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!

Twitter Comes Out Swinging Against Google's Personalized Search

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the social-networking-drama dept.

Google 186

Meshach writes "Google's release of the new 'Search Plus Your World' feature has elicited harsh words from Twitter's general counsel (who used to work with Google). He claims that the changes will make information harder to find for users and be bad news for news publishers. Some analysts are wondering if this is a prelude to a legal battle similar to Microsoft's bundling of IE."

cancel ×

186 comments

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

I've been waiting for personalized search forever! (2)

bit trollent (824666) | more than 2 years ago | (#38660484)

I've never wanted to use Twitter.

Re:I've been waiting for personalized search forev (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38660508)

If you have a google account, you already have personalized search. When you are logged into your google account, your search will be tailored to fit in with your previous searches. People that play a lot of games will have a lot bigger chance to find information about a game when searching for things that can be gotten in multiple ways, for example.

Re:I've been waiting for personalized search forev (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38661438)

yes, exactly, and this looks more like Twitter being scared of competition to me

Re:I've been waiting for personalized search forev (4, Insightful)

aaaaaaargh! (1150173) | more than 2 years ago | (#38661498)

If you have a google account, you already have personalized search.

That's why I always make sure I'm not logged into Google when searching. Frankly speaking, 'personalized search' is not a very good idea. It has the potential to boost your cognitive biases until you have a completely distorted view of reality. Hopefully not too many people fall into this trap.

Search and Social Network Bubbling (5, Insightful)

improfane (855034) | more than 2 years ago | (#38661604)

There is an interesting TED talk about this: http://www.thefilterbubble.com/ted-talk [thefilterbubble.com]

Duck Duck Go made this website to reaise awareness of bubbling: http://dontbubble.us/ [dontbubble.us]

Most of the times it's very useful, IMHO (4, Insightful)

YA_Python_dev (885173) | more than 2 years ago | (#38662134)

Not everyone searches "who is better republicans or democrats" on Google. :-) (BTW, the first result for me suggests that the "Democrats are better for the economy").

When I search for "cookies" I very much appreciate that the first result is the Wikipedia page for HTTP cookies and the second one is the documentation for the cookielib module in the Python standard library. Both are very relevant results for me.

My grandmother, on the other hand, is probably happier to get a website with recipes.

People in the US searching for "United" probably want an airline website, in the UK some people might be more interested in a soccer team.

Disclaimer: I speak only for myself and not anyone else. IANARE.

I am totally perplexed (3, Informative)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | more than 2 years ago | (#38660670)

What has Google's offer of "'Search Plus Your World" got to do with Microsoft's bundling of IE ?

Can someone educate me, please ??

Re:I am totally perplexed (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38660852)

What has Google's offer of "'Search Plus Your World" got to do with Microsoft's bundling of IE ?

Can someone educate me, please ??

You see it all relates to niggery shit-filled niggerdicks and how to pick them up by the clean end.

Re:I am totally perplexed (1)

posthxc1982 (2539048) | more than 2 years ago | (#38660974)

Ignorance.

Re:I am totally perplexed (5, Informative)

crutchy (1949900) | more than 2 years ago | (#38661146)

bundling of personalized search into a conventional search engine could be construed as anti-competitive in the personalized search market.

twitter and facebook would probably consider themselves players in the personalized search market, so the assumption is that they may challenge google for monopolizing personal search that users might otherwise currently use twitter and facebook for.

i don't see the point in telling people how many bits of toast i'm making for breakfast on twatter, facecrap is a crock of shit for obvious reasons, and spoogel results are getting less relevant with each passing day. i can only hope they all implode into each other in an epic court battle.

Re:I am totally perplexed (1)

AssholeMcGee (2521806) | more than 2 years ago | (#38661228)

This is just another battle between who wants to a monopoly, step on down and sue it out, or use the idiot mainstream press to see who will be crowned the personalized search monopoly!! I could see Facebook bitch over this.. Nitwitter is kind off a half ass-ed Facebook so they could get knocked off with Google stepping into this..You can go onto those classroom search sites, and a host of other search sites to find someone of course you'll find them, you will then need to fork out 20 plus bux to call them, or email them. This is something I could see Google doing, I found who I was looking for, dammit I got to pay to get there email..

It's not bundling though (1)

Chuck Chunder (21021) | more than 2 years ago | (#38661586)

There is a difference between integration and bundling. Bundling is combining the acquisition of one product with another. Google don't spring a Google+ account on you when you do a search. Using Google+ doesn't push using Google for web searches on you. A user has to opt to use either and the integration between the two in question here only happens if the user further opts for it.

Re:It's not bundling though (1)

crutchy (1949900) | more than 2 years ago | (#38661688)

microsoft didn't force you to open internet explorer either. tit for tat.

Re:It's not bundling though (1)

crutchy (1949900) | more than 2 years ago | (#38661704)

and yeah i know you're going to say "oh but microsoft integrated IE with windows explorer", but then how would that drive netscape out of business?

Re:It's not bundling though (1)

anonymov (1768712) | more than 2 years ago | (#38661854)

Actually, it did, before the browser selection window was introduced - what, were you going to download alternative browser with telnet?

Anyways, preinstalled IE was only part of antitrust investigation, there were also questions of undocumented APIs use in IE and Office for competetive advantage (and if as they say Google doesn't give same API results from YouTube to other search engines, it might be bad for them) and lots of others, like shady OEM licensing and so on.

Re:It's not bundling though (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38661918)

most people sadly get the story of microsoft being a monopoly totally wrong.

as you say, the problem was leveraging the monopoly for gain a competitive advantage, not being a monopoly.

in this case, however, google is leveraging is competitive advantage as search engine to enter the personalized web search market.

now, if that are two actual separate markets is debatable, and if twitter and facebook are player of that hypotetical personalized web search market that is totally different from the standard search market is even more questionable

(the o.s. and browser market were totally different markets, so it was easier to see and demonstrate)

Re:It's not bundling though (1)

Chuck Chunder (21021) | more than 2 years ago | (#38661900)

Use and acquision are two different thing. Bundling is about acquisition, not use. Microsoft did force you to acquire Internet Explorer when getting Windows. You are in no way forced to acquire Google+ with Google Search.

I don't see the problem at all! Am I just dumb? (3, Insightful)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 2 years ago | (#38660498)

From the linked article:

I'm not saying that the Justice Department should look into this. I' m just saying that I think they will. I' m far from an expert on this, but I think anyone should be able to see how this is a very slippery slope for Google.

Where exactly is the [potential] problem? I hope someone can elucidate.

Re:I don't see the problem at all! Am I just dumb? (4, Informative)

bs0d3 (2439278) | more than 2 years ago | (#38660518)

twitter sells the right to mine their data, google stopped paying so twitter locked them out. twitter still does business with bing, bing also has a deal with facebook. google is allowing themselves to their own data and also bing sucks

Re:I don't see the problem at all! Am I just dumb? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38660582)

twitter sells the right to mine their data, google stopped paying so twitter locked them out. twitter still does business with bing, bing also has a deal with facebook. google is allowing themselves to their own data and also bing sucks

What the hell that means?

Re:I don't see the problem at all! Am I just dumb? (2)

MrDoh! (71235) | more than 2 years ago | (#38660746)

Mis-typed perhaps, but I understand it to be that Google's looking after their own data. They've got their own social network, and are, obviously, pushing that first!

"hey, should we search our own data?" "hmm... lemme think about that for a second.... yeah, go on then"
Twitter broke away, now moans that google's not paying them/using their data? sheesh.

Re:I don't see the problem at all! Am I just dumb? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38660796)

The real issue is if they are prioritizing thier data ahead of thier competitors...that would lead to more clicks to thier own pages which is more ad revenue. Kind of an anti trust issue here...

Re:I don't see the problem at all! Am I just dumb? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38661092)

Yeah I get the sense that Twitters feeling is, "Hey when Google put streaming twitter posts at the top of every search result page, that was awesome for us. Now they're going to do that for themselves instead of us. That sucks."

Re:I don't see the problem at all! Am I just dumb? (4, Interesting)

rtfa-troll (1340807) | more than 2 years ago | (#38661128)

Kind of an anti trust issue here...

Why? People keep saying this, but I really don't see the key things that are needed for Google to have real Anti trust issues.

A) I haven't seen any evidence that Google's monopoly is illegally acquired. People keep forgetting this, when they compare Google with Microsoft. Microsoft is a fundamentally immoral organisation. They acquired their monopoly by using illegal tactics to block other competitors (to understand the basics, have a look at Judge Jackson's findings of facts [justice.gov] ). Many of the restrictions which should be imposed on Microsoft come not simply because they have a monopoly, but because they broke the law to get that monopoly. If it were anyone but Microsoft people would say "if you can't take the time then don't do the crime"; because it's Microsoft and they are rich somehow a whole bunch of apologists appear acting as if they did nothing wrong.

B) Google is easily substitutable; it's not like a computer where you need to pay money or even an operating system where you need to know how to reinstall. You just go to a different web page, or you even just type "Bing" into Google. There is only one thing which keeps people on Google's results rather than Bings. It's not even the quality as such, which, IMHO has been going downhill since they stopped treating keywords as having to be in the page. The thing is that people trust Google not to trick them. The results are honest and clear. This is Google's biggest competitive advantage, and if it turns out that Google is wrongly ignoring twitter, that will be an opening for another search engine that is more honest. Fortunately for Google, their competitor at present is Microsoft which is congenitally incapable of honesty. The stupidity of a company which gets caught copying it's results from Google and doctoring results in favour of it's own products in the first few months after launching a new search engine is astounding.

So; what is a search engine? A system which gives an opinion about which pages they would like to recommend based on your query string. If Google's opinion is that you are better with their data than Twitters that's fine for them to say. More importantly; if Google doesn't want to pay for access to Twitter's data. Or any other bunch of factors at Google's discretion then that is Google's decision. In order to change that you would need real evidence that Google broke the law in ways which greatly benefitted their search engine "monopoly".

Re:I don't see the problem at all! Am I just dumb? (3, Insightful)

ajo_arctus (1215290) | more than 2 years ago | (#38661300)

I'm not sure it matters how you get the monopoly -- I think the problems start if you abuse the power once you have it. Google will have to be really careful (but they know that, and I'm sure they are doing all they can to play fair), but if they use their dominance in search to (artificially) dominate other markets, it's kind of what Microsoft did with IE and it got them in to trouble. Of course, Microsoft also used some very dirty, very immoral tactics time and time again, so it's hard to compare them with Google.

Re:I don't see the problem at all! Am I just dumb? (1)

iserlohn (49556) | more than 2 years ago | (#38661622)

It matters becuase you can violate anti-competition clauses even if you are not a monopoly, or not yet a monopoly.

Re:I don't see the problem at all! Am I just dumb? (1)

JAlexoi (1085785) | more than 2 years ago | (#38661480)

Ahem... Twitter does not allow indexing of tweets in their public ToS.

Re:I don't see the problem at all! Am I just dumb? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38661728)

If that's the case, then they'd better update their robots.txt, you know, so that google knows about it?

Extracted from www.twitter.com:robots.txt:

#Google Search Engine Robot
User-agent: Googlebot
# Crawl-delay: 10 -- Googlebot ignores crawl-delay ftl
Allow: /*?*_escaped_fragment_
Disallow: /search
Disallow: /*?
Disallow: /*/with_friends

So feeds are indexed.

And before you ask, there isn't a meta noindex on feed pages either

Re:I don't see the problem at all! Am I just dumb? (4, Interesting)

StripedCow (776465) | more than 2 years ago | (#38661692)

The problem lies not just with the monopolist, but with the way the economy works. It allows for only a handful of influential companies in any market segment (including web-search, electronics, etc.) We expect those companies to behave well (following human ethical rules), but we forget that they have to live up to the shareholders' expectations, and thus are greedy by design.

A) Like someone else said, it does not matter HOW a company gets into a monopoly, but more how it behaves once it acquired its dominant position. How we can expect it to behave in the future is not even important because things may radically change with the change of a board.
Bundling of products is anti-competitive, and should not be accepted from either MS or Google. Example: assume you are a game developer, and Google suddenly starts promoting a game that is very much like your game on their homepage (bundling), and starts giving it away for free (dumping), then you are basically out of business.

B) Monopolists or near-monopolists are not easily replaceable, almost by definition. Further, you make it seem like companies can compete in "honesty". Well, unfortunately, that is just not how the market works. In fact, perhaps a more realistic view is that companies compete in "deception". Google is an advertisement company, and thus may be considered masters in this art.

What we need is ways to break up large companies into smaller ones. Ways to commoditize their products. Like many programmers know, it makes more sense to build a system out of small modules which are open and easy to replace, than to build a large monolithic closed-source system. This is where economists and lawmakers can actually learn something from programmers.

Re:I don't see the problem at all! Am I just dumb? (1)

baptiste (256004) | more than 2 years ago | (#38661924)

Not if the competitors are blocking Google from crawling their data. Twitter won't stand a chance of making a case when Google can just say 'stop using rel=nofollow and your info will get indexed for Personal Search too'. Same with Facebook.Twitter and Facebook want $$$ for Google to index their content. Google chose not to pay and so now Google coverage of Twitter is significantly less.

Re:I don't see the problem at all! Am I just dumb? (2)

justforgetme (1814588) | more than 2 years ago | (#38660828)

It means that google is basing it's data from G+ it's own social network now. In fact google is kind of trying to lock all other social networks out lately. Not in some unfair way but I have to admit that I see google+ much more often on google related pages than on the free internet.

Example: google analytics shows social data from G+ for your sites now but I have no idea if there is a way to include social data from Facebook or Twitter aswell. Google search results give you options for G+ sharing but not for the other networks. Now this, that google is going to integrate your
G+ interactions into your search results

Google have understood that social is kind of the web3.0 and is trying really hard to become the dominant entity in social interactions
and this article is just a small part of the bigger picture.

IMO they are doing it wrong. To stay dominant in search - and let's face it that is where you go when your friends fail you - they should embrace the social Internet as a whole, not try to wall it into their own little piconet.

Re:I don't see the problem at all! Am I just dumb? (4, Insightful)

Chuck Chunder (21021) | more than 2 years ago | (#38661820)

IMO they are doing it wrong. To stay dominant in search - and let's face it that is where you go when your friends fail you - they should embrace the social Internet as a whole, not try to wall it into their own little piconet.

This seems to me to be a misunderstanding. Google will index anything they can get their hands on. They aren't indexing Twitter because Twitter told them not to. They can't index parts of Facebook that are relevant to me (ie stuff that I can see because my friends have told Facebook to share it with their friends) because they don't have access to that information (and Facebook have no real right to give it to them).

The only way Google can get their hands on non-public data shared between friends is if they are the provider those friends have chosen broker that information.

Re:I don't see the problem at all! Am I just dumb? (3, Interesting)

physburn (1095481) | more than 2 years ago | (#38661242)

"twitter sells the right to mine their data". And good luck to that, mine 140 character all this codes bit.ly that change and TLAs three letter aconyms, can I now data mine 1/f noise and white noise. Don't want google sell mining rights on my searches though. And I want friends and my web search history, very well seperated.

Re:I don't see the problem at all! Am I just dumb? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38660532)

Neither do I.
But I have some good mod points for anybody who can offer an explanation that makes sense (even if not THE explanation)

Re:I don't see the problem at all! Am I just dumb? (5, Insightful)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 2 years ago | (#38660554)

I don't think it is possible to elucidate. Had to read the article because I was so confused.

Twitter:

Often, they want to know more about world events and breaking news. Twitter has emerged as a vital source of this real-time information, with more than 100 million users sending 250 million Tweets every day on virtually every topic. As we've seen time and time again, news breaks first on Twitter; as a result, Twitter accounts and Tweets are often the most relevant results.

Google:

We are a bit surprised by Twitter's comments about Search plus Your World, because they chose not to renew their agreement with us last summer (http://goo.gl/chKwi), and since then we have observed their rel=nofollow instructions.

Article:

The new Google service, which is rolling out today, lets search users toggle between personalized and "global" results, with the former including information gleaned from its Google+ social network and its Picasa image-storage service. Twitter reasonably enough sees that move as a threat, since it could well encourage people to share breaking news on Google+ rather than Twitter.

Ummmm. Huh?

So.... Google is rolling out a service that you have to opt in for that will personalize search results according to data they collected on you.

Twitter has already told Google not to index its tweets apparently. Twitter feels that news comes from them first somehow. I can see that being the case in some tumultuous countries, but as a generality? Come on. That's pushing it. Relevant? Really? What about the signal to noise ratio? Verification?

News publishers might be affected by personalization, but only in so far as their articles that get included would have to match the user profile. Anything else just gets weighted down in the rankings.

Saying the Justice Department should look into this sounds like Whiny Bitch syndrome coupled with some form of cognitive dissonance.

If Google is guilty of anything with the personalized search results, which would be less guilty in my mind, they should already be guilty just by doing what they are doing now without personalized results. Their own algorithms should make them guilty by that logic.

Sounds like Twitter feels intimidated by Google+ and is talking out of its ass.

Re:I don't see the problem at all! Am I just dumb? (4, Insightful)

MikeURL (890801) | more than 2 years ago | (#38660662)

Twitter is trying to play its "look how we facilitate things like the Arab Spring" card. So they are not-so-subtly suggesting that fragmenting the world of short form text messages would destroy freedom. After all, how can the twitterverse stand as a bulwark against a totalitarian state when google+ is breaking news too?

I imagine their ultimate fear is that the next step is text message aggregators and the loss of their "brand".

All of it makes me want to send them an email suggesting they get off my lawn.

Re:I don't see the problem at all! Am I just dumb? (3, Informative)

Dahamma (304068) | more than 2 years ago | (#38660682)

It's actually pretty irrelevant anyway - Twitter has never had a business model. They just have no clue how to make money.

The only reason they are bitching is that they are worried investors will figure this out before they IPO and the employees cash out before they go down the drain...

Re:I don't see the problem at all! Am I just dumb? (2)

tuppe666 (904118) | more than 2 years ago | (#38660758)

It's actually pretty irrelevant anyway - Twitter has never had a business model. They just have no clue how to make money.

The only reason they are bitching is that they are worried investors will figure this out before they IPO and the employees cash out before they go down the drain...

Google used to give them money to access their data. Microsoft give them money $30 million a year for their data now. Thats not chump change.

Re:I don't see the problem at all! Am I just dumb? (1)

Monoman (8745) | more than 2 years ago | (#38661614)

...

Google used to give them money to access their data. Microsoft give them money $30 million a year for their data now. Thats not chump change.

It is if it costs them more than that to operate. Maybe they are starting to worry about their balance sheet as they get closer to an IPO. They may be able to get funding through VC when operating at a loss but it isn't as easy when you are looking to the stock market for investors.

Re:I don't see the problem at all! Am I just dumb? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38661516)

And they never really had anything technically outstanding either. I mean, their only asset is pretty much their community. Anybody can write a decent twitter clone in some days. Actually, a lot of web framework propose to write a twitter clone as part of their getting started tutorial.

So yeah, I guess they must be kind of afraid of seeing their community migrate to Google+ or Facebook (now that you can subscribe to non-friends).

Re:I don't see the problem at all! Am I just dumb? (1)

DCTech (2545590) | more than 2 years ago | (#38661944)

Their back-end is quite technically outstanding. Those Twitter clones couldn't handle such load. Apart from that, what sites on the internet actually are that technically outstanding? Pretty much none. The most valued asset of websites is their users and community.

Re:I don't see the problem at all! Am I just dumb? (2, Insightful)

Lillebo (1561251) | more than 2 years ago | (#38660708)

You have lots of 1s in your ID number.

Re:I don't see the problem at all! Am I just dumb? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38660850)

Trying to lure taco to reply "I don't"?

Re:I don't see the problem at all! Am I just dumb? (3, Insightful)

lennier1 (264730) | more than 2 years ago | (#38660872)

and since then we have observed their rel=nofollow instructions.

That's the part I don't quite get. Google respects their nofollow instructions and that's supposed to make them the bad guys???

Seems more like they're bitching because they no longer receive money from Google on top of them sending visitors their way

Re:I don't see the problem at all! Am I just dumb? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38660780)

Lots of links to follow...

It's the "Facebook and Twitter and other services, basically, their terms of service don’t allow us to crawl them deeply and store things."

Kinda says it all.

Re:I don't see the problem at all! Am I just dumb? (1)

RichZellich (948451) | more than 2 years ago | (#38661010)

It looks to me like a strategic move by Google to get Twitter to re-allow them to crawl the twitter-feed (and maybe get Facebook to do so, too - good luck with that!).

If it looks to Twitter as if Google search is getting more traction with G+ content included, they may get nervous enough to re-establish their previous deal allowing Google to crawl their content. Frankly, I don't see why they killed the deal in the first place - they may want to become a major search engine themselves, but that will never happen, so it only makes sense to me to let everybody and his brother crawl their feed in order to get referrals. Apparently they see it differently, and they're the ones that have the inside track on their strategic business model. Seems counter-intuitive to me to try to sell your data to people who will give you referral business for free - guess they're using the New York Times business model.

Re:I don't see the problem at all! Am I just dumb? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38661374)

- GOOGLE, DON'T FUCKING INDEX US!
- OK, we won't.
*time passes*
- GOOGLE, WHERE THE FUCK IS MY TRAFFIC?

It's not like this is first time it happens.

Re:I don't see the problem at all! Am I just dumb? (1)

msobkow (48369) | more than 2 years ago | (#38661266)

More to the point: What the hell is "Personalized Search"?

I've used search engines for years, I know how to wield a keyword group. What more would you want it to do?

Sounds suspiciously like marketing-department speak to me: invented buzzwords and phrases devoid of actual meaning.

Re:I don't see the problem at all! Am I just dumb? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38661532)

well as i understood currently you have search showing things you are interested in as higher priority, but this personalized search will also show things your friends like as higher priority, for example if you have friend that is there will be more games in your search results

THIS WAITING 10 MINUTES TO SUBMIT COMMENT IS INSANE, SLASHDOT SUCKS

Re:I don't see the problem at all! Am I just dumb? (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#38661638)

If you have a Google Plus account, Google Search will show you results from your friends' feeds, pictures, etc on top of the normal search.

Re:I don't see the problem at all! Am I just dumb? (1)

JAlexoi (1085785) | more than 2 years ago | (#38661474)

The issue here is that they added results from Google+ into general search and that is it. Because, unless that guy lived under a rock, Google does personalization of searches for a very long time. And come back when they force you to use it... (Because the "forced use" is the keyword there)

I'm a boiled frog (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38660522)

These stories made me realise just how crappy google has become; the poor quality search results and unresponsive Javascript interface.

In the market for a new search engine.

Re:I'm a boiled frog (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38660528)

http://www.webcrawler.com/ [webcrawler.com]

Re:I'm a boiled frog (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38660594)

These stories made me realise just how crappy google has become; the poor quality search results and unresponsive Javascript interface.

In the market for a new search engine.

Have you tried www.dumbass.com?

Hey! It's bonch the multi-account Apple Troll! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38660650)

Re:I'm a boiled frog (1)

lightknight (213164) | more than 2 years ago | (#38660788)

Sadly, I am working on it.

I am half tempted to call it "Google Classic," so I can make believe that they gave their users a choice.

See, it probably won't be an improvement over the older Google (the one we remember from years ago). It'll just be a restoration of original level of service.

Well, for the first incarnation, at least.

Re:I'm a boiled frog (3, Funny)

fred911 (83970) | more than 2 years ago | (#38660832)

That be Google Classic Beta.:)

Re:I'm a boiled frog (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38661276)

Good luck with your project. The javascript heavy google search, autocomplete and suggest can be turned off to a degree, but slow JS cannot it seems without losing functionality.

I am getting closer and closer to switching to Duck Duck Go each time I use google search (sites or images).

Re:I'm a boiled frog (1)

lightknight (213164) | more than 2 years ago | (#38661472)

Yeah, I've decided the search engine will not make use of any javascript. It will offer useful search results, and that will be all. No spelling auto-correct either. Just 100% ad-free, useful, non-natural language search results. I might offer a checkbox to allow for spelling variations...maybe.

It will look for webpages containing all your search terms, by default. And it will only locate phrases / strings if they are clearly placed within quotes.

"I'm a man of the internet, I'm into discipline. Got a router in my hand, and a beard (some stubble) on my chin. But if I finish my all work, and you want to rewind, then for a while we can pretend it's 1999."

Re:I'm a boiled frog (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#38661676)

I am half tempted to call it "Google Classic,"

And ye shall be smitten with a mighty trademark lawsuit.

In any case, what will you use for the index? It takes a damn server farm nowadays to crawl effectively, particularly if you want any kind of decent refresh rate.

Re:I'm a boiled frog (1)

Monoman (8745) | more than 2 years ago | (#38661644)

Good luck with that. I still get better results with Google than with Bing when searching microsoft.com. Complain all you want but I still find Google to have the best results. Try using google while not logged into their services and see if their current level of personalization is causing your issues. Running your browser in 'private' may even be the best test.

people block google; google integrates own service (4, Insightful)

unrtst (777550) | more than 2 years ago | (#38660544)

I'm all for the big brother fear posts about Google getting evil, but this isn't the time. Twitter ended their agreement with Google for a real time feed; other realtime/news sites have been threatening blocking Google; then they get upset when Google says fuck it, introduces their own service, and integrates it.

What's next? NYT blocks Google indexers and then complains when they don't show up in the top of the search results?

The social sites have had users data locked up long enough. It's due time they provide API's to users, aggregators, and others. Google seems to want to include as much of this other stuff as it can in its search results... they're not the bottleneck, nor the slippery slope here.

Excuse me, but you just don't make sense ! (2)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | more than 2 years ago | (#38660714)

To use the service, people have to OPT IN --- which means, they have to

CONSCIOUSLY MAKE THE DECISION,

KEY IN THE CORRECT INFO AND

CLICK THE RIGHT BUTTON,

before they are allowed to use the service.

All Google does - and I am not employed by Google or any of its associates - in this case, is to offer a service.

To say that Google is "evil" in this case is like saying the late Mother Teresa did what she did for the sake of publicity.

Re:Excuse me, but you just don't make sense ! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38660718)

Your parent was saying that Google is NOT being evil in this case.

You two are in agreement, rejoice!

Re:Excuse me, but you just don't make sense ! (1)

0ld_d0g (923931) | more than 2 years ago | (#38660822)

Well google instant used to be opt-in too, now its on by default... You need to remain signed in with an opt-out setting enabled to keep it turned off permanently.

Re:Excuse me, but you just don't make sense ! (2)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 2 years ago | (#38660890)

That's why I use a text browser for google searches (via surfraw [sourceforge.net] ). The damn google javascript nonsense always fucks up trying to search for jjjjjjj and kkkkkkkkkk as soon as I start scrolling...

Re:Excuse me, but you just don't make sense ! (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#38661694)

If you don't want Javascript, why don't you block it [noscript.net] ?

Re:Excuse me, but you just don't make sense ! (1)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 2 years ago | (#38662022)

I only use firefox for a few sites which don't work without javascript, so I don't have an extensive set of customizations for specific sites. Only adblock, ghostery, and firemacs. I notice the google jjjjj/kkkkk behaviour when I happen to be using the graphical browser and want to quickly search for something in a different tab.

I actually prefer to use w3m as my browser, because it launches an instance of Emacs for comment boxes. I find the graphical UI text boxes in Gnome/KDE/firefox/etc way too limited and frustrating.

Re:Excuse me, but you just don't make sense ! (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 2 years ago | (#38661570)

Just cookie-block and noscript the shit out of google, that's what I do.
The only problem that has caused for me was to make it hard turn off safe-search until I found out you could add &safe=off to the end of any google search URL to turn off safe-search. I even added it to the google search-box in my firefox install,

Re:Excuse me, but you just don't make sense ! (2)

JAlexoi (1085785) | more than 2 years ago | (#38661502)

To say that Google is "evil" in this case is like saying the late Mother Teresa did what she did for the sake of publicity.

Well.... Then Google is definitely evil.

STOCK MARKET (1)

bussdriver (620565) | more than 2 years ago | (#38660734)

Shareholders demand not that it always increases even if it is huge and successful.

Anybody who does well has to exploit their market position to the hilt to maintain constant growth or lose stock value. Scratch that, I mean the fastest growth possible of the share price -- faster growth than others.

Buggy whip makers.. (4, Interesting)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | more than 2 years ago | (#38660550)

Also complained that that new fangled automobile would cause various societal ills. In reality, they were just pissed off that they were being obsoleted.

Re:Buggy whip makers.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38660588)

No...no, they were right. Without the automobile, women would still be in the kitchen....making sammitches as God intended! Those brave men tried to warn us, but we didn't listen! We. didn't. listen. Now, it's too late...

Re:Buggy whip makers.. (1)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 2 years ago | (#38660768)

In reality, they were just pissed off that they were being obsoleted.

Gah! How wrong can you be! Some buggy whip makers actually liked the air freshening scent of Eau de Cheval, you insensitive clod!

Re:Buggy whip makers.. (1)

0ld_d0g (923931) | more than 2 years ago | (#38660838)

Yeah, those stupid horses cause all the stupid pollution anyway, and they keep using up all the oil that fuels geo-political instability in the middle-east :-P

Re:Buggy whip makers.. (2)

Threni (635302) | more than 2 years ago | (#38661406)

Exactly. I'm surprised Twitter was up long enough for the message to be posted.

Twit Fail (3, Insightful)

kodiaktau (2351664) | more than 2 years ago | (#38660586)

This is a distraction to get media focus back on Twitter because of the Google search plus [blogspot.com] announcement. Honestly Twitter shows me the Fail Whale about once a week and their service record [twitter.com] is poor for such a large site - so what will they be complaining about next?

Google has been amassing tons of data and is now planning to use that to have personalized search - that is the story. I don't see how they will get around the filter bubble [wired.com] issue. (Never mind personal data protection and other issues [battellemedia.com] .)

As a side I am still trying to wrap my head around Wolfram's blog today about using a TLD .data [stephenwolfram.com] in relation to the Google announcement.

Bad day for the internet?

I am surprised it didn't hit Twitfail [twitfail.com]

Google is becoming annoying (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38660624)

My problem with Google is that it's never really possible to opt out of their options: for some reason they can't stick to their effing cookies!

I've recently had a lot of trouble with Google Instant and autocompletion: these are features I do *not* want, and yet, it doesn't matter how many times I deactivate them in the search settings, there's always some caveat where it can turn back on - "google instant will be reactivated if you blink the left eye while typing with your left finger on any google page" (or will be reactivated on all incoming searches from Chrome).

Very often, the only solution is to manually game the search parameters: figure what (if anything) can turn all these extraneous additions off, and then turn them off. I'm pretty sure I'm going to face the same annoyance with this: I already see the switch "show personal results"/"hide personal results", and I'm sort of definite about the fact that no matter how I set it, it will tend to get switched back to "show personal results".

(BTW, since I've started ranting, I might add this unrelated tidbit: how many times do I have to "revert to the old look" in Gmail for them to understand that I *can't* stand their new look for Gmail, and will hold out until the VERY END???!

Re:Google is becoming annoying (1)

CodeReign (2426810) | more than 2 years ago | (#38660790)

They offer a plugin that keeps the cookies set to OPT-OUT

Re:Google is becoming annoying (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38660878)

They offer a plugin that keeps the cookies set to OPT-OUT

[Citation needed]. Please provide a link (or revisit Poe's law [wikipedia.org] )

Re:Google is becoming annoying (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38660792)

I agree...imagine living in switzerland and for some reasons google and a bunch of website localize me in the german speaking part. Fuckers.
Hi, if I type google.com is not to be redirected to google.ch. Worse when the first page is full of german website.
I don't want this "personalization", worse, finding information is getting more difficult, I cannot just google it anymore.

Re:Google is becoming annoying (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#38661714)

I live in Portugal and I don't keep getting redirected to google.pt, I use google.com just fine. Maybe you have your browser wrongly configured?

Re:Google is becoming annoying (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38660842)

Do you have CSFire? I just figured out today that CSFire will prevent your Google settings from saving. I tried everything from deleting all cookies and the cache, setting every cookie setting to save, everything that was recommended and a bunch of other things, but it finally worked when I disabled CSFire.The many months of not being able to turn off safe search & instant are finally at an end.

Re:Google is becoming annoying (2)

physburn (1095481) | more than 2 years ago | (#38661254)

I concur, just had google+ add my friends pop up in the middle of using google groups, with no close button. Give me back usenet.

Re:Google is becoming annoying (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38661446)

I too have been getting increasingly annoyed with Google's updating. I am searching information on the net throughout the day, and I have several gripes with their changes
I dont want Personalised results - I want what is actually out there, not my history or results that can only be found when logged in in your account.
The lag and jumping of Auto-search is annoying. Googles auto-meaning with autosearch replaces my searches with searches it thought I meant to type. (I know what I want to search!), occasionally causing me to dredge wrong information.
Logging in: I don't want to be signed in. Why should I login to find a webpage? Nor do I see why my search should tied a personal identifier. I am wondering if they are doing the same thing as Facebook re: tracing user (vs compiter/ip) browsing habits, just from a different source.

I've gone back to altavista now, and only going to google when I have trouble finding more niggly things.
Sadly, Googles iconic "simple search page" concept has become too annoying for me to use constantly.

Swinging? More like whining! (3, Insightful)

Dahamma (304068) | more than 2 years ago | (#38660646)

Coming out "swinging" would have been more like "that's nothing, we have an answer to this that you will like even more!". This is more like a kid in the playground saying "no fair, I wasn't ready, do over!"

Google search is useless (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38660654)

Google broke the internet a long time ago when they started deciding what comes up for search instead of what you are searching for.

Re:Google search is useless (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38660948)

Excellent reason to move on to engines like DuckDuckGo (http://ddg.gg), SSL, no tracking, no bubbling. As long as there are choices, everything is OK.

The only thing I still use google for is research articles search on google scholar. :)

(in before shameless advertising, etc)

Re:Google search is useless (2)

rtfa-troll (1340807) | more than 2 years ago | (#38661170)

Excellent reason to move on to engines like DuckDuckGo (http://ddg.gg [ddg.gg] )...

I have DDG set as a default on some computers. I really like the privacy. The first few results are very often useful and interesting; especially the nice way the structure different results so you know which are official sites etc. This really shows there is space for and a need for a new search engine competitor. The fact is though that if it's something where you have to look a little further (e.g. a local business with a somewhat common name) it just doesn't cope. If you know that you can also feed through to Google (with a !g .. or images/news etc. with !i/!n etc.) then that lets you stick with it more easily. In the end, however, the main thing DDG does is remind me exactly how good Google is. I really hope they can come up with a new / better search engine which delivers results which are overall as good as Googles.

Anyone have suggestions for improving DDG's default results?

P.S. Please make links clickable when posting;

Re:Google search is useless (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38661354)

Only positive sides of DDG is Wiki/Wolfram Alpha/etc. lookup and promise of privacy. DDG's general search gives shitty Bing results. I'm gonna wait and see while they train their DuckDuckBot, may be then it'll be something worthy.

Re:Google search is useless (4, Interesting)

Issarlk (1429361) | more than 2 years ago | (#38660964)

I remember (not fondly) the time when entering *anything* into a search engine yielded pages of "Sexy nude girls" results. I don't miss that "unbroken" internet at all.

I can see a problem with personalised search.. (4, Interesting)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 2 years ago | (#38661106)

I can see a problem with personalised search, but not the one that Twitter mentions. It may polarise opinions. Take two people, one leaning slightly towards centre-right wing politics and the other centre-left. These people might have different opinions on some things, but not much.

The one leaning slightly right will see more and more search results showing that low tax is good, social provision bad, Obama wanting to make America a country like Europe or Scandinavia. This may move their opinion to the right slightly, so they will click on further right wing sites where they will start to see stories about "death panels" in Europe, global warming being fictitious and Obama wanting to make America a Muslim country, etc.

The one with centre-left tendencies will see stories about corporations putting out false information on global warming, how European countries have higher levels of health at a lower cost, etc. but hardly any right-wing rebuttals. He may move slightly further left, and then see searches saying that democracy doesn't work because all parties are the same, how republicans want non-Christians barred from official positions (without the context that it is one or two extremists), and so on

You end up with two centre-moderates moving to opposite extremes.

Re:I can see a problem with personalised search.. (1)

q.kontinuum (676242) | more than 2 years ago | (#38661388)

Depends how Google plays this. If the search result focus on a position somewhere between the global average and the current position of the searcher, the opposite development might be possible as well (picking up extremists and slowly leading them to global average). Of course they could also just make up their mind what they want people to believe and lead them to that point, or they might consider to sell the target point to the highest bidder.

Re:I can see a problem with personalised search.. (1)

cc1984_ (1096355) | more than 2 years ago | (#38661400)

I can't really see how this is much different from the previous norm of people buying left/right-leaning newspapers to suit their preferences. Not that I'm saying that this wasn't a problem either.

Re:I can see a problem with personalised search.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38661428)

Easy, they should just have Opposite days, when lefties get their results full of Fox News and righties get Stephen Colbert and Mother Jones.

Re:I can see a problem with personalised search.. (1)

JAlexoi (1085785) | more than 2 years ago | (#38661510)

It's already like that for a long time. Personalized searches is not something new to Google.

Twitter isn't being very clear (1)

Dupple (1016592) | more than 2 years ago | (#38661114)

But I think it boils down to the fact that this seems like classic antitrust behaviour, using a legal monopoly in one market (web search) to gain a competitive advantage in a different market (social networking) through bundling. I'm not sure I agree, but that seems to be the nub of it

Personalized search just doesn't work! (2)

q.kontinuum (676242) | more than 2 years ago | (#38661362)

Well, it worked for some time, but lately even when looking for some completely innocent words, like e.g. "frog" I tend to get only kinky results. (Don't ask, you don't want to see...) I could not remotely guess how this should in any way reflect my personal interest. (And I did delete my browser history in forehand, also I by no means did not look at any kinky stuff, off course.)

Re:Personalized search just doesn't work! (4, Funny)

cc1984_ (1096355) | more than 2 years ago | (#38661408)

[Personalized search just doesn't work!] Well, it worked for some time, but lately even when looking for some completely innocent words, like e.g. "frog" I tend to get only kinky results.

I'd recommend pron browsing mode to bypass Google picking up your kinky preferences for your personalized search!

The hidden value of the G+ signals (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38661484)

If you look at the supposed implementation of Google+ signals in their search and how they bump the score you might see a different common denominator.

Google+ doesn't promote quality, it promotes websites that use Google products.

captcha: losing

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

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>