Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The New Yahoo!, Google, MSN Et Al. Battleground

Hemos posted more than 10 years ago | from the shop-till-you-drop dept.

The Almighty Buck 158

A reader writes: "Kelkoo sold to Yahoo for 575 million dollars!" That, in and of itself is not that interesting - but combine that with Google's inclusion of Froogle into the front page, and things become more interesting. The comparison shopping field, including places like PriceGrabber (Disclaimer: OSDN is an affiliate of PriceGrabber) in the US, Kelkoo/Yahoo! overseas, Froogle, and MSN is heating up in competition. Now that search has been monetized, the next battleground for big money is in comparison shopping, beyond MySimon and other smaller ones.

cancel ×

158 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

who cares? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8704270)

google's gonna win cause the other ones suck.

plus, its got far more name recognition, people using it as a verb and all...

its like 'kleenex' vs 'tissue paper' or 'xerox' vs 'facsimilie'

once you have that sort of name recognition, its damn hard to lose in the marketplace...

Re:who cares? (4, Interesting)

iapetus (24050) | more than 10 years ago | (#8704352)

Speaking as a denizen of the UK, Froogle sucks and Kelkoo is the clear winner.

What I'd actually like to see is a search engine that can tell which companies will ship to my home country, and work out the actual price of the product based on shipping, currency conversion and possibly import duties payable. That would be a lot more useful than a single-country search system, particularly when I don't live in that country.

Re:who cares? (3, Informative)

Neophytus (642863) | more than 10 years ago | (#8704503)

if it's anything like it was a couple of years ago i think pricewatch [pricewatch.com] takes into account international shopping, but this could have changed

Re:who cares? (-1, Flamebait)

eyeye (653962) | more than 10 years ago | (#8704784)

FUCK KELKOO.

Sorry but couldnt resist it, i'm tired of them spamming up my search results when they dont even list what I am searching for.

I use uk.pricerunner.com

p.s

FUCK KELKOO ;-)

Re:who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8704356)

Except that facsimilie is typically used when talking about sending a fax, not making a copy...

Re:who cares? (4, Interesting)

cshark (673578) | more than 10 years ago | (#8704358)

We don't know that. Yahoo was king for several years. This recent sentament that google "owns" anything is stupid.

In any case, I think the real winners in this one are going to be those of us that figure out how to leverage these services for our online shops.

This is going to be a good holiday season :)

Re:who cares? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8704510)

This recent sentament that google "owns" anything is stupid

Bender: "No, YOU shut up!"

Re:who cares? (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8704660)

Bite me like a flee on new years...

Re:who cares? (5, Insightful)

Schnapple (262314) | more than 10 years ago | (#8704815)

I think the real reason that people are so pro-Google is because here is a search engine that works and makes life better. Search engines used to be these sorta-neato things that tried to help us find things but we had to work with and accept poor results. Google changed all of that - think of how many programmers run into an issue and Google Groups save their butter. Google made the web useful.

As a result, we're protective over Google. We don't want to see them become what came of Yahoo. We hope that, since now the dot-com bubble has burst, Google won't fall into the same traps as Yahoo and the failed search engines. That being said, if someone comes along tommorow hands-down better than Google we'll go there.

To the extreme, this is what Apple zealots do. When Apple does what other companies get criticized for, the Apple zealots defend them to the bitter end. Sometimes it's that they don't want to believe that Apple could be an evil company, other times it's that they don't have a predisposed blind rage towards the company (see: Microsoft) and are more able to see that sometimes a business decision is just that - a business decision.

Re:who cares? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8704419)

its like 'kleenex' vs 'tissue paper' or 'xerox' vs 'facsimilie'

once you have that sort of name recognition, its damn hard to lose in the marketplace...

That's a bad thing not a good thing. The brand Kleenex is so diluted now that it simply means tissue. How'd you like it if you owned Kleenex and then heard everyone call every tissue Kleenex? All those tissues are benefitting from your trademark and you get nothing in return. That's why Google fought Webster's to have the verb form of Google taken out of the dictionary. They want to protect their trademark; not give it away to the public.

But what's so bad about that? (4, Insightful)

Hell O'World (88678) | more than 10 years ago | (#8704666)

How'd you like it if you owned Kleenex and then heard everyone call every tissue Kleenex?

I think it would be great! How does it hurt Kleenex? So people go to the store with Kleenex on their list, they are MORE likely to buy the Kleenex brand, not less. How do the other brands benefit? They can't say Joe's Kleenex on the box.

I'm going to Google that... now what was that URL? Hmmm... yahoo.com, right?

Re:But what's so bad about that? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8704776)

Companies can't use the word kleenex on their competing brand, so it is not truely generic. But your company name can become legally generic if you don't protect it. What about the Yellow Pages? The phone company let that fall into generic use, and now anybody can have their own yellow pages.
I Googled (damn, can't seem to stop) for this and found this list of former name brands:
escalator, trampoline, raisin
bran, lanolin, cube steak, high octane, nylon, mimeograph, kerosene, and
cornflakes.

Re:But what's so bad about that? (2, Insightful)

J. T. MacLeod (111094) | more than 10 years ago | (#8704829)

It might be great, until you lose any brand recognition at all, and then find that you can't defend your trademark because it's become a generic name.

Re:But what's so bad about that? (5, Informative)

egomaniac (105476) | more than 10 years ago | (#8704832)

They can't say Joe's Kleenex on the box.

Sure they can, if the word "Kleenex" becomes so widespread that it is no longer a defensible trademark.

Don't believe me? Then you probably didn't know that "aspirin" and "cellophane", for example, were originally trademarks, not generic words. They were lost to common usage. It does happen, and companies will spend a fortune to try to stop it.

Re:But what's so bad about that? (5, Informative)

scrytch (9198) | more than 10 years ago | (#8705047)

Don't believe me? Then you probably didn't know that "aspirin" and "cellophane", for example, were originally trademarks, not generic words. They were lost to common usage.

Actually you'll still see a Registered Trademark Symbol after Aspirin if you buy Bayer brand, but it's not actually meaningful now. Bayer AG had to give up their trademark to Aspirin as a term of the Treaty of Versailles after WWI.

Factoid for ya, another trademark Bayer lost that way: Heroin.

Re:But what's so bad about that? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8704870)

the phrase on a shopping list (kleense vs facial tissue) doesn't matter nearly as much as the price in the supermarket, dick face.


But I bet you prefer kleenx brand tissues for jizzmopping after you and your hand make mad passionite love.

Re:who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8704946)

So would the opposite be true? Can you take a common word and turn it into a "brand name"? (And yes, I'm thinking of the term "Windows")

Re:who cares? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8704889)

As evidence of Microsoft's complete lack of credibility for search results, try searching on "warez" at msn vs. google.

At msn, the first page of results are anti-piracy sites.

Re:who cares? (2, Interesting)

Phekko (619272) | more than 10 years ago | (#8704912)

You mean sorta like once it was called 'IBM PC' ? No? Ok, maybe the way it used to be called a 'hoover' instead of a vacuum cleaner? You CAN lose that kind of name recognition. It just gives you quite an edge on the competition. Remember the days when everyone was using Netscape?

If you make bad decisions and your competition makes better ones, you'll end up losing someday. Look what happened in the war Intel vs AMD. Ofcourse you'll have quite a lead on the competition if you can spend, say, $10 BILLION making your product but nevertheless. If you keep making crap and the competition keeps on making a better product for a competitive price, you'll lose eventually. If you got heaps of money and a big propaganda machine like a certain Redmond company, that will probably be later, but at some point people will have had enough of buying crap for a high price when they don't really have to.

Getting back to the google-stuff for a while, I remember a time when altavista was the only search engine anyone wanted to use or at least pretty damn close.

fp (-1, Offtopic)

boisepunk (764513) | more than 10 years ago | (#8704275)

fp

Re:fp (-1, Troll)

1SmartOne (744638) | more than 10 years ago | (#8704287)

darn I thought that I had the fp. you all beat me. shame on you for being on the web at the same time.

What I'd like to see in a shopping search engine (4, Informative)

prostoalex (308614) | more than 10 years ago | (#8704277)


From what I understand, Froogle is very different from PriceGrabber, PriceWatch, BizRate [bizrate.com] , Yahoo! Shopping, MySimon, Nextag and others. You have to pay and provide the XML feed with your products to the search engine (or be a hosting customer of Yahoo! Stores to be listed in Yahoo! Shopping), so really in a nutshell those places are nothing more than databases, broken down into categories with database search enabled. The selection is limited.

Froogle, however, is purely search engine. Just like the Google Web search, you'll be in their database if you happen to sell something, your site has a dollar tag on it next to the product, and you're not hiding your products behind some obscure interface that search engine has no access to.

There's little technological value in PriceGrabber, PriceWatch, BizRate, DealTime, Yahoo! Shopping and others, but there's technology involved with Froogle that gives you much broader choice of vendors.

What I would like to see, although I'd admit it might be asking for too much. But you know those places that give you cashback if you shop online with them? Basically they get the affiliate comissions and then pay you back as part of the deal. eBates [ebates.com] and FatCash [fatwallet.com] are the ones I use, but there are more. It would be really nice if the shopping search engines knew that I could get a certain kick back from the amount of sale, and they would display the price like "Seller price - $399, use FatCash for additional 4% ($12) off".

That would naturally involve some kind of cooperation with the cashback site, but that would definitely add some value for the consumer. I don't see any search engine implementing it soon (after all, it would be eBates and FatCash making money off this feature, not the engine), but if Google were to implement similar program, I would sign up for it.

Re:What I'd like to see in a shopping search engin (3, Insightful)

Otter (3800) | more than 10 years ago | (#8704429)

Froogle, however, is purely search engine. Just like the Google Web search, you'll be in their database if you happen to sell something, your site has a dollar tag on it next to the product, and you're not hiding your products behind some obscure interface that search engine has no access to.

Maybe I just have peculiar tastes, but -- Froogle almost never comes close to giving me a true lowest price. I'm not a hard-core online bargain hunter but instead frequently check Froogle and then go over to Amazon or something equally high-profile and find the same thing for 20% less.

YMMV, obviously...

Re:What I'd like to see in a shopping search engin (5, Informative)

ZachReligious (313979) | more than 10 years ago | (#8704441)

Froogle, however, is purely search engine. Just like the Google Web search, you'll be in their database if you happen to sell something, your site has a dollar tag on it next to the product, and you're not hiding your products behind some obscure interface that search engine has no access to.

Not Exactly True... I have done a couple of websites that use comparison engines, and they both use a feed to submit the product listings to froogle.

I think it's a good thing. It allows the stores to keep their listings up to date as far as pricing and such goes. (and probably more accurate than a spider can generate)

get out more (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8704452)

dude, you have an ungodly amount of accepted stories, which means you probably have an even worse amount of not accepted stories. and you are replying and getting score:5 before the 6th person has posted to this article.

do us a favor and breath some air outside. you'll be surprised that it still exists.

Re:What I'd like to see in a shopping search engin (3, Insightful)

amigoro (761348) | more than 10 years ago | (#8704489)

Froogle, however, is purely search engine. Just like the Google Web search, you'll be in their database if you happen to sell something, your site has a dollar tag on it next to the product, and you're not hiding your products behind some obscure interface that search engine has no access to.

You have made a very valid point. On other sites are, for all intents adn purposes, surchable advertisement database, where as froogle is truly a price seeking search engine.

Any price searching system, where the seller has to pay to get in, is not a fair one for the consumer. It is often the case that the difference in price, and actual worth, of a product is more advertising than profit. And if vendors have to pay more to get their products advertised on price comparisions search enginers, then, that cost is passed on to the consumer. And some sellers might not just want to, or might not have the budget to pay for such services. In those circumstances, the consumer loses out by not being shown the cheapest seller on the market.

From strictly "consumer is the king" standpoint, Froogle is the only true price comparison search engine of the ones you mentioned. But as a business model, froogle might not be the most successful. Time will only tell.

Moderate this comment
Negative: Offtopic [mithuro.com] Flamebait [mithuro.com] Troll [mithuro.com] Redundant [mithuro.com]
Positive: Insightful [mithuro.com] Interesting [mithuro.com] Informative [mithuro.com] Funny [mithuro.com]

Re:What I'd like to see in a shopping search engin (2, Interesting)

romcabrera (699616) | more than 10 years ago | (#8704603)

You are forgetting the added value of engines like PriceWatch, shopping.com, etc.: Knowing how good/bad are the stores you find out being with the lowest price. Google only let you find out about the stores and prices, but you have no means to know (besides doing other searches) if that specific store is a safe place to buy, or if it just another shop with terrible service, delivery, etc.

Re:What I'd like to see in a shopping search engin (1, Informative)

DrSkwid (118965) | more than 10 years ago | (#8704622)

http://froogle.google.com/froogle/merchants.html

Google crawls billions of webpages every month, so you'll likely be included automatically in Froogle's index of sites. If for some reason your store is not showing up and you would like it to be included in Froogle, please submit a data feed. Doing so will ensure that your entire product catalog is included in Froogle, and it will also allow you to control the freshness and accuracy of your product information. Feeds can be updated as you add new products, change prices, offer special promotions, or discontinue products.

Re:What I'd like to see in a shopping search engin (1)

stinkyfingers (588428) | more than 10 years ago | (#8704773)

Froogle is nice in that it's just looking for the price, but don't those other sites offer something in the way of vendor ratings. A lot of times, you can find a seller that you've become comfortable with or has good word-of-mouth. For example, I buy all my computer gear at newegg.com.

But when I needed some Moen faucets to finish off a bathroom remodel, I looked to the Net rather than special order them from Home Depot. Having found some vendor ratings for those site proved helpful.

I don't really see what the big deal is. (1, Troll)

suman28 (558822) | more than 10 years ago | (#8704313)

Google is the best of all these, and besides, most people don't really care for what search engine provides what. I would think they go to all these engines looking for the best prices and go the store to look at the actual product also. So, all this competition is pointless seeing that google will come out on top.

Re:I don't really see what the big deal is. (5, Funny)

Wun Hung Lo (702718) | more than 10 years ago | (#8704392)

Not possible, mon frere. Microsoft is the clear leader in the search field (even though they haven't done it yet). To quote the head of MS's search project, "Google is a nice little search engine, but nothing compared to my vision." I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm quivering with anticipation. I know that you non-believers will say, "But Wun Hung Lo, how is it possible that I will do a search on MS's web site and not find my answer, but if I do the query on Google, I will find a hit on MS's website! Is it possible that Google has MS indexed better than MS themselves?" All I can say that it is an unexplainable anomaly and will be fixed with the next security patch. MS search rules!!

Re:I don't really see what the big deal is. (1)

GnuVince (623231) | more than 10 years ago | (#8704710)

That's such an idiotic comment. You are then of the opinion that projects such as Linux, Mozilla, OpenOffice.Org, The GIMP, etc. are useless because Windows, Internet Explorer, MS Office and Photoshop are available and people don't really care for what software they use? You say that competition is useless: let's all stop using alternative operating systems and let's all use Windows, there's no point in fighting it, it will come out on top!

Wake up, competition in the search engine industry benifits the users, just like Linux made Microsoft work harder on Windows.

Help Yahoo? (3, Interesting)

vijayiyer (728590) | more than 10 years ago | (#8704323)

I wonder if this will help Yahoo have a P/E ratio of better than their current 128. It seems like the tech bubble is back - Yahoo's stock price has more than doubled in the last year.

The future of search. (5, Interesting)

conner_bw (120497) | more than 10 years ago | (#8704328)

Slighty OT, but i just sent this email to google. Perhaps it is of interest to others. All ideas should be free.

-=-=-

I have two ideas that i will be transforming into an OSX application some day, however that some day is some time away. It would be nice to see this idea put to good use.

1) The most relevant web pages are the ones i've already seen.

Countless times in the back of my mind, there is this web page i've seen briefly in the past at one time or another. Today, I need to find that web page. I start my browser of choice and surf to Google. It takes me quite a while to figure out the right keywords and even more time to surf through pages I have never seen until I find the one I was looking for, one i had already visited in the past. Frustrating.

All of this could be avoided if I had a user side application that indexed my browser cache. A local database of indexed webpages that I have already seen would heed the best results under the previous scenario. Such a scenario is not uncommon.

2) Search results are not popularity results.

The web needs to incorporate a Nielsen Ratings system. Every four months for two weeks, a few thousand people running the previous application are randomly chosen to participate in a data sampling system, with consent. For every page a user in the study visits during those two weeks, a central database collects the URL and their IP. The IP is used to get a geographical statistic, while the URL is used to get a popularity statistic. Those stats would be of use to many people, including the Google Page Rank system.

Well that's it.

Competing against Google seems futile at this point in my life. If you feel these ideas are worth while, feedback is appreciated.

Thank you for your time.

Re:The future of search. (1)

scum-e-bag (211846) | more than 10 years ago | (#8704393)

All of this could be avoided if I had a user side application that indexed my browser cache. A local database of indexed webpages that I have already seen would heed the best results under the previous scenario. Such a scenario is not uncommon.

The google toolbar already incorporates part of this functionality by use of the drop down search.

Re:The future of search. (1)

eyeye (653962) | more than 10 years ago | (#8704713)

No you misunderstand what he means, he means track and remember - not him having to remember what site to search in.

Re:The future of search. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8704446)

Competing against Google seems futile at this point in my life

Can you say "pedantic"?

. If you feel these ideas are worth while, feedback is appreciated.

Don't hold your breath...

Re:The future of search. (4, Funny)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | more than 10 years ago | (#8704474)

Competing against Google seems futile at this point in my life.

I bet all Google employees are letting out a sigh of relief at this very moment...

Re:The future of search. (4, Interesting)

Psychic Burrito (611532) | more than 10 years ago | (#8704478)

The "search through the webpages you've seen in the past 3 years" feature is a killer. I'm really looking forward using it.
To be useful, for me it had to be:
- Extremely low on the cpu
- keep the database small (10'000 webpages in 50MB or less)
- fast. Let me search in 2seconds tops.

Anyobdy already working on this?

Re:The future of search. (1)

fgc (68261) | more than 10 years ago | (#8704683)

I was looking for something similar and in the end I came up with the idea of using LaunchBar [obdev.at] at home and AppRocket [candylabs.com] at work.

It's not ideal, but it does mean that I can just shove everything remotely useful in as a bookmark and use them to search my bookmarks (and remember the search terms I use).

Re:The future of search. (1)

monstroyer (748389) | more than 10 years ago | (#8704792)

Have you seen Butler [petermaurer.de] (aka Another Launcher). It's free.

Re:The future of search. (2, Funny)

strictnein (318940) | more than 10 years ago | (#8704721)

To be useful, for me it had to be:
- Extremely low on the cpu
- keep the database small (10'000 webpages in 50MB or less)
- fast. Let me search in 2seconds tops.

Anyobdy already working on this?


I am, but mine has the following specs:
- Extremely cpu intensive
- huge 5 GB Database per year archived
- extremely slow with frequent system crashes, at least 50 minutes per search and the search program gets set to the highest priority so nothing else can function

Re:The future of search. (1)

stevey (64018) | more than 10 years ago | (#8704758)

Me!

Well kinda.

I have had the difficulty you mention several times in the past, and vowed to do soemthing about it.

What I did was write a simple perl proxy server that sits between my browser and the internet.

Every page that you view is passed through the proxy and it records some details, right now it just records "date + time", "URL", and "page title".

These are stored in a simple CSV format which can be searched with grep.

I had planned on writing a little HTTP server to go along with the proxy so I could sidebar it, and allow online searching - however I didn't get round to it.

If there's any interest I could post the code, but to be honest it's sufficiently trivial that it wouldn't take a Perl coder more than an hour to duplicate.

Re:The future of search. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8704803)

After browsing for pr0n I like to clear my browser's history and cache so that the girlfriend doesn't stumble upon something. This idea bascially let's anyone search for what pr0n websites my "cat" has been looking at over the last year.

Re:The future of search. (3, Funny)

monstroyer (748389) | more than 10 years ago | (#8704956)

" After browsing for pr0n I like to clear my browser's history and cache so that the girlfriend doesn't stumble upon something. This idea bascially let's anyone search for what pr0n websites my "cat" has been looking at over the last year."

Ideally, you'd be able to turn the indexing off and on at will. When you are about to cheat on your girlfriend with "Palmela", click on the "If the trailor is a rocking" button to turn off indexing. Turn it on when your 15 minutes is up.

You and your cat must be having some good times.

Re:The future of search. (1)

costas (38724) | more than 10 years ago | (#8704806)

Well, my newsbot [memigo.com] does this already for news articles you've read through it: you can search everything, you can search articles you've read, or articles you've read *and* rated highly. You can also set up "search alerts" that search any new articles and then stick them to your front page (or your personalized RSS feed, or your personalized PDA-optimized page). Check it out.

Re:The future of search. (2, Interesting)

Iscariot_ (166362) | more than 10 years ago | (#8704558)

All of this could be avoided if I had a user side application that indexed my browser cache. A local database of indexed webpages that I have already seen would heed the best results under the previous scenario. Such a scenario is not uncommon.

Good idea, however it might be cooler if users were able to personalize google with their own name/pass and then it remembers where you've been on their end. (Maybe up to n-sites, n being greater than 5,000.) The more client-side data I have to tote around the more pain in the ass it becomes. I'd rather be able to get such features anywhere.

The web needs to incorporate a Nielsen Ratings system.

This idea I like also, but there's a big flaw in your solution. It is a little too slashdot-like. Not to say that slashdot doesn't have an excellent moderation scheme, but do I really want to rely on such a thing for data searching? Probably not. All too often comments get modded to 5 even though they are filled with erronious facts or lies. I'd prefer my searches to be as objective as possible.

Re:The future of search. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8704623)

Not to say that slashdot doesn't have an excellent moderation scheme

I can't decide if you're being sarcastic, or if you genuinely fail to realize the Slashdot moderation system consists of mostly clueless people giving grades to other clueless people's posts, then more clueless people giving grades to the grades given by the first set of clueless people...

Then don't use the Internet! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8704771)

"I'd prefer my searches to be as objective as possible."

Not if you're using the internet. Use Expedia or Brittanica for that.

Its like asking CBS or NBC to provide a completely objective reporting (I'm sure CBS will be glad to tell you why Viacom should be able to suck up every single TV and Radio station on the planet...)

Re:The future of search. (1)

Xzzy (111297) | more than 10 years ago | (#8704772)

> there is this web page i've seen briefly in the
> past at one time or another. Today, I need to find
> that web page.

Mozilla's history browser is quite good at this. Granted it only shines on sites you visited 6 days or less ago (everything else gets lumped into one group), but all it takes is a quick scan of the domain names and you can generally pick out what you need.

I suppose it could be cool to have mozilla record the referrer for every domain, and if it came from a search engine it stores the query you sent. This would later enable you to find that site by keyword in the history.

But then I guess you gotta wait for some programmer with an itch to implement it. ;)

Re:The future of search. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8704911)

> The web needs to incorporate a Nielsen Ratings system

Absolutely nothing stops you from doing this right now. Finding people who would actually find value in it is another thing entirely.

Re:The future of search. (2, Informative)

scrytch (9198) | more than 10 years ago | (#8704951)

> The web needs to incorporate a Nielsen Ratings system.

You mean like the one Nielsen already has [netratings.com] ?

Re:The future of search. (1)

ckuijjer (112385) | more than 10 years ago | (#8704955)

You could try the OmniWeb Beta, it indexes the sites you have in your history (btw. there is a search framework in Panther that you could use to build something like this yourself)

What of ODP/DMOZ/Google Directory? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8704330)

Froogle bumped Directory [google.com] off the front page. This is a major blow to DMOZ [dmoz.org] , the second after Netscape more or less abandoned it.

Re:What of ODP/DMOZ/Google Directory? (1)

Lucius Septimius Sev (766060) | more than 10 years ago | (#8704662)

DMOZ is still going to be popular however Google and soon Yahoo and maybe MSN pretty much made its teams of admins and mods seem less important. Most will still try to climb it but the system just lost its appeal. DMOZ is now just another good feature of the Google site not a unique project like it once was. I hope Google keeps it humming.

Re:What of ODP/DMOZ/Google Directory? (2, Insightful)

Mynister (738512) | more than 10 years ago | (#8704682)

DMOZ is still king, but is it getting too big for its britches?

A friend tried to become an editor but with little or no response to his applications. I know he would like to help out but they do not seem to be interested in any help or saying why this person is not good enough to help out.

The same goes for site listing. They are slow to react if they do at all.

Is this the common experience or is my friend just hopeless? I sort of would like to tell him that the slashdot community has deemed him hopeless. :)

Pray for Mojo

Re:What of ODP/DMOZ/Google Directory? (4, Insightful)

yppiz (574466) | more than 10 years ago | (#8704703)

Permit me a constructive mini-rant here - please read it before moderating it as -5 troll.

ODP/DMoz is dead.

I don't mean that it's a bad idea, I mean that while I found ODP/DMoz to be very, very useful four years ago, I no longer search it for starting points. The links in ODP are stale and rarely of better quality than what I get back from Google.

And now to my rant.

For several years, I've volunteered to participate as a DMoz/ODP editor. I enjoy helping out and volunteering, and I submitted applications in which I had very, very strong domain knowledge (collaborative filtering was one).

I went through a fair amount of work filling out the application form for ODP/DMoz editor status, for a subject that had no editor, and what happened? They rejected me without comment.

Here I am, a domain expert on collaborative filtering, not just with academic credentials, but with two deployed and fairly heavily used systems, and they dropped my application without comment. (And at the time, I had no commercial relationship with either filter, so I doubt it was because of perceived bias).

Same thing happened when I applied to be an editor of another unrelated category.

These were both categories that did not yet have editors, and here I was, a pretty qualified applicant, and getting rejected without comment.

So I gave up. I just didn't get it, and left with the perception that DMoz/ODP was some collection of people who all knew each other, rather than an open volunteer effort. I don't know that this is true, but it's why I didn't vclunteer any more.

Is ODP/DMoz dead? I don't know, but as a user, I find Google better, and as someone who volunteers for community projects (Wikipedia admin, journal reviewer, scientific conference organizer), I think ODP/DMoz seems broken from the community side as well.

Here are my suggestions: ODP should open up the editorial application process. None of this secret anonymous stuff. Further, they should actively seek qualified volunteers. Finally, they should automate as much as possible to increase coverage and accuracy. DMoz is still a great idea, and I believe it can again become the directory of useful knowledge - the place I would turn to when a straight search fails.

--Pat

Re:What of ODP/DMOZ/Google Directory? (1)

Lucius Septimius Sev (766060) | more than 10 years ago | (#8704786)

It depends on what areas of the Directory you want to be part of. In the porn ( or other popular sections ) most of the MODs know each other and have been part of the project from the start and only let those in who will help them rank their own pages. This was a problem a year or so ago. I have no idea if they cleaned these people out but it was talked about on quite a few fourms.

The question is... (3, Funny)

FortKnox (169099) | more than 10 years ago | (#8704339)

The question is what comparison shopping search did yahoo use to buy Kelkoo??

And another interesting question is... (1)

fiannaFailMan (702447) | more than 10 years ago | (#8704653)

..why is there something very familiar about this:
Now that search has been monetized, the next battleground for big money is in comparison shopping, beyond MySimon and other smaller ones.
Is it just me or is there another bubble building up here?

Huh? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8704359)

Anyone got a Venn diagram of this?

resellerratings.com (5, Interesting)

enrico_suave (179651) | more than 10 years ago | (#8704367)

Ressellerratings.com [resellerratings.com] has some neat comparison shopping functionality. along with the the vendor rating info, it allows you to figure out what would be cheapest when buying several items including shipping.

Sometimes buying the cheapest items (e.g. from a pricewatch search) spread across different stores costs more when you are done than if you were to take a different approach and lump some of the purchases together.

another neat tool for amazon only is pricenoia [pricenoia.com] some products might be cheaper overseas even after shipping/exchange rate.

*shrug* YMMV,

e.

Re:resellerratings.com (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8704500)

Make it easy and just watch places like Devsdeals.com [devsdeals.com] for the best prices on stuff.

No, the next battleground is Site Match (4, Informative)

Everyman (197621) | more than 10 years ago | (#8704374)

The next battleground is not comparison shopping. Much more important is the coming battle over Yahoo's Site Match program. Site Match plans to insert paid listings into the main algorithmic index without labeling these links. The FTC frowns on this, unless Yahoo can show that these links are ranked the same as unpaid links. A new site called Yahoo Watch [yahoo-watch.org] is already tabulating the ranking differential between paid and unpaid links. Google doesn't mess with the unpaid listings, Ask Jeeves doesn't, and Microsoft, according to some comments that were made last week, is taking a hard look at this issue for their upcoming search engine that will be launched in about a year.

add to the mix: shopping.com just filed for an IPO (4, Informative)

websensei (84861) | more than 10 years ago | (#8704399)

According to Nielsen/NetRatings, Shopping.com is the No. 2 most-visited comparison-shopping site. estimating a $75 million take from the IPO.

dmnews.com article, 3/26/2004 [dmnews.com]

Yahoo (4, Interesting)

Ender Ryan (79406) | more than 10 years ago | (#8704407)

Does anyone else find it funny that Yahoo is so cluttered and confusing (well, IMHO anyway) that it should really have a search engine just for itself?

Heh, nothing worse than trying to get stuff done and having to use a site that's just got too damn much on it.

Re:Yahoo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8704501)

http://search.yahoo.com

"site:yahoo.com [what-you-want-searched-here]"

But I agree, it is too cluttered.

Re:Yahoo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8704699)

Yahoo news section alone make it a million times better then google. news.google sucks, why can't I comment on stories like on yahoo?

plus google is so far behind in its features such as finance that it is pathetic. people that complain about yahoo be "cluttered and confusing" lack the ability to organize thier thoughts. google is for lazy people.

I hope this works better than PriceWatch (2, Funny)

FunkSoulBrother (140893) | more than 10 years ago | (#8704409)

I have a bad feeling Froogle is going to get taken by the same people who list things for a dollar on Pricewatch and then you can't find anything near that price when you click the link.

Re:I hope this works better than PriceWatch (1)

Petronius (515525) | more than 10 years ago | (#8704516)

or a flurry of pr0n popups open... it's going to be tough indeed.

someone needs to cash in... (0, Redundant)

abscondment (672321) | more than 10 years ago | (#8704424)

by providing a service to compare all of the comparison services.

Google makes a move, many moves (5, Informative)

markkellman (662190) | more than 10 years ago | (#8704430)

The upgrading of Froogle is only part of a much larger Google overhaul today. Other new features include a personalized search, and an email web alerts service. The latter seems to be a scaled-down copy of the well known Google Alert [googlealert.com] service. Can anyone find an overarching pattern to all these moves?

Re:Google makes a move, many moves (1)

WallaceSz (643543) | more than 10 years ago | (#8704465)

Good question! they may be trying to stake a claim in all the major serach-infrastructure related services, including shopping, email, etc.

Re:Google makes a move, many moves (3, Interesting)

manmanic (662850) | more than 10 years ago | (#8704596)

Google do seem to be covering all their bases. Their release of the Web Alerts [google.com] doesn't seem to stop them supporting the efforts of Google Alert [googlealert.com] (which uses Google's Web APIs [google.com] ). On Google Alert's FAQs [googlealert.com] it says "Google has encouraged us to develop, and agreed to let us charge for, a premium Google Alert service that will be released shortly."

Re:Google makes a move, many moves (2, Interesting)

suziewilkes (766406) | more than 10 years ago | (#8704669)

I think Google, MSN, and Yahoo are positioning themselves to be "all things to all people".

MSN hinted today [mediapost.com] that it will be offering an online music service as well. I wonder if Google or Yahoo will follow suit...

Can't sort on PriceGrabber? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8704493)

Why wouldn't PriceGrabber allow to sort results by price? Wierd ...

Watch out MSN and Yahoo! (1, Redundant)

peterdaly (123554) | more than 10 years ago | (#8704498)

The search engines of MSN and Yahoo! are nothing more than engines that search throught paid listings (ads) with enough "backfill" included to try and hide the fact.

Neither one understands who their primary customer is. Hint: it is not the advertiser.

Talk is cheap. Neither Yahoo! or MSN have yet shown any evidence of having anything even close to competing with Google for the informeed searcher (notice [MSN, are you listening?] I didn't call the searcher the "consumer".)

-Pete

Re:Watch out MSN and Yahoo! (1)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 10 years ago | (#8704930)

``Neither Yahoo! or MSN have yet shown any evidence of having anything even close to competing with Google for the informeed searcher''

However, MSN has a powerful ally: MicroSoft Internet Explorer. I don't remember the details (it's been a long time since I last had to use MSIE), but it will send you to MSN search sometimes. MicroSoft could easily (and I think they will) add a search field like Mozilla and Opera have, and have it use MSN Search. That would significantly tilt the playing field in MSN's favor.

Pricewatch is rotting like the rest of OSDN (5, Insightful)

SuperBanana (662181) | more than 10 years ago | (#8704504)

Pricewatch used to be cool and useful. Now, all the vendors are using tricks in their ads. For example, search for a popular wireless router, and easily the entire first page is for some crappy no-name router with the text "JUST LIKE (insert model number of the popular router)". Do they get de-listed for doing it? Of course not, because nobody's policing it anymore.

Many vendors I used to use and like have stopped listing with pricewatch for just such reasons. Like the rest of OSDN, there's no active work; they swallowed a bunch of popular resources, and then it's just "let's go on cruise control, and sell as many ads as we can". Notice how on a regular basis we get 500 errors when trying to post? In fact, I'd be willing to bet the only development done on slashdot in the least 2 years has been a)adding subscriptions and b)adding more advertisements.

Re:Pricewatch is rotting like the rest of OSDN (0, Offtopic)

Troed (102527) | more than 10 years ago | (#8704756)

Notice how on a regular basis we get 500 errors when trying to post?

Umm no, can't say it has ever happened actually.

Really.

Re:Pricewatch is rotting like the rest of OSDN (0)

TwinkieStix (571736) | more than 10 years ago | (#8705046)

Have you been looking at the "recent comments" section? That's changed 2 times in the last three weeks. What about the changes to moderation over the last year or so? Google has been doing a relatively good job of filtering out as much search spam as they can (remember the fiasco in January?) on the search engine side, so it stands to reason that they'd do the same for froogle.

What is the point? (2, Interesting)

bwindle2 (519558) | more than 10 years ago | (#8704511)

I don't really understand these sites... Doing a search for a common product (such as a 2.8C Intel P4 Retail) shows you can get it about $5 cheaper than from, say, NewEgg.com. Now, NewEgg also gives you free 2nd-day shipping, and you are dealing with a company that you *know* and trust (if not, just check them out at ResellerRatings, they rock). Is the risk worth $5? I say no. I buy all my stuff from NewEgg, and have never looked back.

Re:What is the point? (5, Insightful)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 10 years ago | (#8704642)

People buy things other than computer components online.

Newegg or googlegear are fine for electronics, I use them too and dont bother with pricewatch searches anymore..

But what if you want a baby crib, a waffle iron, a pair of boot cut jeans and alligator boots to go with them, a unicicle, or a chia pet?

Right now I know many regular folks who buy online through Amazon, you can find practically anything. You're really buying from partners (Toys R Us, Office Depot, Etc), but Amazon makes a convenient portal to do so.

That's what these folks all want. For people like my mother to just instinctively go to "msn.com", like she does Amazon now, when she's christmas shopping for the grandkids.

Marketers Out of Control!?!? (1)

Azghoul (25786) | more than 10 years ago | (#8704528)

What the hell, exactly, is a Kelkoo?

"Pricegrabber", at least I can see where they got that name...

Re:Marketers Out of Control!?!? (3, Informative)

glMatrixMode (631669) | more than 10 years ago | (#8704752)

The name Kelkoo has probably been chosen by french-speaking people, because it is pronounced exactly like the french sentence "Quel cout ?" (sorry, slashdot doesn't seem to accept the circumflex accents, even when typed in HTML...) which means "What cost ?".

Besides I remember there has been a lot of advertising for Kelkoo in France a few years ago.

Re:Marketers Out of Control!?!? (1)

anonicon (215837) | more than 10 years ago | (#8705102)

Kelkoo is the Latin word for a species that's notable for being too fat, too lazy and too stupid to work at finding a decent domain name after discovering that Europrice.com was already registered.

You can see a Kelkoo here [stephenfurst.com] . :-)

Engine different how? (0, Redundant)

peterdaly (123554) | more than 10 years ago | (#8704530)

Aren't MSN and Yahoo just product search engines as it is with enough backfill included to try and hide the fact?

-Pete

Re:Engine different how? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8704783)

Watch out MSN and Yahoo! (Score:3, Insightful) by peterdaly (123554) on Monday March 29, @12:06PM

The search engines of MSN and Yahoo! are nothing more than engines that search throught paid listings (ads) with enough "backfill" included to try and hide the fact.

This needed to be said twice?

fagor2 (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8704557)

off The play area prIma donnas to BSD has always

Search Fears (4, Insightful)

The-Dalai-LLama (755919) | more than 10 years ago | (#8704559)

Now that search has been monetized, the next battleground for big money is in comparison shopping

I may be a little too cynical, but I use Google about a googillion times a day, and the more references I see about the search engines becoming the next playing field for big-money, the more afraid I become. A handful of paid advertisements on the right side of the screen are fine, but with the evil empire stating that they don't want me to be able to even get on the net without seeing a Microsoft ad and all the big money playaz making major announcements about their intent to dominate the search engine field, all I see are bad things headed our way.

A lot of people are spending a lot of money to break in, and there wouldn't be this much interest without some really good plans for making us pay for all of it.

The Dalai Llama
remember when MTV used to play music videos?

Re:Search Fears (0)

qualico (731143) | more than 10 years ago | (#8704693)

I agree.

There will be ad saturation on a bigger scale.

Similar to the domain name infection, now our search engines are going to be lost in a monopoly of business posteruring.

Its all about control in the end.

Who cares (-1, Troll)

Walob (169905) | more than 10 years ago | (#8704658)

This is the most irrelavant piece of news i've seen in slashdot for a long time, I mean shopping, so what. And the sad thing is 100+ dotters will try and impart their vast (aka none)knowledge on the rest of the community. What's next? Barbie's divorce range?.

Re:Who cares (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8704687)

This is the most irrelavant piece of news i've seen in slashdot for a long time, I mean shopping, so what.

Translation: I don't care about it, therefore it is irrelevant to the universe at large.

Courtesy of the new AltaVista "Dumbass to English" translator.

Not interesting (2, Interesting)

tkrotchko (124118) | more than 10 years ago | (#8704729)

I find it very interesting that a dot-com is selling for over half a billion dollars years after the dot-com bust.

The must have a helluva cash flow to justify that kind of pricetag.

Local Search (1)

wombatmobile (623057) | more than 10 years ago | (#8704781)

They're also competing for local search [siliconvalley.com] .

Try Google lab's [google.com] for pizza in your (American) city or zipcode.

pricegrabber (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8704793)

pricegrubber, not unlike Kathleen fent, sucks. However, the difference is that kathleen's sloppy blow jobs result in a hot load of semen all over her face and buck teeth. Pricegrubber results in spending too much money..


pricewatch is where it's at.

This is going to suck (2, Insightful)

pair-a-noyd (594371) | more than 10 years ago | (#8704839)

Now we'll never be able to run a search for anything with out all the commercial sites showing up in the first 4000-5000 hits.

Froogle? (2, Interesting)

digidave (259925) | more than 10 years ago | (#8704859)

Froogle hasn't been put on the front page for google.ca and .com forwards me to .ca. What I wonder is why Froogle is limited to the US site. The Internet is worldwide and I've ordered from US online merchants before. What's stopping them from including Froogle on all their localized home pages and simply adding a note saying it only searches US merchants?

I guess they don't believe in the global Internet economy.

Froogle Spamming? (3, Interesting)

ripperbenz (766407) | more than 10 years ago | (#8705010)

Before the interception of Froogle, a friend of mine had this idea of a crawler that crawls the Web to find the best price for a desired product. One of the reasons I told him his idea might fail was that the spider cannot confirm that a product will actually be sold for the advertised price. Malicious sellers would then advertise products at ridiculous prices, just to top the list of results.

Maybe that's why Froogle lists results by some secret "Best match" algorithm, but I suspect it would pretty quickly become the next target of rogue merchants, especially because Froogle has a consuming-oriented audience. We'll can only wait and see how Google's smarties fight back; maybe they'll created a database of trusted merchants, the way Google News works [google.com] .

price grabbers DOS web sites (3, Interesting)

mabu (178417) | more than 10 years ago | (#8705099)

A few years ago, I discovered one of my servers slowed to a crawl. Upon further inspection it was one of (the more prominent) price-grabber systems hammering various client sites collecting prices. Many of them seem to open tons of simultaneous connections and effectively DOS'd the server. We had to complain for two days to get them to back off. I'm not a big fan of these sites, and most of the time the shipping/availability as indicated isn't accurate.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?