only massive step. Nobody needs to switch, unless Google makes a really heinous mistake, like adopting a Twitter-like interface.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, as someone who uses Yahoo Search exclusively I can say for me Yahoo gives the better experience. It really is a shame that more folks don't try Yahoo Search because IMHO it has gotten better than Google. What makes it better is that little more button tab at the top. I can type in "the dark knight" and I get reviews, interviews,trailer, Heath Ledger, etc. The only problem is the GUI isn't intuitive if you aren't the "ooh what does THAT do?" type like I am.
Most folks don't realize that little blue t
I doubt it will work (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I doubt it will work (Score:5, Insightful)
Google is now synomonous with the internet.
Just a quick test: you google something, and nothing comes up. Is your first thought "I need to try another search site" or "I need to check my search terms"?
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Just a quick test: you google something, and nothing comes up. Is your first thought "I need to try another search site" or "I need to check my search terms"?
I'm not really sure what you are trying to imply. Just the term itself, "you google something" kinda prooves my point. When someone asks a question that you have no idea about, you don't say "I'll yahoo it" or "I'll MS Search it". Google (rightly or wrongly I'm not trying to defend them or say they are the best) are a household name. You know how much some companies pay to be household names?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
And some people used to ask Jeeves.
Re: (Score:2)
Just the term itself, "you google something" kinda prooves my point.
It was intentional. I meant the act of searching on Google.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I wonder what a Yahoo user might say if you asked them the same question. Maybe people are more likely to use only 1 search engine - it's certainly easier to change your terms than to go to a new website.
Re: (Score:2)
it's certainly easier to change your terms than to go to a new website.
In Opera and Konqueror switching search engines takes 2 mouse clicks.
Re: (Score:2)
I have 8 sites I can switch between in that bar right now.
Re: (Score:2)
It has never crossed my mind to try another engine when I'm not getting the results I want. I simply try different terms in the Google search. After a while you get a hang of it, and it doesn't happen often.
Re: (Score:2)
Then you must be limiting your searches to only things that Google covers. Trust me, there is an enormous amount of material that Google doesn't archive, and if I can't find it on Google, chances are I'll need to find somewhere else that does archive it. If you believe that it is you who is wrong, rather than Google, you exclude an enormous amount of existing material.
An excellent example of this is message boards, in fact. Try searching for your historical slashdot posts- Google will not find all of them.
Re: (Score:2)
I most certainly have used other search engines, and dones so successfully, especially when I'm thinking of something very particular that comes to very few results (often with exact phrases or when I Google inurl: or site:, though I find Yahoo's advanced query builder quite a bit simpler.
I find Yahoo search and Live search nearly always give me more answers on things that Google has very few of. Now, that obviously has sample bias, because I only go to the other two when Google fails me, so don't draw any
Re:I doubt it will work (Score:5, Insightful)
That really depends on what one happens to be searching for. In a lot of cases, yes, it means "I need to try another search engine".
Every now and then I try other search engines just to make sure I'm not missing anything. They always fail because they:
Sometimes all eight. And lets not forget all the internal search engines such as slashdot's. I've yet to come across even a single one that wasn't designed by people with the IQ's of gerbils.
---
Any large public or private organisation paying recurring, per-seat licensing for software is being economically stupid.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Google toppled DEC's Altavista. The same thing can happen to them.
See also: VHS vs. DVD vs. Blu-Ray. Google was much better than AltaVista and people were quick to switch to it. Google isn't perfect, of course, but it's good enough that it'd be hard to make an engine significantly better enough to warrant switching.
Re: (Score:2)
No.
Google was shit and slowly got better.
People slowly started using it, and slowly switched to it.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I won't claim that it was great on the first day. The important thing is that it got better to the point that people were willing to switch.
Re: (Score:2)
Altavista also got worse. Around '96 or '97, AltaVista searches returned lists of mostly broken links because their crawler could not crawl the web fast enough.
Re: (Score:2)
Why MS cant compete effectively (Score:5, Insightful)
MS motive: Make money by throwing large amounts of MS branded crap (with some useful stuff) at you and hope your willing to pay to have it cleaned up so you can keep the bits you like.
Google motive: Make money by throwing large amounts of information at you with some of revenue targeted information you may be interested in.
Until MS turns it model around and starts giving people what they want first and then cashing in on that association, they won't beat the trend that Google has going, unless Google turns around and start sending you crap first.
Re:Why MS cant compete effectively (Score:4, Informative)
Or, a different way to put it: MS has difficulty because they operate under the assumption that end users will like what they produce, while Google is successful producing things that their end users will like. Rather than saying "This is what you should expect the Internet to be like", Google simplifies things and is more customer driven.
Parent
It's like a Reces Peanut Butter Cup (Score:4, Funny)
Only instead of Peanut Butter and Chocolate, they look to combine used motor oil in a crunchy shell of glass shards.
Metaphorically speaking.
My recent search with Google (Score:3, Interesting)
I bought a new drive namely WD WD1001FALS, as all new drives, I fired up Safari and entered exactly these search terms: WD1001FALS specs
All I had was bunch of clever search optimization geniuses trying to sell me drive and some really annoying google search spammers. I gave up after 5th page and went to Western Digital directly.
Yahoo search gives some market results too but they seem to be legit search results with known reviewers like PC World. Perhaps Google has become so big that it started to hurt them seriously? I guess everyone out there tries to hack their results and become somewhat successful. There is no mechanism to easily tell Google that they are spammers too. Don't even bother telling me about feedback form.
I had another experience where searching for Avast Antivirus (which is extremely popular freeware) on Windows ended up with actual virus/trojan results while Yahoo search gives better results, at least no malware (they got some scanner in search). It really bugged me because it was a completely unprotected Windows fresh installation. Imagine some newbie actually trusting those results.
Re: (Score:2)
When I tried it (also in Safari) the first link was the Western Digital page [wdc.com] on the HD...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yup, me too -- exact same search terms, and the first link on google is precisely what the grandparent says he wanted.
It's a bit mystifying really; I regularly see claims in slashdot comments about how awful google is these days, and yet this bears absolutely no resemblance to my own experience -- for me, google's results are extremely good, perhaps even better now than in the past (and certainly leagues ahead of crap like MSN live search).
I'm not sure how to reconcile this ... some possibilities come to
Re:My recent search with Google (Score:4, Informative)
When I punched your search terms into Google, the first result I get back is the wdc.com (Western Digital's site) page for that model of drive. Second result is a questionable tech site, third result is a PCWorld review of the drive. I suspect the problem is on your end, not Google's.
Parent
To paraphrase Dale Dribble (Score:2)
"This [search] is the feces that is produced when shame eats too much stupidity."
Seriously, MS isn't about to make Yahoo! their default search over MSN. Yahoo isn't about to cede traffic over to MSN, even indirectly by lending their search backend to make MSN not suck as much. And along those lines, MSN is so terrible that 95% of people go out of their way ignore it [hitslink.com] even though it is the default in IE.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Microsoft already bought a better search engine (as in engine, not as in implementation) last year -- FAST.
They're not after the Yahoo search engine, they are after the user base.
Re: (Score:2)
I've seen the future of Search, and it's name is (Score:4, Interesting)
Twitter provides realtime search. It shows intent [twitter.com] realtime. It shows trends [tinyurl.com]. It's faster than the news media and blogs [mashable.com], and, with a 140 character limit, it cuts to the chase. And it's growing like crazy [comscore.com].
MS and / or Yahoo should be looking at Twitter seriously. It's the real deal.
Re: (Score:2)
MS and / or Yahoo should be looking at Twitter seriously. It's the real deal.
You're on the right track, but why should Microsoft or Yahoo buy Twitter while both of them have their instant messengers? Add a little paragraph to their EULA saying that all user content belongs to them(if they haven't already, and most people will just click through it anyway) and they have the equivalent of a million Twitters' user data and conversations to strip-mine to their heart's content!
Consolidation of both userbases would be the only thing out of a merger which would make sense!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
While there are many mimickers on the scene (Plurk and Yapp come immediately to mind), Twitter seems to have reached critical mass - the Bandwagon effect so to speak. Everyone is on it, and if you're not, you're a crusty, cantankerous old person (no matter what age you really are). Big brands and small businesses are leveraging Twitter as a cost effective social media tool. News media like CNN are amassing huge followings. Pre-teens are on it. It has a more dynamic interf
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Twitter search will only be good while the spammers stay off. Which means it can never be too popular.
Ya gotta love the hypocrisy (Score:4, Interesting)
I'd love to see Microsoft waste money on yet another falling star, try to get market share by acquisition rather than providing a product / service people actually want. Business as usual really. This time round they may not want all of Yahoo, but only cherry pick parts of it. The part that I'd draw attention to is Zimbra. We all know how Microsoft love competition to their flagship earners, so any Yahoo deal will involve the destruction of Zimbra as we know it. Does anyone know offhand how well placed Zimbra is license wise to fork if / when the hammer of Redmond strikes?
To be fair, Yahoo's search engine is good. (Score:4, Insightful)
It's only very slightly worse than Google, nowadays. Microsoft's, on the other hand, is still crap on a stick, and it's not worth spending time talking about.
So, returning to Yahoo: at this point, what Yahoo needs is a better image, as the search engine itself, in its core, is fine. And to improve their image, Yahoo might want to tone down the "noise" that their site seems to throw at the users. Also, Yahoo should do a real effort to actually unify all those services inside of "My Yahoo". As it is now, "My Yahoo" is utterly useless, and the various Yahoo services seem to be kept together with spit or nothing. MOstly nothing.
For an example of the "Yahoo noise" I was talking about, just see Yahoo Messenger. I hate that shit with passion (but am forced to use it 'cause my GF likes it, and is convinced that the "connection is better than with Skype").
That said, Yahoo services are less "noisy" than Hotmail and the resto of MSN.
Re: (Score:2)
Totally agree. Yahoo's front page has to go, and they need to bring their awesome properties like delicious, Yahoo pipes and flickr to the forefront. That's where the coolness is.
Re: (Score:2)
Good point Yahoos engine nowadays is excellent, but they lost to Google the same way Altavista was pushed into oblivion.
In other words, stop throwing crap at people who do only want to do a websearch. Altavista lost because their site was full of unrelated advertising crap and their search results suddenly reflected how much money a customer wanted to pay for being ranked high.
Yahoo looses because it throws too much crap at people while they simply want a search field and results!
The funny thing is, yahoo d
Politically incorrect view... (Score:3, Insightful)
While it works in 80's movies with a mediocre soundtrack for the montage scene, I'm at a loss as to how John Hughes would resolve this in the final act.
the answer is innovation (Score:2, Interesting)
In fact, this is more of an innovation war: users won't switch to whatever microsoft/yahoo partnership offers unless it does something that people find useful AND that google has not implemented yet.
I never understood this... (Score:3, Interesting)
"Their" chief rival... Really? Microsoft is primarily an OS/Office suite vendor. If you had to define the essence of their core business model - that's it. I never understood why Microsoft has singled out Google as an enemy that has to be defeated, as opposed to someone to collaborate with. Yahoo, well, that makes perfect sense - Google has been beating the pants off of them for years. However, Microsoft's shareholders would be better served if they focused on making OS and productivity software that does not suck, as opposed to spending millions of dollars indexing and storing data to make an inferior product to dump more marketing dollars on to compete with a company operating in a different market segment. Why go through all that effort to reinvent the wheel?
It sure must be nice for Ballmer to have a stockpile of money worthy of Scrooge McDuck to piss away on pet projects...
Only Ignorance (Score:2)
The only people I've ever known to use yahoo or msn where people who didn't know about googles existence.
Microsoft should be worried about something else (Score:2)
Ok given my site is programmers centric, but the IE rate fell below 17% on this site absolute.
Programmers usually are 2 years in front of the general public. As it seems they should give up trying to pull crap with IE (even with IE8 they tried to pull crap saying ACID3 is not standards while it clearly is, there is no HTML5 in ACID3 and then scoring measly 17% while even Fox3 scored around 70%)
They have lost the web programmers in the mindshare clearly and as it seems even in the general public Mozilla has
Microsoft still seeking search deal with Yahoo! (Score:3, Funny)
As Microsoft's search engine share sunk to its lowest level yet in February, with approximately 8 to 9 queries total worldwide [today.com], Steve Ballmer has reiterated his willingness to hook up with Yahoo! and its 21 queries worldwide.
The press conference was held on a street corner in San Francisco as Mr Ballmer and Jerry Yang sat with their hats on the sidewalk and playing harmonicas with a "WILL WEBSEARCH FOR FOOD" sign behind them.
"Understandably, we expect less activity in the Great Recession," said Mr Ballmer. "Nobody knows what value assets should be ... say, you aren't finished with that cigarette, are you?"
Press attendees included a schizophrenic local resident in a tinfoil hat ("to keep Google out"), two teenagers drunk on malt liquor and a policeman keeping an eye on things from a distance. The teenagers taunted, confused and upset Mr Ballmer by suggesting he attempt to locate his own posterior.
"My new search technology is unstoppable! Just look at this netbook!" shouted Mr Ballmer, waving an Etch-a-Sketch in a threatening manner. "IT'S MAUVE! IT RUNS WINDOWS SEVEN! LINUX PUT A RADIO IN MY HEAD! I'LL SHOW 'EM ALL! BASTARDS!"
"Some love stories are eternal," said Mr Yang. "Romeo and Juliet. Heloise and Abelard. Leopold and Loeb. Microsoft and Yahoo."
Re:Doing A Microhoo Search On "Developers Develope (Score:2)
In a Virtual Windows machine, as I got all stock IE etc. for testing, I remember not being able to find "dotnetfx 3.5 download" via live search. Results coming up were trojans. I ended up going to MS downloads site directly, completely in shock.
Another thing. If you even hear live search is great, better and use Safari, Firefox, you won't feel like going there since you will have a feeling that it will work bad for your browser. I guess that is exact reason why MS wants to partner with Yahoo who never creat