Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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

Thank you!

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

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

Yahoo to Dump Google

CmdrTaco posted more than 10 years ago | from the only-a-matter-of-time dept.

The Internet 280

unassimilatible writes "The Wall Street Journal is reporting (paid subscription required) that Yahoo! plans to dump Google as its primary search technology. In a major revamp, Yahoo will also add personalization and customization features to extend the usefulness of searches and expand its use of "paid inclusion." Yahoo news has picked up the story. Might be time to rethink that IPO."

cancel ×

280 comments

first CLIT! (-1)

News For Turds (580751) | more than 10 years ago | (#7890245)

I hate all of you. Fuck you all.

GO RAMS!

Love Always,
News For Turds

Re:first CLIT! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7890364)

CLIT. What is it all about... is it good, or is it whack?

Googling it.. (2, Insightful)

oateater (593228) | more than 10 years ago | (#7890246)

My only question: How will this affect google's searching power?

Re:Googling it.. (2, Funny)

WesG (589258) | more than 10 years ago | (#7890254)

Google searches will now take 50ms instead of 60ms...

Re:Googling it.. (4, Informative)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 10 years ago | (#7890276)

Google's search will be just as good as it's always been, the number of times it's used has no impact on how much knowledge it has about the web and what it does about it.

Re:Googling it.. (4, Insightful)

irc.goatse.cx troll (593289) | more than 10 years ago | (#7890464)

"the number of times it's used has no impact on how much knowledge it has about the web and what it does about it."

Thats not entirely true, if you take it the other way. The more popular google became, the more spammers realised its worth the time it takes to figure out how to manipulate the search engine until their page is on top. Google was much more useful when it was still on the list of effecient and useful geek-only tools, now that everyone either uses it directly or uses it via proxy(like yahoo was), the results are often times spam.

Re:Googling it.. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7890424)

It will affect theyre IPO more.

The other shoe drops... (4, Interesting)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 10 years ago | (#7890252)

Yahoo owns both Inktomi and Overture... for them to be dumping Google and moving to the suppliers that they own outright is something that was easy to see coming, the only question was when.

Re:The other shoe drops... (0)

hlh_nospam (178327) | more than 10 years ago | (#7890522)

After the way that Google has been screwing around with their rating algorithm (most probably solely for the purpose of pumping up the IPO value by extorting more ad revenue), I've definitely been hoping that Google will draw some meaningful competition.

So, I'm rooting for Yahoo. For now.

Unfortunately, the way the internet works, whoever is in first place in any category naturally becomes completely dominant. Once any organization becomes dominant, they then become complacecent and abusive, if only slowly at first -- as they test the limits of what they can get away with. Losing a first place position requires a major error.

Re:The other shoe drops... (3, Insightful)

Metasquares (555685) | more than 10 years ago | (#7890643)

If someone found a way to abuse a search algorithm that you wrote to get better placement, wouldn't you change it too? Why do you think that this is all some scam to get advertising revenue? If you rely on search engine placement for traffic, you're accepting the risk that your placement might change.

Re:The other shoe drops... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7890648)

One has to be very ignorant to miss the fact that Google has huge problems with spammers trying to manipulate its ranking system. It's ok to be suspicious of the dominant company, but in this case there's a very simple and obvious explanation for the ranking algorithm modifications: In order to remain a valuable search engine, Google has to differentiate between results which rise to the top because of money and search results which rise to the top because of relevance. Yes, Google's value is at the center of this, but extortion doesn't come into it.

Re:The other shoe drops... (4, Interesting)

fruey (563914) | more than 10 years ago | (#7890661)

Yes. Yahoo jumped in to get Google tech when it was running high, and probably got a good deal too, since Google wasn't so well known back in 2000. The original press release is here [google.com] . Yahoo! at the time said

"Yahoo! is focused on meeting the needs of these individuals [daily web searchers] by providing them with high-quality, relevant search results"

It would seem that the relevance of Google results is declining, precisely because so many people are working 24 hours a day to get their site ranked higher, and Kelkoo in particular seems to have done very well at that. www.alltheweb.com [alltheweb.com] looks a lot like Google but isn't suffering at the moment from database pollution. I've seen it mentioned before on Slashdot, I think we'll be seeing it again. However, the plot thickens - if you click the "About" link on the AllTheWeb homepage you'll see that "AlltheWeb is a business of Overture Services, Inc." Now we know that Yahoo! acquired Overture back on October 7, 2003 ... and so there's no need for them to keep paying Google I guess. Especially not with a company that has a similar looking site!

What Google said at the time of Yahoo! integration of Google results:

"This is a significant milestone for Google and a strong validation of our business strategy"

The warning bells are ringing, since Yahoo! leaving - having been the loudest validation of the original Google business model - is terrible news in my opinion. It is of note that the Wall Street Journal (and not cnet news or CNN online or ZDNet, etc) picked up on this. The IPO is starting to look less rosy. What I would like to know is whether in the Yahoo! boardroom there was a long debate about the timing of this decision, and indeed what kinds of money were changing hands with Google for provision of searches and whether the price was set to go up for 2004!

one more crappy search engine out there (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7890256)

do you ah, google?

Do you google or yahoo? (2, Interesting)

Feathers McGraw (180980) | more than 10 years ago | (#7890555)

The (IMO incredibly annoying) "Do you Yahoo!?" advertising aside, I note that I hear "google" used as a verb far more than "yahoo" (actually, short of the aforementionded annoying commercials, I've never heard "yahoo" used as a verb).

That's not just in conversation with my tech-geek acquaintances; I'm talking about popular culture, too (although I'm pressed to recall which shows I heard it on). The reason it stood out in my mind was that there were maybe two or three separate such usages in prime time the same week.

Granted, it could have been clever product placement rather than sniglet hipsterism on the part of the writers.

fp (-1, Offtopic)

djdrew6k (526089) | more than 10 years ago | (#7890257)

first post dudes

YOU FAIL IT (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7890457)

failure king

icant believe it (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7890259)

fsrtpost biatch

Might be time to rethink that IPO? (5, Interesting)

Josh Mast (1283) | more than 10 years ago | (#7890262)

You're kidding me. I can't remember the last time I ever bothered using Yahoo!'s search function. It had to have been sometime back in '98 I'm sure.

Re:Might be time to rethink that IPO? (1, Interesting)

WesG (589258) | more than 10 years ago | (#7890280)

Yeah Yahoo used to be the king of searches in the 90's. Remember AltaVista, Webcrawler, Excite? Those were the days....

Re:Might be time to rethink that IPO? (5, Informative)

Verteiron (224042) | more than 10 years ago | (#7890381)

And Metacrawler, the cool engine that actually searched all of the OTHER engines, then organized and displayed the results. One of the most amazingly useful things on the web at the time. Then they got bought by go.com, I think, which got bought by Disney... I just checked, Metacrawler is still around, but predictably it's all paid links. Sad...

Re:Might be time to rethink that IPO? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7890449)

we're gonna to work all day, all day, all day

where's there is cash, there's a way ...sigh

Re:Might be time to rethink that IPO? (1)

Mysticalfruit (533341) | more than 10 years ago | (#7890530)

I forget the name of the site, but you could goto a site and it ran a javascript that would giving a running display of what was currently being searched on metacrawler. It was pretty enjoyable to just sit there and watch human depravity in action.

Re:Might be time to rethink that IPO? (2, Interesting)

fafaforza (248976) | more than 10 years ago | (#7890377)

Really.

When you do a search on Yahoo these days, you get the same exact results you would get on Google. Difference being a lot more crap on the front page to load up on Yahoo as opposed to Google.

Yahoo dropping Google is a good thing. Who wants every search engine using the same underlying technology and returningthe same results? Different technologies will, hopefully, bring wider variery of results.

Re:Might be time to rethink that IPO? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7890438)

When you do a search on Yahoo these days, you get the same exact results you would get on Google. Difference being a lot more crap on the front page to load up on Yahoo as opposed to Google.

Hence (as seen on yahoo.com),

Yahoo! POWERED by Google

Impact on Google revenues & profits (5, Interesting)

G4from128k (686170) | more than 10 years ago | (#7890450)

"Might be time to rethink that IPO?"

You're kidding me. I can't remember the last time I ever bothered using Yahoo!'s search function.


The issue of Yahoo dumping Google has nothing to do with whether Yahoo sucks or not. Instead, this is an issue of Google's long-term business outlook. Google is partially dependent on large contracts from major portals like Yahoo and Google also faces the potential of losing to another search engine provider.

As wonderful as Google is now, it is in a very risky industry. The fact that search sites like Yahoo, AltaVista, Excite, etc. can go from darling to moribund suggests that the industry has high turnover. And then there is Microsoft which has expressed interest in competing with Google.

Were Google publically traded right now, this news would create a major hit to the stock price. This suggests that any potential buyers of Google IPO stock should think long and hard about the likelihood of expecting more unexpected bad news.

doubtfully (2, Insightful)

*weasel (174362) | more than 10 years ago | (#7890663)

stocks move faster than that. Yahoo had announced its intention to split from Google for some time, and signalled it for much longer. (You don't retain your internal search companies, and buy more search IP if you intend to use a 3rd party forever).

Google however is finding a larger market in advertising than it thought it could, and despite your claim makes most of its profit from smaller private contracts.

Yahoo is just about the -only- large portal contract they had. I mean, who else is there? And it was far from their only revenue source.

Yes, when this split happens, it would depress their share price, but I doubt it signals a longterm marketability problem. This is Yahoo prepping their investors to believe the impending split is in -their- best interests - instead of signalling that Yahoo itself can no longer afford to own search companies and still pay for Google.

After all, it's Yahoo that has been in a business tailspin for the last few years. Not Google.

And this won't bother their prospective IPO, as the large financial institutions that would have first shot at IPO shares have analysts that have known this plan for some time.

Re:Might be time to rethink that IPO? (-1, Redundant)

bsdpanix (170144) | more than 10 years ago | (#7890453)

I can't remember the last time I used Yahoo.
They're the single largest hero to zero story of the internet.

Re:Might be time to rethink that IPO? (3, Interesting)

whovian (107062) | more than 10 years ago | (#7890501)

When I want to look for a category or find out simply "What is X basically?" quickly, I use Yahoo over Google. For this, it is a waste of time weeding out the crap Google has been bubbling to the surface lately. It's like those porn web sites that all refer to one another without actually providing any content.

Now when I want specific examples or contexts, such as "Do related terms X and Y occur on the same web page or in the same usenet article?", Google is great. Still, the crap has to be picked out.

Netcraft confirms: The Free Market is DYING (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7890271)

The Free Market is only free if your time is worthless

Yahoo Move (-1, Flamebait)

tds67 (670584) | more than 10 years ago | (#7890273)

If this keeps up, Yahoo! is going to be a miserable failure...

Re:Yahoo Move (2, Interesting)

loyalsonofrutgers (736778) | more than 10 years ago | (#7890393)

Someone mod this guy funny...

I remember back before 'yahoo.com' when they were on Berkeley's server ( I think... I could look it up but the school isn't important ) and I had to rummage around for the address when I wanted to use it... nowadays I'd just google for it and have it immediately. Back then it was actually useful... almost no commercial content, the database was smaller (more accurate checking) and younger (not so full of crap). Nowadays they have everything under the sun, and I'm sure I'm not the only one that finds it useless as a result. Even something simple like a stock price lookup I won't go to Yahoo for anymore, because whatever I want is buried amongst movie times and online games and auctions, etc. To me Yahoo spread its wings too far and they were melted by the sun (or am I mixing a few parables together...)

Re:Yahoo Move (1)

ViolentGreen (704134) | more than 10 years ago | (#7890422)

Because google has the best search technology there is and the best there will ever be. Any attempt at innovation must surely be folly.

Re:Yahoo Move (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7890467)

Yes nothing beats the search engine power of the dollar for paid links.

THat is the search technology they will have, and even more so for shareholder...

Google will die by being over commercialised. They have froggle for paid links but now they polluted the main engine.

They need to specalize the engines. Wont happen.

MS will knock em.

Re:Yahoo Move (1)

lordrich (647355) | more than 10 years ago | (#7890494)

It already is, maybe not in commercial terms but definitely in terms of usability.

Re:Yahoo Move (1)

edalytical (671270) | more than 10 years ago | (#7890548)

That's why the grandparent post should have been modded funny not flamebait. It's called sarcasm, and I don't know why it's so hard for moderators to understand.

Maybe Yahoo is changing for a reason (1, Insightful)

Gary Whittles (735467) | more than 10 years ago | (#7890277)

The problem with Google now is that it has almost entirely been taken over by commercial entities. When I was recently shopping for a digital camera, I did the usual internet searches. A few years back, similar searches would have found lots and lots of sites ABOUT the product in question (fan sites, discussion forums, reviews). Now I have to sort through page upon page of sites wanting to sell me said item, most of which aren't even actual store-fronts but instead just referral pages which have manipulated the Google ranking system to get on top. I recenlty hit the same problem when doing vacation planning. It used to be that I could easily find hundreds of pages ABOUT the destination, now I just find sites wanting to sell me airfare, book me into a hotel, and rent me a car. It's become extremely frustrating and has made Google far less useful than it once was. In fact, most of the big search engines are far less useful than they once were.

Yahoo used to be THE place to get organized info on any subject. Maybe they are switching to a better search engine, like DMOZ or Vivisimo?

Re:Maybe Yahoo is changing for a reason (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7890299)

I'm posting this anonymously for obvious reasons...

I was trying to find out the medical implications of taking female hormones (I'm a transvestite but I'm curious about female hormones).

All I got was page after page of porn sites... what a crock of shit.

(BTW, that reminds me - how do you make a hormone?

- fuck her for 7 hours with a 12 inch cock, lol)

Re:Maybe Yahoo is changing for a reason (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7890386)

Try a Google Groups search. Also try using the - modifier to exclude words from the search. For example: -porn -'hot tranny action'.

Re:Maybe Yahoo is changing for a reason (5, Insightful)

wilf (106917) | more than 10 years ago | (#7890349)

use google more creatively, by typing the name of your product and the word "review" or "consumer review"...

or check out the information about digital cameras on photo.net

Re:Maybe Yahoo is changing for a reason (3, Insightful)

Hollinger (16202) | more than 10 years ago | (#7890521)

You know, I do the "review" thing too, and still get the same sorts of results -- possibly a different cross-section of them, but the same sorts of results, mostly due to the same reason, but also because every e-commerce engine under the sun seems to have a consumer review "feature." Look at this search for Canon ZR65MC review [google.com] . As you can see, the results still contain the same sort of things. You also get (fairly useless to me, anyway) 10-20 different sites rebadging the pricegrabber or dealtime engines, providing the same exact content with a different HTML template.

I agree that Google needs to do something about e-commerce sites. Perhaps finalize the froogle [google.com] beta and dump the e-tailers into there where they belong. (Of course I realize that it's very, very easy for me to say this, and extremely hard for Google to implement it.)

In the meantime, I can think of several ways to combat this sort of information glut. This search [google.com] provides much better results in my opinion, but can be easily combated by the spammers by removing the keywords I'm using as filters.

I don't envy google. Their own popularity is killing their usefulness as a search for retail products. For actual information, such as the governmental structure of Canada [google.com] , I've found they're still the best engine though.

Re:Maybe Yahoo is changing for a reason (2, Insightful)

xneilj (15004) | more than 10 years ago | (#7890376)

I feel exactly the same as you. This commercial pollution has greatly diluted the usefulness of Google when searching for information on products.

I would love to see a way to optionally strip commercial traders from the results.

Re:Karma Whore Alert! (4, Informative)

balbord (447248) | more than 10 years ago | (#7890412)

Same post here [slashdot.org] yesterday.

Now go to your room!

Re:Karma Whore Alert! (4, Funny)

Hogwash McFly (678207) | more than 10 years ago | (#7890458)

Wow, how did you find that, Google?

Re:Karma Whore Alert! (1)

balbord (447248) | more than 10 years ago | (#7890493)

Hehe! Nope!!!
Spent entire monday on slashdot... kind of slow around here!

And today doesn't seem to be getting any better!

Re:Maybe Yahoo is changing for a reason (2, Insightful)

steveit_is (650459) | more than 10 years ago | (#7890414)

Or maybe Google's search results ARE accurate and simply reflect the increasingly commercial nature of the web. I for one think that the Internet is becoming soo hopelessly commercialized that it is becoming next to impossible to find USEFUL non-commercial content about anything, regardless of the search engine used. When 90% of the content on the web is commercial, it is hard to imagine 90% of the search results not being commercial. I think that the next 'killer app' will be a new anonymous file sharing protocol like Freenet ,but faster and with an ability to 'deny' hosting to sites that you do not agree with. Freenet with a way to filter the content your node will host. Not because people want anonymity soo much, but because people want a new forum to voice their opinions without their voices being drowned out by the combined shouting of all the commercial interests that have taken control of our medium.

Re:Maybe Yahoo is changing for a reason (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7890567)

This has nothing to do with being accurate. The kind of search which people are complaining about usually yields thousands of hits. Only a few of those hits are what the seeker was looking for, but because he didn't refine the search terms, the search engine has to make a more or less intelligent guess. There's a broad consensus that Google's way of guessing was very often on spot. If you inspect a few of the junk results, you'll find that nobody in his right mind would create webpages like that except for one specific purpose: search engine manipulation. Some results are not even relevant to the search terms because they present themselves in different ways depending on the visitor (search engine or human). Anyway, most of the time Google's results are accurate, but only in the sense that they match the search terms. What made (and in comparison to many other search engine still makes) Google valuable wasn't so much the literal accuracy but the ranking. If you know how to formulate precise search strings and thus don't depend on ranking as much, then Google is still a very powerful search engine, by virtue of its huge database and caching.

Re:Maybe Yahoo is changing for a reason (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7890415)


The problem with Google now is that it has almost entirely been taken over by commercial entities. When I was recently shopping for a digital camera, I did the usual internet searches. A few years back, similar searches would have found lots and lots of sites ABOUT the product in question (fan sites, discussion forums, reviews). Now I have to sort through page upon page of sites wanting to sell me said item, most of which aren't even actual store-fronts but instead just referral pages which have manipulated the Google ranking system to get on top. I recenlty hit the same problem when doing vacation planning. It used to be that I could easily find hundreds of pages ABOUT the destination, now I just find sites wanting to sell me airfare, book me into a hotel, and rent me a car. It's become extremely frustrating and has made Google far less useful than it once was. In fact, most of the big search engines are far less useful than they once were.


Gee, did you just copy-and-paste this from the Vivisimo discussion yesterday?

Re:Maybe Yahoo is changing for a reason (3, Informative)

Tom (822) | more than 10 years ago | (#7890448)

Now I have to sort through page upon page of sites wanting to sell me said item,

Learn to search. Using a search engine properly is a little more than dumping a word into the tiny box.

Google offers pretty good advanced search options, which you can use to great effect to weed out the stuff you don't want, refine the search, offer alternative spellings or keywords, etc.

Re:Maybe Yahoo is changing for a reason (2, Interesting)

ThomK (194273) | more than 10 years ago | (#7890470)

..has made Google far less useful than it once was.

Not exactly. The search engine user just has to be a little more search engine savvy. For instance, if you are looking for information about the 'place' Bermuda, but want to avoid all the advertisments, put "Bermuda -hotel" into google. Shows up with airline ticket ads? Then change it to "Bermuda -hotel -airfare". Basically you can strip down your searches, get through all the chaff and find what you are looking for.

Yes, Google is overrated (3, Interesting)

nnnneedles (216864) | more than 10 years ago | (#7890472)

It's not any better than altavista used to be, back when people complained "When you search for things, you always get tons of useless crap"..

The only good thing about google is that it often lists the official page of something first. But if you aren't looking for the official page, you are out of luck..

Google became popular because it listed extremely relevant results directly on the first results page, but it is in my experience a completely different beast nowadays..

Re:Maybe Yahoo is changing for a reason (2, Interesting)

ortholattice (175065) | more than 10 years ago | (#7890525)

A lot of commercial sites can be cut out by adding "site:org" to the search. For a lot of things that will get you the no-nonsense facts you used to get in the old days. Unfortunately it's a matter of time until all the sleazy huckster sites add a .org alias, and it's already happening. But for right now it kind of works - take advantage while it lasts.

You posted this same post yesterday (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7890532)

And people gave you informative responses as to how to modify your searches to get what you want.

Go back to your karma brothel.

Re:Maybe Yahoo is changing for a reason (1)

awol (98751) | more than 10 years ago | (#7890594)

I met a guy whose business is "legitmately" increasing the ranking of _your_site in the google index (interpret that as you wish!). I cannot believe the crap for which people will part with their money.

First Dibs (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7890278)

Yahoo to Dump Google. [...] Yahoo picks up the story

Yeah, I guess they'd have first dibs on the story, eh?

Posting Paid Subscription links... (4, Informative)

I-R-Baboon (140733) | more than 10 years ago | (#7890281)

Is complete horseshit especially when you can find other links. [google.com] Take for instance this link. [forbes.com]

Enjoy the reading fellow /.ers.

Re:Posting Paid Subscription links... (1)

fruey (563914) | more than 10 years ago | (#7890505)

I think linking to the original source has its merits. There are links to other articles too. All the articles are short on details and lead back to the Wall Street Journal article. So it's a reasonable thing.

I submitted this article with the Forbes link myself, but this other submitter got his through with a Yahoo! news regurgitation of the Reuteurs story. Yawn.

Rethink their IPO? (5, Interesting)

gpinzone (531794) | more than 10 years ago | (#7890282)

Because of Yahoo? Nah. Google better rethink their IPO because their technology has been broken by spammers. Searching with google used to be a lot more fruitful in the old days. Anything searches that could be construed as porn or is sold on Amazon.com is going to yield tons of useless links.

Re:Rethink their IPO? (1)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 10 years ago | (#7890298)

Nah, now would be the time to IPO... turn 1/3 of the company into cash just before it starts getting seriously challenged by Yahoo.

Not the best for the people who buy the IPO, but the people who make the decision to offer an IPO are the people who presently own the company.

Re:Rethink their IPO? (3, Interesting)

Gary Whittles (735467) | more than 10 years ago | (#7890310)

Not to mention that Google is basically being forced to IPO and doesn't have much of a choice in the matter.

Google has remained private as long as possible. If their VCs were looking to cash out, they could have done it before the crash. And everyone has been asking them to IPO for the last 2 years to kickstart the stock market. It was smart of them to wait until the DJ was above 10,000, but probably unnecessary.

The reason they are going public is because SEC rules force companies with a certain number of owners to go public. The companies have to file all the costly paperwork as if they were a public company, and they lose most of the advantages of staying private, such as not releasing all that information about their activities. There is little reason to stay private, and the extra cash from the IPO is handy for paying for all that paperwork.

The famous case of this happening was Microsoft. Too many employees were exchanging shares privately, and the SEC forced them to go public. They did really well, and you cannot blame their decline on being a public company since the prior management is still running things. OTOH, because MSFT is public, the shareholders can insist on new management, but they will probably wait until the stock goes under $10, and that will be too late to save the company, if it isn't already.

Yahoo bot? (4, Interesting)

m00nun1t (588082) | more than 10 years ago | (#7890283)

"...Yahoo will switch from Google to its own technology as early as the first quarter."

If Yahoo is going live with a search engine that soon, why haven't I seen a bot on my site (google page rank of 5, so not obscure) which looks Yahoo-ish? Anyone else spotted a bot you think might belong to yahoo?

Re:Yahoo bot? (4, Insightful)

ThePretender (180143) | more than 10 years ago | (#7890329)

would probably be Inktomi's bot (something like inktomisearch.com). There was an earlier post about this transition being obvious since Yahoo owns Inktomi and Overture. So Inktomi would do the crawlin' and Overture would provide the paid results.

Re:Yahoo bot? (2, Informative)

jodo (209027) | more than 10 years ago | (#7890333)

I've noticed a significant increase in the inktomi bot search on my sites.
Don't claim to know if that means anything.

Re:Yahoo bot? (1)

BigJim.fr (40893) | more than 10 years ago | (#7890351)

> Anyone else spotted a bot you think might
> belong to yahoo?

Inktomi.

Re:Yahoo bot? (2, Interesting)

_Sharp'r_ (649297) | more than 10 years ago | (#7890357)

Inktomi and Overture's bots belong to Yahoo now.

FAST-WebCrawler from Overture and Slurp from Inktomi.

Personally, since Google has spidered a large percentage of the pages on my sites and Inktomi/Overture has only done a very minimal amount of pages, they're going to have to really pick up their index size if they hope to compete with Google and ATW on finding anything that isn't on a site's home page.

Re:Yahoo bot? (-1, Troll)

Scrumptious Ass!!!!! (738336) | more than 10 years ago | (#7890373)

I found a screenshot of an apache log showing the new bot entries here [maximumletdown.com] .

More painful for Yahoo (4, Interesting)

gcaseye6677 (694805) | more than 10 years ago | (#7890307)

This will hurt Yahoo a lot more than it will hurt Google. Google's search technology is very advanced, once you weed through the garbage links. Yahoo, before they used Google technology, would usually take forever to find any relevant results. Yahoo will go back to being the search engine with huge name recognition and little effective use.

Re:More painful for Yahoo (5, Insightful)

ThePretender (180143) | more than 10 years ago | (#7890346)

The only effective use Yahoo's search has is to lure people in with the aforementioned huge name recognition. Once people are there, I think Yahoo is more interested in getting them to do things like sign up for Yahoo Messenger, Yahoo Personals, go into Yahoo Chat, click on paid links and outright advertisements, yadda yadda.

Rethink the IPO, heck yeah. (3, Funny)

Mike Buddha (10734) | more than 10 years ago | (#7890316)

Yeah, I definately think that people at Yahoo should really rethink it's IPO if they're going to drop the only thing that makes it relevant. If they expect to float along with their cheesy messaging and other crapware they're in for big trouble.

Re:Rethink the IPO, heck yeah. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7890394)

Dude... I seriously hope that was a bad attempt at sarcasm...

That's too bad (1)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | more than 10 years ago | (#7890320)

Yahoo! plans to dump Google as its primary search technology.

It was convenient to be able to googlewash several search engines at the same time.

IPO statement (1)

batura (651273) | more than 10 years ago | (#7890335)

I believe the author of this post doens't realize that this was probably in response to Google's IPO. As a close partner, Google probably would have been obliged to mention this to Yahoo; certainly everyone speculated about it.

Insightful? *cough* (2, Informative)

Dogtanian (588974) | more than 10 years ago | (#7890352)

Might be time to rethink that IPO

You mean because Yahoo are dropping Google? Man, *that* was unexpected, no-one knew that was coming.
Seriously, if that's your reason, then you (or they) obviously didn't do any thinking or research in the first place.

As for Yahoo fighting back, I didn't see *that* coming either.

Yahoo switching to some other provider (1)

192939495969798999 (58312) | more than 10 years ago | (#7890356)

It would matter a little if Yahoo was going back to whatever proprietary search they had before Overture, but if they're just hosting paid links, I think that only makes Google's product stronger.

Re:Yahoo switching to some other provider (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7890490)

Yahoo owns Overture and Inktomi, and indirectly (through owning Overture) it also owns Fast (alltheweb.com) and Altavista...What makes you think Yahoo will move to only paid links?

searches, personalization, and privacy (5, Interesting)

tuxette (731067) | more than 10 years ago | (#7890361)

Second, Yahoo wants to combine personalization and customization features to extend the usefulness of searches.

It will be interesting to see what this develops into. I'm already a bit uncomfortable with the thought of such a "service." While it may be "convenient" to create a profile of your interests and perhaps an overview of previous searches and marking of what were "good" search results, I don't like the idea of Yahoo! storing all this data in the first place. How do I know that they won't sell this data to marketers? (Most privacy policies are bullshit.) Or give it to government officials looking for terrorists and political opponents and the such? Will I have to give up a lot of personal data in order to get search for information results that don't lead me to sites that try to sell me the product I'm trying to research?

Thanks, but for now I think I'll stick to spending time and effort to get the search results I want, no matter how big of a pain in the ass it is, rather than sell my soul for the same.

Re:searches, personalization, and privacy (1)

irc.goatse.cx troll (593289) | more than 10 years ago | (#7890443)

"Or give it to government officials looking for terrorists and political opponents and the such?"

If they(not you) operate out of the United States, the US PATRIOT act says that the govt is allowed access to any comercial database they desire, denying them is a federal crime, telling someone you gave them access is a federal crime. Unlike most new scary laws, this has already been used atleast once. Can't remember any references, but I vaugely remember something about the US govt trying to find people that bought a lot of {food they found terrorists like}.

Its also a huge shame that such a useful feature(profiling) would be so missused. Its depressing when there is good tech that won't be used/develeoped due to a selfish and corrupt society/govt.

Who uses Yahoo anymore? (1, Interesting)

Zetta Matrix (245803) | more than 10 years ago | (#7890366)

Yahoo was a lot more important in my surfing habits back, say, 5-6 years ago. Google has that important niche in my surfing habits now, and I know that goes for a lot of people. How the submitter labeled this as some event possibly disastrous for Google is beyond me.

I do. (4, Insightful)

NineNine (235196) | more than 10 years ago | (#7890401)

Yahoo is the only site that I've found that really uses personalization. The "one login" promise that countless technologies were supposed to deliver on has been delivered by Yahoo. Forget LDAP and various XML schemes. I love Yahoo because no matter where I go in their empire, my login is good and the content is for me. I actually enjoy using Yahoo's various properties. In one day, I use their mail (excellent with spam), launch.com (streaming radio), their auctions, their weather, their finance, etc. I've been using the web since before the web, and Yahoo is the only place I've found that really delivers on that promise of personalization, which happens to be worth a lot to me because it saves me a lot of time and headache.

Yeah, but (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7890516)

You're an idiot.

i do too, sometimes. (0)

thegnu (557446) | more than 10 years ago | (#7890564)

i don't actually use their search, but their directory is pretty nice, when you know the topic but would rather not figure out the proper wording to find it on google. that's not to say that other people's directories AREN'T, but i like yahoo's.

i'm probably an idiot too. dammit.

Why? (2, Insightful)

Raven42rac (448205) | more than 10 years ago | (#7890368)

Why is it time to rethink that IPO? Losing Yahoo as a paying customer will not hurt very much. There will just be another one to take their place. Google makes great search appliances for networks. They are gaudy yellow boxes, but they work very well. There is plenty of money in that. Look at all this other stuff [google.com] they can sell. They can sell advertising, search appliances, they can let you use their engine to search your site, and they can park domains for you. How will losing one customer on one sector of their business hurt them (badly)? Their eggs are not all in one basket. That would be like everyone saying "Ford is dying!" when someone stops buying their air freshener.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7890492)

>That would be like everyone saying "Ford is dying!" when someone stops buying their air freshener.

Ford sells air freshener!?!

Re:Why? (4, Interesting)

sql*kitten (1359) | more than 10 years ago | (#7890624)

Google makes great search appliances for networks.

Yes and no. Google's great strength is that it looks for links to a document as an indication of the quality of the document. In other words, it leverages evaluations of a document collectively made by humans. That works (or at least, worked) fabulously well for a most hand-written Internet, or in a case where someone familiar with the knowledge domain had written automated software to cross reference specific sections of it.

But what if there's nothing for PageRank to go on? What if you have 100,000 pre-Web documents in SGML/RTF/Word/FrameMaker, without any hyperlinking at all? Well, then all Google has to go on is keywords... it's "edge" evaporates.

Google's business is a commodity - what they have right now is a great brand and a solid (but not particularly spectacular) technology. When they have a technology that can do what Google Answers does, then it'll be safe for them to IPO, but not before.

Competition (1)

vpscolo (737900) | more than 10 years ago | (#7890383)

If Yahoo does move to something else then it will at least drive google to keep improving or for something new and better to come along. The internet is about constant development and this can be seen to be a good thing Rus

Yahoo's more than a search engine (2, Interesting)

carndearg (696084) | more than 10 years ago | (#7890392)

It is as well to bear in mind at this point that while Yahoo started out as a classified directory and became a search engine, the search engine probably isnt such a big deal for them these days. They left it behind when they became a portal. Remember portals?:) Services like Yahoo Groups, Yahoo Mail, Geo5h1tties, Yahoo personals etc etc all join the search engine to make up the greater Yahoo portal. I am guessing that most Yahoo users rarely use it for searching these days.

Yahoo is free. (2, Insightful)

SexyKellyOsbourne (606860) | more than 10 years ago | (#7890439)

When Yahoo switched to Google as its primary search engine, it made Yahoo into nothing more than a Google frontend with a lot of wasted bandwidth on its pages. It was just google with a bloated site loaded to bear with ads, as if it was an MSN with a google search bar. Its only real difference in searching was those old directories with all the outdated pages from the 1990s.

Now that Yahoo will be using another search technology, there might be a reason for using Yahoo again. Some useful things that may never show up on Google might show up on Yahoo, so it might make for a useful alternate search engine now, especially if Google continues to slide as it's doing. Then again, we still have old Astalavista for that, as well.

A new pathetic low in karma whoring (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7890541)

You've changed your link from nero-online's lastmeasure to happytreefriends.com? Can you get any more lame?

In response... (-1, Flamebait)

Nuclear Elephant (700938) | more than 10 years ago | (#7890454)

Google will be posting a link to all of Terry Semel's kiddie porn searches next week.

Look closer... (5, Informative)

GeckoFood (585211) | more than 10 years ago | (#7890471)

Yahoo! plans to dump Google as its primary search technology.

The word primary is very important here. It implies that Yahoo! is not completely abandoning Google, but is making it second string instead. If they're still letting us access Google, even if it requires a couple of extra clicks, then I can't see this as entirely bad. I like Google and it's my first pick, but I certainly don't limit myself to Google...

I did not see in the article where Yahoo! is completely dropping Google. If it's in there, I missed it.

Yahoo dumping Google... (-1, Offtopic)

fruey (563914) | more than 10 years ago | (#7890481)

Yahoo! have bought up all this technology, it's clearly with something in mind. Google cannot continue it's run at the top, and this move may be a precursor to other stuff. Google are about to give their IPO. Once they do that, investors will start to want bigger ROI and more and more people will be saying WTF Google is all paid advertising now what happened to impartiality.

As an aside, I think there's a conspiracy. I submitted this story earlier than the current submitter, with more links to background and all, but it got rejected. Am I blacklisted because Taco disagreed with me once (I remained fully polite throughout).

It's like Burgerking buying bugers from McDonalds (4, Insightful)

amichalo (132545) | more than 10 years ago | (#7890485)

I never really understood why Yahoo! switched to Google in the first place. The point is to differentiate. I stopped going to Yahoo! when I saw it was powered by Google - I just went to the "source". Same deal with MapQuest.

I guess I just don't find value in the portal service Yahoo offers. I also don't shop at Wal-Mart. I would rather use my bookmarks bar to go the site I like for Investment tools, another for maps, another for searching, and another for e-mail.

Marketing 101 (1)

AriesGeek (593959) | more than 10 years ago | (#7890502)

They are trying to maintain their loyal users. They see that Google obviously has them beat hands down when it comes to searching, so they keep the "yahoo.com" in their users' URLs in hopes they will continue to stay for the other Yahoo services.

Now why are they dumping Google? That's a different story.

Re:Marketing 101 (2, Interesting)

amichalo (132545) | more than 10 years ago | (#7890557)

Yahoo! could have created an "About" search - a flag that looks for sites indexed as research, not retail sites. Sites that inform, not sell. That would have been a way to differentiate, not throw in the towel.

I disagree that it is Marketing 101 to throw in the towel when you see your competition has a better product. To me, Marketing is about differentiation.

There are core features a product must have to be considered (like a car must be street legal), and the rest is what differentiates the product (like the size of the seets or the HP of the engine).

Re:Marketing 101 (2, Interesting)

AriesGeek (593959) | more than 10 years ago | (#7890587)

True, marketing is partly about differentiation. It's also about core competencies. This includes knowing when you've been beaten.

Yahoo? That is so 90's. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7890508)

The only people I know who still use Yahoo are the same ones who still ask for help when surfing the web.

This is Natural, and Probably Positive (2, Interesting)

osewa77 (603622) | more than 10 years ago | (#7890542)

Most responders don't seem to notice that the article mentions Yahoo's acquisition of two search engines (Inktomi for searches and Overture for paid searches). Yahoo has always used an 'improved' version of google results; the search quality shouldn't be much worse. Yahoo is doing this for the money to be saved (by using their own acquired search technology) and gained (more and smarter paid listings).

Word to Yahoo! (and Google, too) (1)

The_REAL_DZA (731082) | more than 10 years ago | (#7890545)

Keep the "open this search result in a new window" link when you do; it's the major reason I search (nearly) exclusively with Yahoo! and almost rarely use plain Google.

And who am I to give advice to a big deal like Yahoo!? Nobody, really. Actually, I'm pretty much your average, everyday, run-of-the-mill nobody... of course, that's who makes up the vast majority of your user base...

Did i claim the FP? (-1, Offtopic)

Scrumptious Ass!!!!! (738336) | more than 10 years ago | (#7890554)

Drag the lake, you'll find it's full of love. Bring the children to the water and let them see what heartache did. This matrimony needs a witness, and you can teach them to swim.

Yahoo execs must play a lot of Risk. (5, Insightful)

crazyhorse44 (242315) | more than 10 years ago | (#7890686)

You know how when you play risk... and you team up with one of your friends... you have to keep an eye on him to make sure he doesn't get too strong? If he gets too strong he might turn around and start pillaging your homeland... so you have to remain friends as long as possible and then pick the right moment to invade him... feigned disgust notwithstanding.

This is the same thing here... Yahoo teamed up with Google as long as the relationship was substantially beneficial to Yahoo. However... with Google's recent IPO... it is clear to the Yahoo suits that shareholders are going to want Google to "put out". This most likely would include a more full-figured search portal which would very likely ensure that Yahoo loses most of the armies it gets at the beginning of its turn and pretty eliminate any potential for new Risk cards. So Yahoo decided to screw Google first and try to solidify their position as the premier search portal for all the web refuse that isn't already part of the AOL empire.
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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...