×

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!

Google Unveils Search Options and Google Squared

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the just-the-useful-bits-please dept.

Google 171

CWmike writes "Saying that its users are becoming increasingly sophisticated, Google has unveiled a list of new search technologies geared to help users 'slice and dice' their Google search results, along with a new tool to help them cull information instead of Web pages. Marissa Mayer, vice president of Google's Search Products, said of Search Options in a blog post, 'We have spent a lot of time looking at how we can better understand the wide range of information that's on the Web and quickly connect people to just the nuggets they need at that moment.' Google Squared, set to be released to users as part of its Google Labs program later this month, pulls up information from different sites and presents it in an organized manner."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

171 comments

Google Squared? (5, Funny)

FlyByPC (841016) | more than 4 years ago | (#27938589)

No thanks; wake me up when they come out with the "Google n*log(n)" version.

Re:Google Squared? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27938785)

Mod parent up, DoublePlus Good. Also, why is it that Kirk's shirts were so flimsy? Any other crew member could be beaten to within an inch of his/her life, and his/her shirt would have barely a speck of dirt or a wrinkle. If Kirk so much as had his face slapped, his shirt was torn down to his out-of-shape waist, and he had a bleeding gash on his hairless chest. I love the show, too, but Shatner was overly- dramatic to the point of nausea. And, by the way, the dumbest scene by far was the one where Kirk & Spock sang "I'm weedle-Dee, he's Tweedle-Dum, closely followed by Spock's "bitter dregs" folk ballad. A double-whammy!

Re:Google Squared? (0, Offtopic)

dwater (72834) | more than 4 years ago | (#27938823)

I thought they were copying Symbian....but I like your answer better :)

Re:Google Squared- remember Teoma? (2, Interesting)

alxtoth (914920) | more than 4 years ago | (#27939397)

I remember around year 2000 there was am animated search engine that produced linked "bubbles" , with the diameter representing relevance. I guess it was Teoma (not sure). Anyone else remembers?

Re:Google Squared- remember Teoma? (0, Offtopic)

SEWilco (27983) | more than 4 years ago | (#27939601)

I remember around year 2000 there was am animated search engine that produced linked "bubbles" , with the diameter representing relevance. I guess it was Teoma (not sure). Anyone else remembers?

That got replaced by the well-known LOLCAT technology. [icanhascheezburger.com]

Re:Google Squared? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27939855)

Don't worry, Google is already doing plenty of log'n.

Re:Google Squared? (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27940359)

Agreed.

Chicken or the egghead? (3, Interesting)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 4 years ago | (#27938599)

Culling data and presenting context-aware results is something that Wolfram is working on too.

Wolfram, a genuine genius, against a company full of above-average engineers. It's a tossup as to who came up with this idea first.

Re:Chicken or the egghead? (1)

Dishevel (1105119) | more than 4 years ago | (#27938641)

Of course they could have come up with the ideas separately and at the same time. More or less. Also we are not even sure how similar the 2 approaches really are.

Re:Chicken or the egghead? (4, Insightful)

Darundal (891860) | more than 4 years ago | (#27938701)

Why do I care who came up with the idea first? I care about who does it best.

Re:Chicken or the egghead? (1, Insightful)

thedonger (1317951) | more than 4 years ago | (#27938741)

But it is not about who does it best, but about who markets it best. The Google brand is damn-near ubiquitous, and already encompasses the starting point (i.e., home page) of a large number of internet users. I wish Wolfram luck leaping that hurdle.

Re:Chicken or the egghead? (4, Insightful)

tsalmark (1265778) | more than 4 years ago | (#27939893)

Best, and by a long shot, is how Google came to be damn-near ubiquitous.AltaVista (for search) and Yahoo (For directory) had the lions share of the market. Google was just another one of hundreds attempting to gain a foot hold in the market, until the first time you used it, then you never went back.

Re:Chicken or the egghead? (1, Insightful)

anaesthetica (596507) | more than 4 years ago | (#27938895)

I hope Google is not discussing Google Squared as part of a (typically Microsoft) strategy of announcing a competitive to-be-released-soon! service simply to deter users from switching to a rival with an actual shipping product.

Re:Chicken or the egghead? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27939139)

Flamebait? I'd say insightful. All large companies are up for anti-competitive tactics if they think they can get away with it.

Re:Chicken or the egghead? (5, Interesting)

LUH 3418 (1429407) | more than 4 years ago | (#27939647)

I would think they're pretty serious about this. Google pours alot of R&D money into improving its search engine. In their mind, I believe this represents another step closer to one day having a search engine that can truely understand questions asked by users, which really, is the ultimate goal for any search engine.

It seems obvious that for them to publicize this now is a response to Wolfram Alpha, but clearly, Google wants to keep is technological edge over the competition. Now, what will be interesting to see is how much people care about these new search options, and whether or not someone buys Wolfram Alpha.

Re:Chicken or the egghead? (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 4 years ago | (#27938933)

Google's been doing very limited versions of this kind of search for quite some kind (one of the examples usually given for the kind of thing Alpha is good for the Google supposedly isn't is looking up the GDP of a country, which is a clear sign that whoever is giving the example has never done a query in Google for the GDP of a country, which is a question that Google will usually be able to answer directly with a link to the site from which it has culled that information), and its something they've been very clear that they plan on expanding. It is probably the case that these particular features have been released to the public in response to Wolfram|Alpha, but its pretty clear that Alpha didn't provide the impetus for Google's interest in this kind of functionality.

Good ideas can come from anyone (1)

ClosedSource (238333) | more than 4 years ago | (#27939249)

"It's a tossup as to who came up with this idea first."

Probably just some unknown average person with an interesting idea.

Re:Chicken or the egghead? (2, Informative)

Trepidity (597) | more than 4 years ago | (#27939837)

Google has presented limited context-aware results for years if you request them, e.g. search for "define: word" or "185 usd in euros".

Re:Chicken or the egghead? (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 4 years ago | (#27940465)

a company full of above-average engineers

I'm trying to think of another free service that I get so much value from every single day of my life.

I have a very hard time trying to work up any resentment toward Google, given the way they've transformed the landscape of the Internet, even to the point where their name has become synonymous with the act of searching for something. Generally, when someone gives me a whole bunch of really useful services for free, my first reaction is one of gratitude rather than resentment.

But I guess that's where we differ.

google squared (0, Redundant)

overlordofmu (1422163) | more than 4 years ago | (#27938601)

How about a a google to the googleth power?

Re:google squared (2, Funny)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 4 years ago | (#27938645)

What, a google plex?

That's the number we used to represent just-short-of-infinity when having nerd arguments as kids in the 80s.

Infinity plex > infinity squared > infinity > google plex > google > thousands > a lot.

Re:google squared (3, Informative)

hezekiah957 (1219288) | more than 4 years ago | (#27938975)

If you're considering a google plex to be analogous to a googolplex, then your post is wrong. A googolplex is 10^googol, not googol^googol.

Re:google squared (2, Funny)

overlordofmu (1422163) | more than 4 years ago | (#27939097)

What I really want to know is what is google to the power of google divided by the natural log to the power of Richard Stallman?

Later, we can try dividing by zero . . .

Re:google squared (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 4 years ago | (#27939149)

Hey, we were young kids who had been reading older siblings' collegiate math texts.

Can you blame us for being way off base*?

*Literally, off base. Not off-base-as-in-baseball-or-pickle, but off-base-as-in-thinking-base-googol-instead-of-base-ten?

Re:google squared (1)

BrokenHalo (565198) | more than 4 years ago | (#27939065)

That's the number we used to represent just-short-of-infinity when having nerd arguments as kids in the 80s.

Hmmm. I remember people using the word back in the '60s. But given that the word googol (10^10^100) itself goes back to 1939, I guess the term is even older (!) than I am. ;-)

Re:google squared (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 4 years ago | (#27939163)

Pssh, real kids know that infinity plex is somewhat less than zero, having looped around.

Re:google squared (1)

Jake Griffin (1153451) | more than 4 years ago | (#27939917)

Google to any power is still just Google. That's because Google is number 1. Google^2 = 1, Google^Google = 1, Google^Infinity = 1.

And, most importantly... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27938647)

... Marissa Mayer [elpais.com] is HOT!

Re:And, most importantly... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27939167)

That sweater looks like someone got drunk and puked on it.

Regexp and exact word matching options (5, Insightful)

Lord Lode (1290856) | more than 4 years ago | (#27938691)

I wish Google had the ability to search for regular expressions and exact word matching. Searching for exact words or things that contain other symbols than letters is unfortunately very hard with Google and so sometimes it's useless in situations where it could have been so powerful.

Re:Regexp and exact word matching options (-1, Troll)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 4 years ago | (#27938869)

You might find the punctuational convention known as quotes to be helpful.

For example, searching for mature amateur video is certain to yield different results than searching using "mature amateur video".

Likewise, using quotation marks (that's what those double-apostrophes are called) makes it fairly easy to search suing terms including symbols.

Re:Regexp and exact word matching options (1, Funny)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 4 years ago | (#27938903)

Your choice of examples intrigues me and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Re:Regexp and exact word matching options (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27939035)

Except quotation marks do not give you a literal search.
It ignores punctuation marks, and doesn't necessarily give you exact quotes early on.

Re:Regexp and exact word matching options (5, Insightful)

JustinOpinion (1246824) | more than 4 years ago | (#27939071)

Likewise, using quotation marks (that's what those double-apostrophes are called) makes it fairly easy to search suing terms including symbols.

Using quotes can help... but Google seems to strip out non-alphanumeric symbols. For instance a search for "Error 2005" [google.com] and "Error #2005" [google.com] yield the exact same search results, with none of the first page including the number-sign. But in theory if you're searching for an exact phrase (e.g. an error code) then those extra symbols are important.

The same thing happens for all kinds of searches that use symbols. The quotes enforce word-order but don't enforce symbols. For instance a search, with quotes, of "1.5 J/s" [google.com] returns some correct results, but also matches to "1.5J S" and "1.5 (Js" and other variants... This makes searching for scientific things (e.g. parts of an equation) difficult.

This probably happens because Google works by pre-computing indexes of term frequencies and caching a huge number of queries. A free-form regex can be arbitrarily complicated and would be difficult to pre-compute and cache. To get the right results it would have to search on the full database. Similarly I guess they decided that not enough people search for crazy symbol combinations, so those are ignored. There are probably solutions to the problem (e.g. using the sub-pieces of a regex or symbol search to find candidate pages, and then only searching for the exact string on that subset), but again Google seems to have decided that the functionality is not in sufficient demand.

Re:Regexp and exact word matching options (3, Informative)

paazin (719486) | more than 4 years ago | (#27939277)

It's a pity that google considers it so - I come across a query every few days that fits along these lines.

I suppose I really just ought to use another search engine for these; cuil [cuil.com], for one gives different results for Error #2005 [cuil.com] and Error 2005 [cuil.com]

Re:Regexp and exact word matching options (1)

frission (676318) | more than 4 years ago | (#27940147)

they must have some kind of white list of phrases with special symbols. If you type in something related to c#, the suggest drop-down removes the # sign, but the results return the proper c# query.

Re:Regexp and exact word matching options (3, Informative)

farnsworth (558449) | more than 4 years ago | (#27940249)

Google seems to strip out non-alphanumeric symbols.

This isn't entirely true. net 11 [google.com] and .net 1.1 [google.com] return different results.

Re:Regexp and exact word matching options (2, Interesting)

youn (1516637) | more than 4 years ago | (#27938887)

Sounds useful... recursive searching of results, being able to manipulate the summary, that would be fun... and while they're at it a mini scripting language helping the rewriting of results.

find nano(computing|computer|qbit) in_site slashdot.com
result=custom_cleanup_subroutines_for_irrelevant_websites_such_as_nano_the_text_editor()

then have a library of custom searches that people could build on... that would allow people to share custom searches for things such as mp3s, specific types of data such as scientific data, etc...

Re:Regexp and exact word matching options (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27939245)

Umm

"2 live crew" "me so horny" mp3 intitle:"index of"

4th result (on google.com, anyway)

Re:Regexp and exact word matching options (2, Informative)

MosesJones (55544) | more than 4 years ago | (#27938919)

Full Regexp would be very hard but Google does have basic abilities to do exact matching and conditional matching. Just hit the "advanced [google.co.uk]" button.

Hardly something that is tough to find out.

Re:Regexp and exact word matching options (2, Informative)

Lord Lode (1290856) | more than 4 years ago | (#27939697)

Those options are not what I'm looking for. I'm looking for exact symbol search in strings like "C#" or "x = y * 2", and also, case sensitive search. Sometimes one needs to find identifiers on the internet (and not just in google code search).

Re:Regexp and exact word matching options (2, Interesting)

Colonel Korn (1258968) | more than 4 years ago | (#27939499)

I wish Google had the ability to search for regular expressions and exact word matching. Searching for exact words or things that contain other symbols than letters is unfortunately very hard with Google and so sometimes it's useless in situations where it could have been so powerful.

Search options may finally make Google the best search engine on the internet. The Algorithm has never impressed me very much, but getting some of the these options that I used in Lexis Nexis since the mid 90s into a web search would definitely make me switch search sites. I'd particularly like to be able to search for a word within N words of another word, and to be able to specify which word comes first, or give multiple combinations or variations on each word. When I want to find opinions on a TV show, The Algorithm works fine, but Google has never been the best when it comes to just searching for specific phrases that need to be ON THE RESULT PAGE, not on ten pages that link to the result page.

Re:Regexp and exact word matching options (1)

hesaigo999ca (786966) | more than 4 years ago | (#27940291)

They do...in their own way...you have to learn the goggle syntax, but there is one...look up google hacking in google, and you will see a lot of johnny links!

new search pair of dimes? (3, Interesting)

thedonger (1317951) | more than 4 years ago | (#27938695)

from TFA:

"These features really explore search from a broad and entirely new perspective," said Mayer. "Because we realize that when you can't quickly find just the exact information or content you need or want, it's our problem, not yours."

This is an interesting take on the process of searching. In the past I thought good searching required training or insight, but this line of thinking - putting the onus on the search provider - is bold and interesting.

Will Google offer the traditional "colander with wires attached" USB device to read our minds and ignore what we type into the search box? If so, it better be free or people will complain.

Re:new search pair of dimes? (3, Insightful)

JustinOpinion (1246824) | more than 4 years ago | (#27939417)

In the past I thought good searching required training or insight, but this line of thinking - putting the onus on the search provider - is bold and interesting.

It's the right attitude for the service-provider to take, assuming they are trying to make a good product.

But, this doesn't release the user from learning how to search properly, assuming they are trying to get something useful out of the experience.

A user-interface designer (or product designer in general) should always be thinking about how users will naturally interact with the product/service, and should make it as fast, painless, and obvious as possible. From Google's point of view, the objective should indeed be to make a search that, as much as possible, correctly guesses what the user was trying to find, and returns that data. The more they are able to do so, the better the user experience will be.

But, of course, this doesn't mean that users shouldn't learn how to properly use the product as it currently exists, or how to search in general. The better they understand it, the more useful it will be to them.

Re:new search pair of dimes? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27940245)

from TFA:

"These features really explore search from a broad and entirely new perspective," said Mayer. "Because we realize that when you can't quickly find just the exact information or content you need or want, it's our problem, not yours."

This is an interesting take on the process of searching. In the past I thought good searching required training or insight, but this line of thinking - putting the onus on the search provider - is bold and interesting.

Will Google offer the traditional "colander with wires attached" USB device to read our minds and ignore what we type into the search box? If so, it better be free or people will complain.

If it does, I guess the "porn" keyword will be even more popular.

Blocking results from certain sites... (3, Interesting)

blahplusplus (757119) | more than 4 years ago | (#27938699)

... would be the most important in my opinion of "user sophistication", a lot of times google will pull a lot of sites quite frankly should be able to be punished by users by users beign able to filter them out of their search results.

That might cause google to pause (ad revenue) but personally there's a lot of google manipulation and I'd love it if users could simply FILTER their results but NOT be able to change them and then let google study which sites are blocked or not to get an idea of how clueles (cluefull) their userbase is

Re:Blocking results from certain sites... (4, Informative)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 4 years ago | (#27938793)

a lot of times google will pull a lot of sites quite frankly should be able to be punished by users by users beign able to filter them out of their search results.

That's a current feature [google.com] of Google search. Don't want results from slashdot.org or any subdomains in your results? include -site:slashdot.org in your query string.

It would be nice if, e.g., Wonder Wheel kept site restrictions (positive or negative) when you used it to pull up a related search.

Re:Blocking results from certain sites... (1)

blahplusplus (757119) | more than 4 years ago | (#27939863)

But that's the point is the query string is not user friendly, have a permanet user friendly feature where you add sites to a list, etc. When doing searches.

I'd like to see the stats on how many people use google commands, probably not that many.

Re:Blocking results from certain sites... (3, Insightful)

Trepidity (597) | more than 4 years ago | (#27939869)

When logged in at least, it'd be nice if I could accumulate a personal blocklist that's blocked on all my searches. In some areas I keep ended up rediscovering the same SEO'd crap sites, and I'd like to just cut them out of my results for good.

Re:Blocking results from certain sites... (5, Insightful)

DisKurzion (662299) | more than 4 years ago | (#27940357)

I would only need one domain on that list:

experts-exchange.com

Re:Blocking results from certain sites... (2, Interesting)

Lars Arvestad (5049) | more than 4 years ago | (#27939943)

That is useful if a single site is the problem, but how do I say "I do not want results from any price comparison site"? This is a problem I see more and more of: searching for a product can bring up pages of more or less lame price comparison sites before meaning ful sites. The actual producer of the product you are looking for is surprisingly often way down in my listings.

Too specific (4, Interesting)

Hadlock (143607) | more than 4 years ago | (#27938733)

Has anyone else noticed google's search results are a little too focused, or personalized? I am finding that useful search results that I had clicked on that were only tangenially related no longer come up when I search under the identical terms a second time. While this is good in most cases, I'd like a way to switch off this "focused laser" approach and open up my results more broadly without having to dig past the first 10 pages of results. I feel like google is so specific that I either find my result in the first three results or not at all these days. I feel like I am missing out on the wonders of finding cool stuff that you didn't know existed, since the results are too good and almost never off topic.

Re:Too specific (3, Informative)

TimeTraveler1884 (832874) | more than 4 years ago | (#27939109)

Good news! You can easily switch this feature off: In Firefox press Ctrl+Shift+Del, select "Cookies" and click "Clear Private Data Now"

Re:Too specific (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#27939433)

Yeah. And use all your useful cookies too. Of dozens of forums (including Slashdot), and tons of other stuff. No thanks.
If it were selective, then maybe. But this is just plain useless and stupid.

Re:Too specific (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 4 years ago | (#27939701)

It is very easy to go in and delete individual cookies too - you can even filter the list of cookies to pick from by part or all of the web-site's name.

Re:Too specific (1)

BrokenHalo (565198) | more than 4 years ago | (#27939203)

I'd like a way to switch off this "focused laser" approach

Easy. Just lose those persistent cookies. My cookies file is just a symlink to /dev/null (a hangover from days when the preference setting wasn't there, but my own paranoia remains), so the cookies disappear whenever I close the browser.

In any case, I find it fairly easy to pull up earlier search results when I want them, because I always use Google's advanced search page.

Re:Too specific (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27939279)

cuil.com was made for people like you

Re:Too specific (2, Interesting)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#27939373)

Well, it seems that if you are from Germany, you can configure and go to .com all you want, you will always get German search results preferred. Which is not what I want. Especially for forum searches on computer questions. The answers in those forums always seem to be extremely retarded. Then you go over to some international/english forum, and it's like a fresh breeze of reason. No offense... but that is my experience.

In German forums, people will lead you on a totally stupid wrong track, and then go back and forth for pages, generally ruling out the way to the solution, because of that previous assumption. I can't count the times I banged my head on the table because it was so obvious where they went wrong.
Also don't try to correct them. They think they are right anyway, and so big experts, because they installed Suse all alone.
Just go over to some international forum for some serious business, and see their track being ruled out in the second message of the thread.

In that aspect, it's much like comparing the quality of small local TV stations and newspapers to nationwide or international ones.

Re:Too specific (1)

x78 (1099371) | more than 4 years ago | (#27940297)

you will always get German search results preferred

http://google.com/ncr [google.com] seems to block it forwarding you to a country website, at least that's what I use if I want to use .com instead of .co.uk, or if I'm browsing through a proxy in another country.
Alternatively you could log in and set your country to America?
I think that would work anyway, the cookies from gooogle.de shouldn't work on .com so there'll be no previous search data to throw you German results.

Re:Too specific (1)

evanbd (210358) | more than 4 years ago | (#27939421)

I'd actually like to be able to tune it. When I first search something, I'd like to see a variety of things. Frequently there are things in the search that are relevant to the search terms, but not the context I was thinking of. I'd like to be able to say "repeat the search, but I want to see more items like this one and fewer like that one." Frequently I find myself redoing the search manually, trying to think up terms to add or prohibit to get a better list. Somehow I suspect that if I just picked one or two results that were on the right track, and one or two that were totally off base, Google could do a better job refining the search from that than I could be adding more terms.

Of course, I also want the option to back up and start a clean search.

Re:Too specific (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27939795)

I'd like a way to switch off this "focused laser" approach and open up my results more broadly without having to dig past the first 10 pages of results.

Use a different search engine and switch back when done?

Re:Too specific (1)

fulldecent (598482) | more than 4 years ago | (#27939901)


Steps to reproduce:
1. Search for: 5+5=?
2. Click sumbit

Actual result:
Google returns 5+5=10.

Expected result:
Google provides an array of answers so that, while I could find the answer I'm looking for with a little effort, but I still have to work for it.

Re:Too specific (1)

Hadlock (143607) | more than 4 years ago | (#27940271)

What? No, as in, I searched for homemade sailboats and a page about the history of sailing canoes in southern england from 1920-1939 pops up with all sorts of images of hand drawn illustrations from out of print books. Two years later I do the same search to find the page again and share it with my friend and no amount of either variations of the original search nor searches specified about sailing canoes from that era and/or region will bring up the result because it hasn't been linked to in at least 60 days nor mentioned in a news article. There's a trove of interesting, one-off data but google is so focused on items relating to the top 100 searches its damn near impossible to get accurate results for non-standard searches unless you only google about that particular topic on a regular basis. My point is google used to be awesome, but now its so accurate its no longer of any use. Its like reading the AP newswire vs opening an actual paper - you're going to find more interesting, tangennially related news items in the paper.

Re:Too specific (1)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 4 years ago | (#27940171)

See, that's why you've got to mix it up with non-porn sites. Ding-ding-ding, use your brain.

Re:Too specific (1)

British (51765) | more than 4 years ago | (#27940529)

I'm still finding those search engine result spammers are still getting to the top of the results list, where going to their website shows absolutely nothing useful. Type in ANY search term, and you get a specific website that has apparently entrenched itself in every google search result. Trying to search for a song by an artist will always bring up that freemp3.com result, and that site has zero use whatsoever.

slice and dice? (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 4 years ago | (#27938743)

Google has unveiled a list of new search technologies geared to help users 'slice and dice' their Google search results

Sounds like Googol the Destroyer [slashdot.org] is getting creative by adding physical violence to the mix of data devouring.

Don't forget to tune into next week's episode, wherein the reader discovers how Gatus and Joba are faring with their plans, what Stallmanx has been working on in his secret laboratory, and a clue to help unravel the mystery of that which lies within his Beard of Druidic Prowess! Plus, new developments from the crack team of evil underlords who serve Googol the Destroyer!

Quick Pr0n (3, Funny)

ironicsky (569792) | more than 4 years ago | (#27938759)

Google is just giving us an easier way to find pr0n on the tubes.
Is setting my "safe search" to off and will see you in the morning.

Re:Quick Pr0n (3, Funny)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#27939483)

Hmm... I wonder if there is a way to search for "unsafe" pictures only. Maybe some internal option or hack?

Please, please, please... if you're from Google: Add this option in a hidden way, and then "leak" the information to us. You can always just change the way it's used, and then apologize for that little bug. And then leak the new way too. So that we still have access. Whoops. ^^

Re:Quick Pr0n (2, Funny)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 4 years ago | (#27939789)

You probably want to google "Repetitive Strain Injury" too... chances are you will be needing that information by morning.

Re:Quick Pr0n (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27940423)

It works just fine, search for cream pie, select "Images from the page" and verify that almost all of them are NSFW. Google suggested related searches include: sloppy seconds, pearl necklace, facial, squirt boat, and(!) craigs list.

Content owners won't they lose revenue (5, Interesting)

Jeez01 (1442147) | more than 4 years ago | (#27938767)

lets say you want to research Bulls-Pistons series in 1988 and you decide to use a squared which effectively parses and gets the data you want from Basketball-reference or one of those. Those sites will not get any page hits...

Re:Content owners won't they lose revenue (3, Funny)

abigsmurf (919188) | more than 4 years ago | (#27938853)

Ah but you see, you're free to put it in the robots.txt if you don't want information pulled straight out of your site without people visiting. Of course that will remove it from the Google index and result in a massive descrease in traffic as the vast majority of people only use google for searching...

Google, abuse a dominant market position? But their moto is "do no evil"! They would never do something like that!

Wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27939839)

It's "Don't be evil". There is a distinction. But by all means, if you have a complaint about Google, now is the time to voice it.

I think, though, that Google is in the same position Intel is in: their products work very well, so people are willing to ignore just about anything.

Not that you have any idea what bad things Google is doing. Man, I'm sorry, I shit all over your riff. Continue trolling...

Re:Content owners won't they lose revenue (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 4 years ago | (#27939009)

"Content owners" don't own facts, which are not subject to copyright. So, insofar as content owners are deriving income by leveraging that position to act as if they were "fact owners", that revenue may be at risk.

OTOH, if its like existing mechanisms Google uses to present information culled from other sources, it will link to the sources, and if users want to get more information from that source specifically, they will be free to click through and explore the source, so it may serve as a kind of free advertising for the sites it culls information from that people actually want.

Re:Content owners won't they lose revenue (1)

smoker2 (750216) | more than 4 years ago | (#27939815)

It is not "culling" information from anywhere. Cull is to selectively collect, where the culled do not form part of the desired results. You and the summary are using the word in precisely the opposite fashion to its meaning.

Slice and Dice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27938821)

We recommend reading your search results before you "Slice and Dice" them, but then again, who's going to complain about a little extra DPS?

-Mervh

Re:Slice and Dice (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 4 years ago | (#27938909)

We recommend reading your search results before you "Slice and Dice" them, but then again, who's going to complain about a little extra DPS?

WARNING: If you are at work, do NOT image search "DPS" with safesearch off.

What? Sure boss, I'll come right into your office. Just give me one sec.

Re:Slice and Dice (1)

MBaldelli (808494) | more than 4 years ago | (#27939657)

We recommend reading your search results before you "Slice and Dice" them, but then again, who's going to complain about a little extra DPS?

WARNING: If you are at work, do NOT image search "DPS" with safesearch off. What? Sure boss, I'll come right into your office. Just give me one sec.

Errr, the Department of Public Safety is stealth porn since when?

Future of Search (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27938947)

The future of search relies upon better parameters for the search.

Almost all searches are time-sensitive, but some are more time sensitive than others. When I'm looking for information about a piece of software the forum post from five years ago may or may not be relevant.

When I'm looking for information about the thinnest watch to buy, reading about a watch made over 30 years ago isn't appropriate.

Context is the big problem in search. The time sensitivity is one context. Product attributes is another. You can't (with the partial exception of Newegg and similar searches) search item properties in most cases. If you're buying a set of headphones not all headphones list their specs nor in the same way. There are a lot of other products besides headphones.

Sometimes the basic context is spot on, but it's still useless: a forum post of someone with the same question/problem I have, but it was never answered.

Re:Future of Search (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27939199)

So what's wrong with a 30 year old watch? 30 years is nothing for a watch. I've seen watches that are nearly 300 years old and still work.

In fact watches that are a bit older will have a steady supply of collectors waiting to buy it for more than you paid when you get bored of it. Not everything is disposable like computer parts and electric appliances, watch manufacturers are probably one of the very few industries that still care about quality

"connect people to just the nuggets" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27939111)

See, all of the sudden the Denver Nuggets are in the playoffs kicking butt and everyone wants to jump on the bandwagon.

This is why I love Google (1)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 4 years ago | (#27939147)

The biggest feature for me is searching by time frame/date. This way, I do not have to see decades of "rubbish" in my search results.

Request:

GMail: I would like to compose a message and have the option of having it delivered at a future date/time.

Google Docs: Google should enrich its word processor to capabilities of Zoho Writer. How can Google allow Zoho to "beat" it on this front?

That's all folks.

Re:This is why I love Google (1)

Jake Griffin (1153451) | more than 4 years ago | (#27940323)

>GMail: I would like to compose a message and have the option of having it delivered at a future date/time.

In addition, I would like there to be an option to cancel the email when a certain phone number is dialed, so that I can become Jack Bauer, threatening that "if I don't make the call" the email will be sent ordering the terrorist's family to be killed.

Can somebody tell me how... (1)

GPLDAN (732269) | more than 4 years ago | (#27939157)

Can somebody tell me how to search for results that were indexed between a set of dates?

Let's say I want to search for "Linux multitasking", but I only want to see magazine articles or blog posts or what have you between 2003 and 2005. How do I do that?

I have tried [Linux multitask 2003..2005] but that doesn't really work. It gives me articles that have the year WITHIN the text, such as a 2007 article in which somebody discusses 2005. But not just articles that were posted between those years.

That is a way I would like to slice and dice but don't know how.

How about finally allowing... (3, Funny)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#27939193)

...(perl-style) regular expressions? Or at least allowing to search for non-alphanumeric characters?

Their search interface is a huge step backward from what old engines like HotBot offered.

Here comes another lawsuit! (4, Insightful)

Captain Spam (66120) | more than 4 years ago | (#27939235)

Saying that its users are becoming increasingly sophisticated, Google has unveiled a list of new search technologies geared to help users 'slice and dice' their Google search results, along with a new tool to help them cull information instead of Web pages.

(emphasis mine)

And ten minutes after they release this for real, they get sued by thousands of websites claiming that they're circumventing their ad income or whatever by giving viewers an option to get the data without going to the website and thus not see the ads.

I mean, that's what the AP's whining about, right?

Re:Here comes another lawsuit! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27939831)

They could always make it easy to opt-out ;)

WWOT. 7p (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27939261)

sho0t the loudest to be about doing

Is it just me? (3, Funny)

AnalPerfume (1356177) | more than 4 years ago | (#27939613)

Or does the image of Johnny 5 from the movie Short Circuit come to mind when thinking of Google?

"Need more input!!!!!!"

Copyright? (-1, Redundant)

sherriw (794536) | more than 4 years ago | (#27939743)

Why does Google Squared sound like it's going to be aggregating everyone's webpage content much like Google News aggregates news articles?

How happy are website owners going to be when people can learn the facts they want without even going to the site at all? If Google thinks they have a problem with angry news websites... wait'll they start doing this to everyone... or maybe I'm not understanding this feature.

Google Squared vs Wolfram (1)

ilblissli (1480165) | more than 4 years ago | (#27940023)

Frankly i'm quite pleased that the Wolfram team came to be. its about time that people introduced new ways to search for information, thus spurring innovation from other search giants to keep up. i'm very excited to see what pans out from both sites, it should help me a lot with finding info for my papers. :)
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...