×

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!

Yahoo's Build Your Own Search Service

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the meet-the-new-boss dept.

Yahoo! 104

ruphus13 and other readers alerted us to Yahoo's BOSS, Build your Own Search Service. It gives access to Yahoo's entire databases for Web, image, and news search with no cap on queries per day and no restrictions on mixing Yahoo's search results with others or re-sorting them, and without Yahoo branding visible. From their blog announcement: "As anyone who follows the search industry knows, the barriers to successfully building a high quality, web-scale search engine are incredibly high. Doing so requires hundreds of millions of dollars of investment in engineering, sciences and core infrastructure — from crawling and indexing technology to relevancy and machine learning algorithms, to stuff as mundane as data centers, servers and power. Because competing successfully in web search requires an investment of this scale, new players have effectively been prohibited from delivering credible alternatives to Yahoo! and Google. We believe the BOSS platform will begin to change that."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

104 comments

BOSS? (4, Funny)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 5 years ago | (#24152729)

Sounds a lot like FOSS. I bet the confusion is intentional, probably a MS/Y! conspiracy to attack Open Source.

Re:BOSS? (1)

introspekt.i (1233118) | more than 5 years ago | (#24152801)

Hah. I think attacking Open Source in this manner is akin to having a fist fight with a man made out of smoke.

Re:BOSS? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24152935)

If by that you mean FOSS is the smoke man, and his punches can't hurt MS/Y!, yet MS/Y! can just turn on a fan and completely destroy the FOSS smoke man....then IAWTP. Otherwise, you are wrong.

Re:BOSS? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24153679)

IAWTP? "I Always Wack Teh Penir"?

That was like AWESOME, dude!

Re:BOSS? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24153823)

Or a smoke fight with a man made out of fists.

Re:BOSS? (2, Interesting)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#24152827)

Sounds a lot like FOSS. I bet the confusion is intentional, probably a MS/Y! conspiracy to attack Open Source.

Ummm... No. As much as MS would like to see open source dead, this isn't part of it. First off, no one but F/OSS geeks even use the term FOSS, and none of us would confuse BOSS with FOSS. Now if it was something called like, Free Source or something, or something similar to Open Source like MS's Shared Source, it might be taken as an attack, this is just a slightly similar acronym.

Re:BOSS? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24153073)

yhbt, hand.

Re:BOSS? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24154647)

Welcome to Slashdot, where no one can be sure whether or not F/OSS geeks are being facetious.

Re:BOSS? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24155827)

probably why it got rated funny.. or something or something

Re:BOSS? (1)

kc2keo (694222) | more than 5 years ago | (#24153821)

Sounds a lot like FOSS. I bet the confusion is intentional, probably a MS/Y! conspiracy to attack Open Source.

So does this BOSS (BGI Over SDL Subsystem):... BOSS [codedread.com]

:-D

Farewell (1)

thrashee (1066650) | more than 5 years ago | (#24152763)

I think they're just spring cleaning...I bet their offices are growing dark and are filled with a lot of cardboard boxes.

Totally Boss! (5, Insightful)

introspekt.i (1233118) | more than 5 years ago | (#24152765)

So the ultimate plan is to get students and academicians to make their search services for them. Once they're good enough for market, they can purchase the rights to said BOSS search services (or incomplete ones that look very promising...to part out and use in the code base). That's a good idea coming out of Yahoo! Finally some decent press for them.

Re:Totally Boss! (5, Insightful)

menace3society (768451) | more than 5 years ago | (#24153019)

It can do a lot of things, actually. One use, as you've noted, is to serve as what amounts to a source of free R&D.

But there are a lot of other things that can come out of this, too:

  • People who want more advanced search features (like regex support) can write it themselves instead of pestering Yahoo.
  • Better support for foreign language search.
  • Since a lot of websites still roll their own site search functionality and do it badly, use Yahoo as a replacement.
  • More flexible 'Safe Search' access control.
  • etc...

I think it's a great idea. It might open them up to some serious copyright challenges, but if it doesn't (or, preferably, if those challenges get tossed aside), it would be great to see all the search portals do something like this.

Re:Totally Boss! (3, Insightful)

el americano (799629) | more than 5 years ago | (#24157381)

"People who want more advanced search features (like regex support) can write it themselves"

I wish that were true, but this does not magically allow queries that their database does not support. What you get, according to TFA is re-rank, combine with other data, and remove Yahoo branding. It also allows news and image searches and unlimited queries. This is exactly like previous APIs, but with a few more freedoms.

Somebody is buying into the hype.

Re:Totally Boss! (1)

Gewalt (1200451) | more than 5 years ago | (#24153077)

What I don't get here is why Yahoo! thinks that I can make a useful search system from their database when they themselves can't seem to. You know why I like google's search over yahoos? 'cause its better. Not 'cause it took me hundreds of hours to tweak it into producing results I like better.

Re:Totally Boss! (2, Interesting)

Mordok-DestroyerOfWo (1000167) | more than 5 years ago | (#24153831)

There are some feature in Google's websearch that would be interesting to try and implement elsewhere. Getting results sorted by date is a pain. Filtering out websites would also be great, if I'm looking for an answer to an obscure tech question I don't want crap from ExpertsExchange popping up.

Re:Totally Boss! (1)

richardellisjr (584919) | more than 5 years ago | (#24154073)

I wish there was a way to default google so it didn't include expert exchange in the results.

Re:Totally Boss! (1)

FredFredrickson (1177871) | more than 5 years ago | (#24154421)

If you scroll all the way to the bottom of those expert exchange results, the answers are always there.. but I agree, they're still annoying. Loading their site in a background tab- some javascript thing causes it to jump to focus on every load. It gets old quick.

Let's vote to get rid of expert exchange from all search listings.

Re:Totally Boss! (1)

inotocracy (762166) | more than 5 years ago | (#24154887)

Clicking "Advanced Search" is a pain?

Re:Totally Boss! (1)

Mordok-DestroyerOfWo (1000167) | more than 5 years ago | (#24155461)

Not so much a pain, but it would be pretty cool to have pre-configured search criteria based on what kind of search I was doing. If I'm looking for tech help I'd have one set, news would have another, etc. It's a pipe dream I know.

Re:Totally Boss! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24156999)

You could just create several bookmarks of Google's search results page in Firefox and assign keywords to them, such as "techhelp". Then edit the bookmarks so the link looks like:

google.com/search?q=%s+-site%3Aexperts-exchange.com

Then all you'd have to do for your 'tech help' search would be type techhelp in to the awesome bar and Firefox will automatically replace %s in the entered URL with . Bit of a pain to set up, but it would make searches like you mentioned quick and easy from then on.

I'd also like to say that I LOVE this feature of Firefox. Kinda makes the search bar useless though, I do all my googling by typing 'g '.

Re:Totally Boss! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24157395)

Very cool tip, I just experimented and it works without a hitch. Thanks! Who was that masked AC?

Re:Totally Boss! (1)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | more than 5 years ago | (#24154793)

"As anyone who follows the search industry knows, the barriers to successfully building a high quality, web-scale search engine are incredibly high. Doing so requires hundreds of millions of dollars of investment in engineering, sciences and core infrastructure -- from crawling and indexing technology to relevancy and machine learning algorithms, to stuff as mundane as data centers, servers and power.

I'm confused. Didn't Yahoo get their ass handed to them by a search engine that was created in a garage, whose creators only saw significant investment after that was concluded?

Re:Totally Boss! (2, Insightful)

JSBiff (87824) | more than 5 years ago | (#24155775)

I'm confused. Didn't Yahoo get their ass handed to them by a search engine that was created at Stanford University by PhD Computer Science students , whose creators only saw significant investment after that was concluded (because they had free access to University resources, like bandwidth, computers, and power)?

Re:Totally Boss! (1)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | more than 5 years ago | (#24156751)

Exactly. They didn't have any resources that are out of reach of any student, and students are poor as dirt. It's not like it's hard to get into a university and use their resources...

Probably about paid search (1)

JSBiff (87824) | more than 5 years ago | (#24155677)

I could be wrong, but I think this comes down to paid-search. There was an article just the other day on slashdot about Yahoo, Microsoft, Google, and a patent Yahoo acquired when it bought Overture, which gave them a paid-search property. That is, people listing with yahoo pay to get their search rankings elevated.

I believe, however, it is a pay per click model (I might be wrong). So, what Yahoo seems to be trying to do, in letting you use their 'search results' (I put it in quotes because, when the results are paid for, I don't really consider that a search, really) without any Yahoo branding or advertising, is still probably generating revenue for them by getting clicks on their links, which they can then bill to the sites who've contracted for paid-search rankings with Yahoo. With paid search, it doesn't matter who's website the 'search result' is displayed in, as long as Yahoo can still claim a click, so it's in their interest to try to get as many sites as possible publishing their links for them.

Hell, Yahoo ought to pay *you* to display their 'search results'.

Index size? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24161659)

How many pages BOSS have indexed?

Re:Totally Boss! (3, Interesting)

rtb61 (674572) | more than 5 years ago | (#24162671)

It is far more than that. It is all about building localised search services. The larger local media distributors ie. local newspaper or television channels can effectively incorporate the global search facility and enhance it with their localised knowledge and content to more suit their local market. In turn of course Yahoo can then incorporate that localised search more effectively into their global search engine.

This in affect gives Yahoo and the local media players and far more effective search platform and a real market threat to google as well as of course that other major players in the search engine business.

This wider distribution of search engine services will also push search from the current marketing perceived foreground way into the back ground as simply a subsidiary service of any typical major web portal whilst simultaneously pushing local web portals into the foreground in local markets by them being able to offer globally effective search services on their site.

Microsoft probably knew. (3, Informative)

gcnaddict (841664) | more than 5 years ago | (#24152789)

I can't see Microsoft justifying a Yahoo purchase unless they knew about the BOSS platform in advance, which is probably why the sale fell through in the first place.

Then again, I doubt BOSS alone would save Yahoo anyway.

Re:Microsoft probably knew. (1, Flamebait)

jchawk (127686) | more than 5 years ago | (#24153003)

The deal feel through because of Jerry Yang's ego. Taking the deal was the right thing to do for the shareholders and he didn't do it because he let his pride/ego get in the way.

Re:Microsoft probably knew. (4, Insightful)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | more than 5 years ago | (#24153225)

The deal feel through because of Jerry Yang's ego. Taking the deal was the right thing to do for the shareholders and he didn't do it because he let his pride/ego get in the way.

Or he did it because he knew it was the wrong thing for Yahoo! and the wrong thing for shareholders who are interested in the long view. But hey - this horse has been worked before.

Re:Microsoft probably knew. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24153241)

The deal fell throuugh becausee M$ wanted to get hold of the '361' patent. Yahoo is opening the BOSS platform because what it doesn't let you do (unless you pay for the Yahoo owned '361' patent) is use paid advertising in your results!. So people use the search to implement their search and pay yahoo for the paid advertising that they will invariably need to support their business model.

Re:Microsoft probably knew. (3, Interesting)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | more than 5 years ago | (#24153277)

"Better for the shareholders" is a subjective term. To YOU, you think selling out and making the board a quick wad of cash was "Better for the shareholders". The thing is, Microsoft loves to buy and completely wreck successful companies. I think, from a business point of view, that selling out to Microsoft would mean the death march for Yahoo. You and I don't know what Yahoo has up their sleeve. They have been taking some new and interesting paths lately. It may be that it is "Better for the shareholders" to ride the new wave and see where it takes them.

No Way (2, Interesting)

encoderer (1060616) | more than 5 years ago | (#24157815)

The shareholders of Yahoo are not there because they're tech visionaries or Yahoo loyalists. That's the point of the Icahn lawsuit. Some may be, but institutional investors hold the bulk of Y! shares that aren't held by corporate officers. Mutual funds, pension funds, etc.

These people hold Yahoo for one reason only: to earn a return on their investment.

Microsoft made an offer that was VERY generous. Not just measured on Y!'s latest performance: Microsoft offered a higher value than Yahoo's stock has seen in years.

Yang and Filo made a deal when they took their company public. The deal is simple: You become a billionaire overnight, making more than the top 1% of the top 1%.

In exchange, you must be a good steward for the people giving you all this money. This is not up for interpretation, debate, or discussion.

There's this thing called "time value of money" that, simply, a dollar today is worth FAR more than the promise of a dollar tomorrow.

You can't say that "shareholder value" is subjective because Yahoo MIGHT turn themselves around and they MIGHT be successful and they MIGHT then be worth more in the future than Microsoft offered today.

No way.

Any shareholder would gladly take that large premium, get cash today, and then re-invest.

It doesn't get any more basic than this. Carl Icahn will probably win this lawsuit. Yang passed the employee-severence-poison-pill in a direct response to Microsoft. He wanted his cake and to eat it, too. He doesn't get to treat Yahoo like his private feifdom. It belongs to its shareholders now.

They don't care about stupid microsoft hating like you do. They don't care about the "purity" of a classic internet brand. They care that they have, say, a pension fund to manage, and they are underwater $20MM on Yahoo shares, and they'd have seen a huge return. That's what they care about.

And the law happens to be on their side.

Re:No Way (1)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | more than 5 years ago | (#24158103)

There's this thing called "time value of money" that, simply, a dollar today is worth FAR more than the promise of a dollar tomorrow. You can't say that "shareholder value" is subjective because Yahoo MIGHT turn themselves around and they MIGHT be successful and they MIGHT then be worth more in the future than Microsoft offered today.

This is just a stockholder version of "Wasteful Spending". You would rather throw away your CRT TV go out and buy a brand new LCD TV with inferior color, when the CRT has better color representation and only costs $20 to fix. Or even better, firing your PHP developer because you want to move to Ruby and find it "better" to just hire a new guy with Ruby experience than to train the old PHP guy.

Part of ANY business, public or not, is to sustain life. To keep going. To keep on earning money. The bid from Microsoft was a gun to the forehead. Giving in to the demands of the mugger would have gotten them shot and killed. Instead they fought back and are alive for the time being. The same certainly can't be said if they accepted Microsoft's offer.

What if EVERY business just aimed after the "quick buck" of the day.

Grocery stores selling their milk at such a price that they won't have any more for a week... then they have no more milk to sell anyone else. People stop going there because they would have to go to another store anyway to get milk.

You sir, want to cut in line, because your there to pay for your crap and get out as fast as you can. Think about the fallout if everyone had that mentality. This isn't an ideal. This is what NEEDS to happen if the system is to survive. Everyone selling out to their competitor just to make a quick buck will leave only a very few people controlling everything.

Re:No Way (1)

encoderer (1060616) | more than 5 years ago | (#24158401)

I have to assume that you've never owned a business, or been a shareholder in one. That's the only thing that could explain what I'm reading.

The fuunction of a business is NOT to "sustain life." The function of a business is to accept cash as input and produce EVEN MORE CASH as output.

That's it. And there's been LOADS of companies that have liquidated all assets and close down to deliver cash back to the shareholders. And that's the best choice. And there's nothing wrong with that.

And the flaw in that sentence of yours explains the flaw found a few sentences later about selling milk. Again, it's not about just making cash. It's about taking cash as input and returning more cash as output.

For YEARS now, Yahoo has been taking cash as input and producing LESS or just EQUAL cash as output. And that's why their shares are worth less now than they were a year ago, and two, and three, and four, and five.

Among the legally defined duties of a public companies board of directors is to protect shareholders. Nowhere does it say their duty is to "sustain life."

Re:No Way (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24163199)

Microsoft made an offer that was VERY generous. Not just measured on Y!'s latest performance: Microsoft offered a higher value than Yahoo's stock has seen in years.

Yahoo was trading above 33 [yahoo.com] about 1.5 years back.

The very generous offer MS made was on a multi-year low. And it is _assuming_ that MSFT stays at the price it did on the day the offer was made. Assuming it took 6-9 months for closure of the deal (not unreasonable given the anti-trust issues involved), and given how everyone is predicting that economy is in a down-turn, it is a big assumption to make that MSFT will stay at the price.

And if you are talking about long term investors, there is the other assumption that MSFT (after YHOO merger) stock will perform better in the long run than YHOO staying independent.

If you are talking about short term investors and say people would have sold MSFT on the day the deal was done and cashed out, they could have done it on the day the deal was announced and YHOO touched 33.

Re:Microsoft probably knew. (3, Interesting)

sobachatina (635055) | more than 5 years ago | (#24153297)

the right thing to do for the shareholders

That is an interesting choice of words. You are presenting this opinion as fact where I believe there is room for many other interpretations. There are a lot ways that taking the deal could have been the wrong thing to do.

It was only guaranteed to be the "right thing" if you define the "right thing" as "maximizing short term stock price gains". There are many other ways that the "right thing" could be defined where that deal may or may not have been better. Things like "Maintaining reasonable profit growth for the next 50 years." or even "Providing a work environment that reduces employee attrition". I'm not saying that MS is necessarily bad at these things but a CEO could definitely make a case that the company would be better served by staying independent.

I personally never invest in companies that have a history of making decisions where the "right thing" is defined as "maximizing short term stock price gains". When you do that you're not building anything you're just gambling.

Re:Microsoft probably knew. (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 5 years ago | (#24157335)

I personally never invest in companies that have a history of making decisions where the "right thing" is defined as "maximizing short term stock price gains". When you do that you're not building anything you're just gambling.

Banks aim for long term, but see the ARM crisis.

Re:Microsoft probably knew. (2, Interesting)

encoderer (1060616) | more than 5 years ago | (#24157937)

Oy Vey.

You are confusing things here. For example:

You start talking about shareholder value. Then you say this: "a CEO could definitely make a case that the company would be better served by staying independent."

This isn't about what would best serve the COMPANY.

It's about what would best serve the shareholders.

Period.

Yahoo has underperformed for years now. Yang has an obligation to the shareholders that made him a billionaire when he decided to go public.

It's not about "short term gains" it's about recouping an investment and giving your shareholders a return. THAT is the covenant you enter-into when you take a company public.

As I mentioned above, this comes down to Time Value of Money.

What PROMISE can you make for tomorrow that will be worth more than cash today?

This is EXACTLY like a company saying that they don't owe you your paycheck. Giving you your paycheck today would only be good for "maximizing short term cash return." If you just forego your salary, the company could "make a case" that they could give you even MORE money later. To heck with the fact that the company has been on a multi-year slide.

You want your cash today. You've earned it. Laws exist to protect employees in these situations. And guess what? Laws exist to protect shareholders, too.

Shareholders are not usually the billionaire couture class.

They're pension funds. Or municipal funds. Or union investors. Or mutual funds. Heath Care trusts. University endowments.

Yang committed himself to protect these peoples investment. He eschewed that responsibility for the same juvenile MS hatred as is witnessed here.

Re:Microsoft probably knew. (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 5 years ago | (#24153697)

Taking the deal was the right thing to do for the shareholders

It might have been good for a shareholder short-term wind-fall, but if it ultimately destroys the value of the company, it's not a good thing.

Re:Microsoft probably knew. (2, Interesting)

immcintosh (1089551) | more than 5 years ago | (#24153931)

While many others seem to have commented on your use of "better for the shareholders" in the technical sense, I'd just like to point out how absurdly perverse a world view you must be to value shareholder profit above all other considerations (as you clearly do). There's more to life, there's more to BUSINESS, and to being a good citizen of your country and the world, as a business and as a person, than immediate shareholder profit. Always depressing to see how many people's vision ends at the shareholder profit horizon. Public trading has not been good for our culture.

Re:Microsoft probably knew. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24155043)

Then Jerry should have never taken Yahoo public.

Re:Microsoft probably knew. (1)

encoderer (1060616) | more than 5 years ago | (#24157981)

You do realize that the shareholders OWN the company, right? It's theirs. They own it.

It's like me saying: You won't let me build my house on your front lawn? Why not? All you care about is "resale value" and "property law." Home ownership has not been good for our culture.

Yang and Filo sold the right to control their precious baby when they took it public. They took on a duty to be a steward for shareholder value. In exchange, they were made instant billionaires.

Now he wants to still treat Yahoo as HIS. It isn't. Shareholders are the owners. End of story.

Re:Microsoft probably knew. (1)

immcintosh (1089551) | more than 5 years ago | (#24158317)

You do realize that I'm complaining about the attitude of the shareholders themselves, right? I know it's really easy with the degree of separation public ownership gives you to stop being able to think beyond your own pocketbook--it's just oh so fashionable, I know--but it's irresponsible, unethical, and not even necessarily a good thing for the long term health of the companies they own. I honestly couldn't give two shits about Jerry Yang and what he may or may not want, or the reasons for it. My accusation is leveled squarely at shareholders themselves, and their generally shortsighted behavior.

Re:Microsoft probably knew. (2, Interesting)

encoderer (1060616) | more than 5 years ago | (#24158477)

Long term health of companies is not important. Why do you think it is? What difference does it make if a company exists for 5 years, or 50? As weak companies fail, stronger ones grow from their ashes.

The only purpose of a corporoation is to make money. They're money making machines. They accept money as input into their machine, and the output should be EVEN MORE MONEY. If that is not the output, the machine is broken. Yahoo is broken. It is not producing value. Yahoo owes it to the people who paid to BUILD the machine to get the best deal they can.

This would be moot if Yahoo was performing well. But they're not. Yahoo will never see $35 a share. They have no "game changer" up their sleeve. It was supposed to be their new ad platform. It fizzled.

Re:Microsoft probably knew. (1)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 5 years ago | (#24154523)

From the summary this seems to have a glaring drawback: it isn't Google. Yahoo search results are IMO quite inferior to Google's. Before Google I used infoseek, because it, too returned better results for me.

Google has let you use their search without restrictions almost since the beginning. When I had web sites I used Google for my site search, and a lot of big commercial sites do, too.

Why would you buy a Vega for the price of a Caddilac when the Caddilac gets better mileage?

It sure seems to have taken Yahoo a long time, too.

Re:Microsoft probably knew. (1)

Bairradino (1142321) | more than 5 years ago | (#24161543)

Good oportunity for Microsoft to set up a decent Search Engine... For once... Tony Danza says "Who's The BOSS??"

Inktomi for the masses (5, Interesting)

kriston (7886) | more than 5 years ago | (#24152825)

It will be really interesting to learn how all the Inktomi technology works and how it well it was integrated with Yahoo.

A little hard to believe (5, Insightful)

decavolt (928214) | more than 5 years ago | (#24152847)

"...from delivering credible alternatives to Yahoo! and Google."

I find it a little hard to believe that Yahoo, especially in their current state, actually wants to encourage even more competition against themselves. I think the real target here is more competition for Google, not for Yahoo, and Yahoo seems OK with giving away their own tech if it helps knock Google down a few notches.

Re:A little hard to believe (5, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#24152885)

Yet I think what is so funny is Yahoo is what made Google popular in the first place. When I go to Google, I have the A) Google logo B) A search box and C) A bit of navigation. When I go to Yahoo, I have ads, a large Yahoo logo, a page full of useless information, and Flash. Google uses no Flash which is helpful for a Linux user like me, which, although Flash works, it has a terrible CPU leak in the more recent versions.

Re:A little hard to believe (3, Informative)

imaginaryelf (862886) | more than 5 years ago | (#24153063)

Which goes to highlight where the companies come from, and what the companies do. Google does search. Yahoo does a lot of other things, of which search is just one component, albeit a major one.

If you go to http://search.yahoo.com/ [yahoo.com] or http://ysearch.com/ [ysearch.com] then you get the same experience as going to google (classic).

Re:A little hard to believe (4, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#24153127)

Which goes to highlight where the companies come from, and what the companies do. Google does search. Yahoo does a lot of other things, of which search is just one component, albeit a major one.

The same thing though could be said about Google, Google has maps, blogs, a social networking site, 2 video sites, and much more

Re:A little hard to believe (2, Insightful)

imaginaryelf (862886) | more than 5 years ago | (#24153273)

Most of which do not contribute to their bottom line, if at all. So you put in your frontpage the things that make you money, so google -> search. Yahoo -> search and other stuff.

If yahoo's frontpage were to be equivalent to ysearch.com, then they would be deliberately taking money away from their other business units which are making them money.

Re:A little hard to believe (2, Insightful)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 5 years ago | (#24153351)

Yeah. I think the trick here is that Google doesn't try to muck up their main entry point displaying everything they support while yahoo does. You can go to search.yahoo.com and get a nice little search screen, very similar to google. But most people don't go there. They go to www.yahoo.com. I think Google was smart in keeping their homepage simple.

Re:A little hard to believe (4, Informative)

magarity (164372) | more than 5 years ago | (#24153767)

That's because you go to Yahoo's portal page. Yahoo's search page [yahoo.com] is every bit as clean as Google's, and always has been. Meanwhile, Google's portal page [google.com] is every bit as busy as Yahoo's.

Re:A little hard to believe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24156477)

What is a portal page?

When I see Yahoo.com, I see what Yahoo! wants to be for consumers.

When I see Google.com, I see what Google wants to be for consumers.

This is an apples-to-apples comparison of positions: the GP was claiming that Google is strong because it positions itself as a search site while Yahoo! continues to position itself as a portal--at a time when consumers favored a search product over a portal product.

Re:A little hard to believe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24156711)

Clearly Yahoo got the defaults backwards. I'm supposed to have to search for the search page? No thanks.

Re:A little hard to believe (1)

mrcdeckard (810717) | more than 5 years ago | (#24156765)

are you drunk or did you link to google's news page on purpose?

news.google.com is NOT google's portal. it's their, uh, news service. which is why the first word in the url (you know, the server name) is "news".

i would guess that www.google.com would be their portal, since it's their "www" server, as in "world wide web", which is this thing we're all -- oh, nevermind.

mr c

Re:A little hard to believe (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#24156855)

It's not the same. news.google.com has (wait for it) news. Yahoo.com has search, links to a long list of services, email, IM, weather, movies, news, stocks, shopping, and food. To get a similar level of noise at Google you need to us iGoogle.

Re:A little hard to believe (1)

fuzzlost (871011) | more than 5 years ago | (#24157469)

The difference is the main page. Sure, we geeks are savvy enough to go only to yahoo's search page, but when the default page on the root domain is so cluttered, far less likely to use it (if all I'm looking for is search)

Re:A little hard to believe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24162371)

That's because you go to Yahoo's portal page. Yahoo's search page [yahoo.com] is every bit as clean as Google's, and always has been. Meanwhile, Google's portal page [google.com] is every bit as busy as Yahoo's.

Excuse me if I'm wrong, but that is not Googles 'Portal' Page. That's google's news site.

Google doesn't really have a 'portal' page. They do have the personalised portal page www.google.com/ig etc which can be as clean or as busy as you want.. but there's not one page that has everything from news, dating, classifieds, videos, weather etc etc etc and more crap like the main www.yahoo.com page.

Also the original guys point was you goto google.. you get a clean interface.. you goto yahoo you dont. Sure you could drill down or remember search.yahoo.com but that's defeats the point, as you've already been/seen the main cluttered page.

Cheers

Re:A little hard to believe (1)

corbettw (214229) | more than 5 years ago | (#24154903)

Though Google's homepage design is irrelevant now. I haven't even visited a search engine's homepage in years. I just type what I'm looking for in the search box on Firefox, and hit return.

Re:A little hard to believe (1)

mpapet (761907) | more than 5 years ago | (#24154797)

You may want to consider the move roughly equivalent to unleashing a swarm of bees at a picnic. Google can't possibly keep up with every specialized search engine possibility.

Alone, none of the specialized search engines could possibly defeat Google, but if enough of them fragment Google's base, then Yahoo comes out way ahead.

If I had the time, I'd get started today writing a couple of specialized search engines after I checked out the license terms.

Goog (5, Informative)

Faux_Pseudo (141152) | more than 5 years ago | (#24152963)

Google already has this feature [google.com]. I wonder what the differances are. For example how come google didn't get a slashdot story when it launched its version?

Re:Goog (1)

wmbetts (1306001) | more than 5 years ago | (#24153205)

The only thing close I've seen from google makes you state your using google. This on the other hand doesn't.

Re:Goog (1)

mpath (555000) | more than 5 years ago | (#24153469)

You could use the SiteSearch [google.com]: you don't have to state you're using Google, but you do have to pay for it.

We use it on our $work site and since it's a business and we have over 5,000 pages, it's $500/year for access to the service and we get access to the XML data and can present it however we'd like.

Re:Goog (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24153675)

That's not the same, idiot.

Re:Goog (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24158911)

Because all the recent news about Yahoo has been rather negative, and it's good to hear something nice about them once in a while.

(And it's not like there aren't enough Google stories on Slashdot already)

Re:Goog (4, Informative)

Quixote (154172) | more than 5 years ago | (#24161449)

This is more than Google's CSE.

From Google's CSE docs [google.com]:

  • Apply your website's look and feel to the search results page.
  • Provide search refinements within results pages to make it easier for searchers to find the information they're looking for.
  • Add sites to your search engine's index as you surf the web.
  • Invite friends and trusted users to co-edit and contribute to your search engine.
  • Make money from your Custom Search Engine by participating in Google's AdSense program.

Yahoo's BOSS allows you to retrieve raw results from their index, and then munge them as you see fit. Google does not allow you to tinker much with the results (just add/exclude sites), except maybe the presentation.

Inertia (3, Insightful)

frodo from middle ea (602941) | more than 5 years ago | (#24153041)

I have been so used to goolgling for stuff, that I hardly see a point in switching my search engine. 1) Google comes up with relevant results for 99.99% of my needs. 2) Their search page and subsequent results page is very easy to use, has no flashly graphics, the sponsored ads are clearly marked and never really mingle with the actual searches. Not that I am saying yahoo's search is any less in quality, but the inertia for me has set in, and unless google does something stupid, like making the whole website flash/silverlight/java-applet based, Why should I switch ?

Really Great Strategy (5, Insightful)

saterdaies (842986) | more than 5 years ago | (#24153115)

This is one of the smartest moves I've seen Yahoo make. The key is that you are required to run Yahoo ads alongside the search results (when said ads become available).

So, if I'm creating a search for my website, I can go the Google route, embed an iframe and look amateur or go with Yahoo and look professional and completely integrated.

Not only that, but there are a lot of niche markets that big players can't go after that add up to a lot. As someone who programs for those type of sites, Yahoo's BOSS is really appealing. Yahoo ups their ad revenue, I get access to world-class internet search.

It's all about increasing the number of ads served. The more people who choose BOSS, the more ads Yahoo serves and the more money Yahoo makes.

Re:Really Great Strategy (3, Interesting)

CopaceticOpus (965603) | more than 5 years ago | (#24154007)

As I read the announcement, running Yahoo ads is not a requirement. Running Yahoo ads will be a future option to those who want to use the ads as a profit stream, but it's up to the site owner to decide.

If you like, you could take your Yahoo search results ad-free and run Google ads next to them. That's why this announcement is so bold - there are basically no requirements or limits on using BOSS.

Re:Really Great Strategy (2, Informative)

Quixote (154172) | more than 5 years ago | (#24161407)

From the FAQ [yahoo.com]:

Will I make money by hosting the Yahoo! Sponsored Search advertisements in my search application?

Yes. It will be a requirement to host our ads on your site. We're building this technology into our platform and it is coming soon. Yahoo! Search will share the revenue produced through these ads with developers. In the meantime, the API is open for free use without ads.

and

What if I want unlimited queries but I cannot take ads?

After the ad infrastructure is ready it will be a requirement to publish Yahoo! Sponsored Search ads as part of search applications that exceed a set QPD (Queries Per Day) level.

Someone's lazy (1)

NoT_MoT (1322625) | more than 5 years ago | (#24153169)

I guess it's easier to make everyone construct their own search engines rather than spend the time and energy to make a well-developed, fully-functional one themselves. Poor Yahoo. Sometimes I feel sorry for them.

What's in it for Yahoo? (1)

Yaa 101 (664725) | more than 5 years ago | (#24153309)

They are not really in a position to give things away, what way do they plan to make money with this project?

Re:What's in it for Yahoo? (2, Informative)

wombatmobile (623057) | more than 5 years ago | (#24153713)

what way do they plan to make money with this project?

From advertizing. Yahoo will feed ads to the people who use their search services.

--
Science is the depolitization of economics

Oblig. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24153315)

Fine! I'll go build my own search service... with blackjack... and hookers.

wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24153335)

already crashed the site

Fantastic: My new business plan (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24153459)

Monday Make search engine using BOSS

Tuesday Marketing: Invent phrase Web 3.11 for netgroups

Wednesday Article in wired on pages 7,14,26,9,-3 and 3x-5

Thursday IPO

Friday AM; Sell remaining stock at crazy highs. PM; Stock collapses to 2c per share

Saturday Start new life in Caribbean hideaway

Sunday w00t!

It's a relaunch of an old API with a new TOS (5, Informative)

Animats (122034) | more than 5 years ago | (#24153731)

BOSS is not really new. Yahoo already had the Yahoo Search API [yahoo.com], which does essentially the same thing. BOSS is essentially the Yahoo Search API with different terms of service. In particular, BOSS will, in future, allow "monetization". BOSS also allows users to intersperse their own search results with Yahoo's and run ads.

Google used to have a SOAP-based API [google.com], but they stopped allowing new users in 2006. It didn't force the caller to display ads. There's still a Google search API [google.com], but it's tied to their widgets and has restrictive terms of service.

We support both with SiteTruth. Yahoo search API version [sitetruth.com] Google AJAX search version [sitetruth.com]. The interface code is quite different but the end results are similar.

It's not about technology. It's about what you're allowed to do with the data:

  • The Yahoo search API terms of service have a rate limit, don't allow you to add ads, but do allow reordering of results.
  • The Google AJAX API terms of service don't have a rate limit, restrict presentation to Google's format, and don't allow reordering of results.
  • The first rule of the BOSS Terms of Use [yahoo.com] is that you don't talk about the BOSS terms of use. "You shall not issue a press release or other written public statement regarding this TOU without Yahoo!'s written approval."

Re:It's a relaunch of an old API with a new TOS (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24154417)

These are some of the limitations imposed by Google's API that are NOT applicable to BOSS:

"The API may be used only for services that are accessible to your end users without charge."

"You agree that you will not, and you will not permit your users or other third parties to: (a) modify or replace the text, images, or other content of the Google Search Results, including by (i) changing the order in which the Google Search Results appear, (ii) intermixing Search Results from sources other than Google, or (iii) intermixing other content such that it appears to be part of the Google Search Results; or (b) modify, replace or otherwise disable the functioning of links to Google or third party websites provided in the Google Search Results."

" incorporate Google Search Results as the primary content on your website or page; "

"You agree to include and display the "powered by Google" attribution adjacent to the Service search box."

"For all Search Results available through the Service, Google provides Google AJAX Search API attribution language (such as "clipped from Google - date" or such similar language as may be used from time to time). You agree to include this attribution, unmodified, adjacent to Search Results on your site."

Most importantly, BOSS can be completely under the covers, and allows you to MODIFY the results themselves as you see fit.

Re:It's a relaunch of an old API with a new TOS (1)

mds820 (944427) | more than 5 years ago | (#24159707)

BOSS is not really new. Yahoo already had the Yahoo Search API [yahoo.com], which does essentially the same thing. BOSS is essentially the Yahoo Search API with different terms of service. In particular, BOSS will, in future, allow "monetization". BOSS also allows users to intersperse their own search results with Yahoo's and run ads.

Google used to have a SOAP-based API [google.com], but they stopped allowing new users in 2006. It didn't force the caller to display ads. There's still a Google search API [google.com], but it's tied to their widgets and has restrictive terms of service.

We support both with SiteTruth. Yahoo search API version [sitetruth.com] Google AJAX search version [sitetruth.com]. The interface code is quite different but the end results are similar.

It's not about technology. It's about what you're allowed to do with the data:

  • The Yahoo search API terms of service have a rate limit, don't allow you to add ads, but do allow reordering of results.
  • The Google AJAX API terms of service don't have a rate limit, restrict presentation to Google's format, and don't allow reordering of results.
  • The first rule of the BOSS Terms of Use [yahoo.com] is that you don't talk about the BOSS terms of use. "You shall not issue a press release or other written public statement regarding this TOU without Yahoo!'s written approval."
  • The second rule of the BOSS Terms of Use [yahoo.com] is that you don't talk about the BOSS terms of use.
  • The third rule of the BOSS Terms of Use [yahoo.com] is that you don't talk about the BOSS terms of use.

Ad-Revenue (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24154469)

In the end, it is just a move to gain more ad-revenue.

From their Forum:

"Hi -

You can use Boss for mobile as long as it is a search product. Keep in mind though that in the future we will require Ads over a certain query volume a day. Mobile ads may not be available right away, so we'll have to figure that out.

Hope this helps.

-bill"

So basically if you do develop something that a lot of people love, and you receive a load of hits. You will start to see Yahoo adds Pop-Up.

fpg cum.. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24157683)

from one folder on argued by Eric The mobo blew Paranoid conspiracy tangle of fatal the above is far ffel an obligation the resignation see... The number anything can noises out of the and Juliet 40,000 Marketing surveys eyes on the real collect any spilled [idge.net] paper towels, are a pathetic gone Romeo and Posts on Usenet are I ever did. It dying. Everyone TO THIS. FOR Volume of NetBSD Short of a miracle HOBBY. IT WAS ALL session and join in GAY NIGGERS FROM trouble. It Is mired in an unless you can work rotting corpse reciprocating bad MAY WELL REMAIN need to scream that users. BSD/OS GAY NIGGERS FROM are having trouble To work I'm doing, However I don't driven out by the visit conglomerate in the Keep uunecessary erosion of user an operating system Marketing surveys
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...