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! Switches Search Engines

timothy posted more than 10 years ago | from the look-this-way dept.

The Internet 395

Giorgio Baresi writes "As several sources are reporting, Yahoo! in the last hours dumped Google and rolled out a brand new search engine mainly based on Inktomi search technology and Overture sponsored results. On Monday Yahoo! also launched its own crawler, called "Yahoo! Slurp", which replaced former "Inktomi Slurp". Hey, it seems the search engine war has begun!"

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

Four schoolgirls accused of raping deaf boy (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8315476)

Four South African schoolgirls accused of raping a 15-year-old deaf boy twice have appeared before magistrates.

The girls from Soweto, who are also 15, were not asked to plead to the charges when they appeared at Protea Magistrate's Court.

Magistrates have released them into the care of their parents.

The boy was walking home from school when he was allegedly approached by the girls on May 10.

He says they dragged him to a deserted area where they removed his clothes and forced themselves on him.

The boy says he did not tell anyone about the incident but after the girls raped him a second time on May 17 he decided to inform authorities.

The girls are due to appear in court again on June 26, the South African Independent Online reports.

Re:Four schoolgirls accused of raping deaf boy (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8315601)

Haha cool. I wish I could get raped by four nubile young schoolgirls.

Re:Four schoolgirls accused of raping deaf boy (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8315689)

Schoolgirls love cockfights []

Sign up, it's fun.

The search engine war has begun? (5, Funny)

MullerMn (526350) | more than 10 years ago | (#8315479)

I think you mean, "Begun, the search engine war has.".

Re:The search engine war has begun? (5, Funny)

GuyinVA (707456) | more than 10 years ago | (#8315597)

That would be nice. Maybe now they can pull up something relevant to what I searched for in the first place.

How can you speak if you haven't got a brain?

Actually... (-1, Offtopic)

jeroenb (125404) | more than 10 years ago | (#8315656)

I remember Yoda saying "Begun, this clone war has." Google pulls up a little more for the "the"-variant. Anyone remember for sure? I'll probably end up skipping through the DVD tonight anyway :)

Re:Actually... (3, Interesting)

mgs1000 (583340) | more than 10 years ago | (#8315697)

Google pulls up a little more for the "the"-variant.

So what does a Yahoo search turn up? :)

Relevance? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8315695)

Just searched Google [] and Yahoo [] about "yahoo slurp". Guess which one's more accurate? (also, it's plainly obvious that Google can withstand /., but can Yahoo?)

Re:The search engine war has begun? (1)

Darth23 (720385) | more than 10 years ago | (#8315709)

Master, I have to admit, without the Google Troopers this would not have been a victory.

FP? (-1, Offtopic)

roomisigloomis (643740) | more than 10 years ago | (#8315481)

I doubt it.

is it just me... (5, Funny)

glen604 (750214) | more than 10 years ago | (#8315485)

or does a webcrawler named "slurp" sound like something more appropriate for

Re:is it just me... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8315527)

I generally like to let loose with a great big "Yahoo!" whenever I'm slurped.

Surely you mean (0, Redundant)

gowen (141411) | more than 10 years ago | (#8315487)

"Begun the search engine war has!"

(If Yoda great Jedi Master is, why proper sentence construct can he not, eh?)

Re:Surely you mean (5, Funny)

DrSkwid (118965) | more than 10 years ago | (#8315626)

Reverse Polish Notation, he speaks in.

Re:Surely you mean (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8315738)

Are you sure he's not just pushing clauses onto a stack, waiting for the listener to pop them off again into English.

I doubt this is a major problem for Google (4, Informative)

The One KEA (707661) | more than 10 years ago | (#8315489)

Yahoo has been talking about dumping Google for a real long time now, so I doubt Google is really surprised. Besides, with the recent update [] to their index that they just made, I have a feeling that Google is not going to succumb just yet.

Re:I doubt this is a major problem for Google (4, Insightful)

garcia (6573) | more than 10 years ago | (#8315525)

Of course it's not a major problem. I know very few people that still use Yahoo as their first choice in search engines (and I am not talking about computer saavy people either).

My mother uses the Google toolbar and knew about it w/o me telling her. My father refuses to use anything other than Google as his homepage.

My number one reason for believing that Google is the all important, #1 search engine: My girlfriend's parents said, "I'll just google for it." at dinner one night (and this is a family where they have a shortcut to every file on the desktop and they use AOL 6.0).

Re:I doubt this is a major problem for Google (5, Insightful)

hendridm (302246) | more than 10 years ago | (#8315701)

On a related note, I was at my parents home this weekend. They like to use Yahoo for their searching. No problem, but they were complaining of popups. I decided to install the Google toolbar for them. The thought crossed my mind to install the Yahoo toolbar, since they prefer Yahoo, however, it came down to a matter of trust. When Google says they're not going to resell my information or track my moves, they've given me no reason to disbelieve them. But seeing some of the ads on Yahoo makes me feel they're willing to do anything for an extra click. I appreciate that they're in the business to make money, just as Google is, but Google just makes me feel more comfortable about it.

Not a big deal either, since there's a goof chance my parents won't take notice the new bar anyway ;)

It is sad that you have to question every motive and move you make on the Internet thanks to all the toxic waste that is present. One wrong subscription and your inbox is hosed. I made that mistake the other day. Fortunately, I used a throw-away [] e-mail address so the damage was minimal.

Yahoo's Google results were always a mess... (4, Insightful)

blorg (726186) | more than 10 years ago | (#8315563)

...hidden as they were among the enormous amount of other crap, it was difficult to tell which were the real results. As it was, I found Yahoo search to be so bad as to dilute Google's reputation if anything.

This new search so far seems better than the previous Yahoo search if anything, as they are putting the 'web' results up front, reasonably uncluttered, with everything else as seperate tabs. They could have done this with the Google ones before, but I presume they wanted to promote their own content.

Re:I doubt this is a major problem for Google (2, Funny)

bad-badtz-maru (119524) | more than 10 years ago | (#8315572)

I dunno, these new Yahoo/Inktomi results are looking pretty sharp compared to google.

..its own crawler, called "Yahoo! Slurp".. (2, Funny)

burgburgburg (574866) | more than 10 years ago | (#8315490)

Well, that has to be the dirtiest sentence I've read on /. this morning.

But the morning is young.

Result relevance (4, Interesting)

Tet (2721) | more than 10 years ago | (#8315493)

Google prides itself on having not just the largest number of indexed pages, but more importantly, the relevance of the returned results. In general, I've found them to be ahead of the pack for this, which is one of the reasons I switched to them in the first place (the other being the uncluttered interface). I was quite surprised, then, when a couple of test searches with the new Yahoo engine returned more relevant searches than Google. I'm not going to switch just yet, but it's certainly something I'll be keeping an eye on...

Re:Result relevance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8315667)

"I was quite surprised, then, when a couple of test searches with the new Yahoo engine returned more relevant searches than Google." try it again in a month, you can bet your ass it will be different by then :(

Re:Result relevance (4, Informative)

costas (38724) | more than 10 years ago | (#8315693)

Well, the good news is that Yahoo is trying to innovate, which in turn should push Google even further. For example, Yahoo is now linking directly to RSS feeds if you are using RSS-autodiscovery within your page's HTML. That's pretty cool.

TEH n-th ps0t! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8315494)

don't tell me I failed it :)

Somewhere, on the deck of the USS Yahoo! (4, Funny)

Noryungi (70322) | more than 10 years ago | (#8315498)

Gentlemen! Start your slurping!

You goal is to slurp more than 6,000,000,000 elements of the World Wide Web! It's a fight we cannot afford to lose! Now, go, and may Bob be with you!

Re:Somewhere, on the deck of the USS Yahoo! (3, Funny)

WhatAmIDoingHere (742870) | more than 10 years ago | (#8315565)

For great justice, launch every slurp! (?)

It is time... (0, Redundant)

s.a.m (92412) | more than 10 years ago | (#8315500)

Begun the search engine has

Innovation? (1, Interesting)

arhca (653190) | more than 10 years ago | (#8315501)

For all of Yahoo's work, it seems to be just a second-rate Google, trying to follow to leader. When will there be anything new from Yahoo!? (@#$%)

Not quite rid of Google (5, Interesting)

Tune (17738) | more than 10 years ago | (#8315641)

> When will there be anything new from Yahoo!?

True. The front page still has that bloated good ol' Yahoo look-and-feel that caused the exodus to Google in the first place. It does not seem to be more responsive or more accurate either.
On top of that, did anyone notice they still seem to be using Google to retrieve images? At least, the result to searching for "$#@%" looks *very* familiar:

We didn't find any Web pages containing $#@%.


- Check your spelling.
- Try more general words.
- Try different words that mean the same thing.

Also, you can visit the Yahoo! Search Help Center for more suggestions.

(I bet Google has those phrases trademarked, so they could sue Yahoo for providing useful clues... ;-)

Yahoo has been planning this for ages (5, Informative)

naoiseo (313146) | more than 10 years ago | (#8315502)

It's been live for about 6 months in some parts of the world.

I still have google results, but can see the new ink results by appending &tmpl=E088 on the end of the SERP url.

I can picture the board meeting (5, Funny)

ProudClod (752352) | more than 10 years ago | (#8315505)

CEO: We want a search engine that evokes pride and confidence. Disgruntled Employee: *aside*Let's face it, compared to google it's gonna suck. */aside* How about "Slurp"? CEO: Slurp! I like it!

Wonder if it's Linux boxen? (3, Interesting)

justanyone (308934) | more than 10 years ago | (#8315508)

What hardware are they running it on?

Did they replace the hardware or just the software?

Does anyone know?

Also, what is the basis of a search engine? Sparse-matrix navigation? How does this stuff really work? Any links to summaries of this stuff? It happened after I graduated (1992, BSCS)...

-- Kevin

what hardware? (1)

bstil (652204) | more than 10 years ago | (#8315607)

What hardware are they running it on?

Well, we know what hardware Slashdot is running on [] . At least, what hardware in June 2000...

Re:what hardware? (1)

Creepy Crawler (680178) | more than 10 years ago | (#8315720)

For some reason, I think that the load on their ImageServer probably went DOWN after ads were being placed here..

Re:Wonder if it's Linux boxen? (1)

plover (150551) | more than 10 years ago | (#8315617)

I don't know, but I think they've been Slashdotted...


Re:Wonder if it's Linux boxen? (5, Interesting)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 10 years ago | (#8315664)

Warning: OS detection will be MUCH less reliable because we did not find at least 1 open and 1 closed TCP port
Interesting ports on (
(The 1656 ports scanned but not shown below are in state: filtered)
80/tcp open http
Device type: general purpose
Running: Apple Mac OS X 10.1.X
OS details: Apple Mac OS X 10.1.5

Re:Wonder if it's Linux boxen? (1)

AndroidCat (229562) | more than 10 years ago | (#8315735)

I doubt it could be Linux. SCO hasn't made noises about suing them yet.

Didn't.... (3, Interesting)

Zebra_X (13249) | more than 10 years ago | (#8315510)

This happen before. I had thought that Yahoo! had been using google up until about a year ago. They dumped them, and started using their own search. I stopped using the Yahoo search becuase the results were not as good as google's, or so it seemed. Am I completely off here? I couldn't find anything about it on the web.

Re:Didn't.... (4, Funny)

NickFitz (5849) | more than 10 years ago | (#8315589)

I couldn't find anything about it on the web

Did you try googling [] for it?

I love Google. (5, Interesting)

Chess_the_cat (653159) | more than 10 years ago | (#8315512)

I love Google (the new deskbar rocks) and I also frequent Yahoo! for chess and Fantasy Hockey. What I want to know is this: why is being the number search engine worth fighting over? Other than selling services to corporations and little text ads, how does Google make money? Or more importantly, why does Google need to be the number one search engine to make money? This reminds me of the browser wars. The logic was, you owned the browser, you owned the 'net. And although you could make the case that IE won the war, how does IE being the most popular browser translate into money for MS when they give it away for free? I didn't understand it then, and I don't understand it now.

Re:I love Google. (5, Insightful)

L-s-L69 (700599) | more than 10 years ago | (#8315653)

Google to a lot of people is the ONLY search engine. Its become a brand much more so than IE, or even (arguably) Windows. The phrases 'to google' and 'googling' are fast becoming part of the english language on both sides of the pond. In order to google to keep getting the fat ad subs they live off it still needs to be number one. With IE it was just to eliminate the competition.

Re:I love Google. (1)

DrSkwid (118965) | more than 10 years ago | (#8315734)

paid submissions (those on the right on a google page) are a revenue stream


which places those same paid ads on *your* website

I make $30 a day from those puppies

But... (1, Flamebait)

JoeBaldwin (727345) | more than 10 years ago | (#8315514)

Everyone will just use Google.

Flawed idea (4, Insightful) (547663) | more than 10 years ago | (#8315517)

From the CNET article: []
One of the key ways Yahoo plans to make money from its search platform is to charge companies for more rapid and frequent inclusion into its index--a program called paid inclusion.

Read: "Google is still king". I want an objective search engine, not one where companies can pay for placement. It seems very stupid of Yahoo! to introduce a product that is flawed this way, if they really want to take on Google. Google has the advantage of currently being considered the best search engine by almost everyone, so Yahoo! needs a superior product if they are serious about getting more popular.

Re:Flawed idea (1)

Deacon Jones (572246) | more than 10 years ago | (#8315687)

I want an objective search engine, not one where companies can pay for placement

I agree with you, but that doesn't happen with google? It seems with all the google ads everywhere, that something, somewhere is being affected.

as well, more and more my google searches disappoint me in that my first 20 results (give or take) are almost always commercial sites. Yes, I know there's ways to "hack around" that, but that's not the point.

as well, i swear i've read stories about certain sites vying in random ways to have their site come up higher than the compeition's in google searches.

its unfortunately, all commercial.

advertisement (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8315522)

and the ad on this page was sponsored by google (at least thats what i saw) :)

How does this improve Yahoo!? (5, Interesting)

yog (19073) | more than 10 years ago | (#8315528)

Most people use Google as their default search tool, even a lot of those unsophisticated Windows users whose IE still comes up with the default MSN page. It's entered the vernacular as a common verb.

How does Yahoo! improve its service by switching away from Google? Unless they have developed an equivalent if not better search engine, which up until now no one has done, all they are doing is downgrading the quality of their service.

Thumbs down, Yahoo. Use the best tool for the job.

Re:How does this improve Yahoo!? (5, Interesting)

bad-badtz-maru (119524) | more than 10 years ago | (#8315625)

Yahoo's objective isn't to improve their service, their objective is to improve company revenues. Since Yahoo has owned Inktomi for over a year, it's ridiculous for them to continue to license results from Google.

As for what is the "best tool for the job", you might want to actually take a look at the new Yahoo results instead of blindly pimping Google. It looks entirely possible that the current Yahoo/Inktomi algorithm returns results that are more relevant than Google's current algorithm.

Re:How does this improve Yahoo!? (4, Interesting)

Unwise One (609996) | more than 10 years ago | (#8315665)

How does Yahoo! improve its service by switching away from Google?

I don't believe that improving their service is a necessity here. Simply providing something roughly equivalent is probably OK. Most users never knew that Yahoo search and Google were the same thing, despite the "powered by Google" logo next to it. A very talented network guy commented to me the other day that he preferred using Yahoo search to Google since he got similar results without Google's advertizing. He was stunned when I pointed out the obvious reason for this.

But the real reason for the switch has nothing to do with providing an improved service: they are either making more of a profit with their own engine than by licensing Google, or believe that they will in the near future.

Re:How does this improve Yahoo!? (5, Interesting)

XaXXon (202882) | more than 10 years ago | (#8315686)

Thumbs down, Yahoo. Use the best tool for the job.

Unfortunately, the job in this case is "Make money." Google has all these ethics things that get in the way of that. Things like not resorting their main search results order to include paid results, always putting advertisements in color. Advertisers don't like that.

It's kind of weird.. The way I look at it is this: Guys always want the virginal girl.. but they don't want her to stay a virgin around them. Advertisers want a search engine just like that. They want a search engine that everyone respects, except they want to underhandedly move their results up to the top.. which loses respect. Google does everything it can to keep the respect. Sure, for a few dollars, it might let you feel it up, but if you go around claiming that you shagged it, it goes and changes its entire rating system and drops your pages to the bottom of its list.

Google frickin' rules.

Some initial results (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8315532)

"goat sex jello"
Yahoo: 9070 Google: 7780

"endothelial maximum peanut butter rate"
Yahoo: 142 Google: 116

"bsd is dying"
Yahoo: 63300 Google: 18900

Seems like Google's got some competition!

Re:Some initial results (1)

hatrisc (555862) | more than 10 years ago | (#8315562)

how relevant are the results though? doesn't google pride itself on trying to provide the most relevant search results?

Re:Some initial results (2, Insightful)

jeff munkyfaces (643988) | more than 10 years ago | (#8315692)

the most important thing is which links are displayed on the first page of results, and how relevant they are.

i think i'll leave you to analyse these..

Ugly (1, Insightful)

glpierce (731733) | more than 10 years ago | (#8315534)

Now that is one ugly search engine. It's amazing they made it look that bad, especially when you consider that they just ripped off the Google color scheme and format.

Hey, it seems the search engine war has begun! (4, Insightful)

JohnGrahamCumming (684871) | more than 10 years ago | (#8315536)

Or not.

I mean this is just another stop along the way which has brought us the original Yahoo! directory, Altavista, Inktomi, Hotbot, Metacrawler, MSN Search, ..., Google, etc.

It's hardly worth thinking about. So Yahoo! dropped Google: good for them. The best thing we can have is competition between different vendors, then we'll get some innovation. After all, Google innovated like hell to be better than the other engines, now let's see what Yahoo! (or others) can do to be better than Google.

This doesn't have to be portrayed as some kind of war: that assumes that you take sides, and I'm not willing to be on Google's side. If something better comes along I'll switch.


Yahoo! (1)

hatrisc (555862) | more than 10 years ago | (#8315543)

but, when you say yahoo does it mean "to perform a websearch" like Google [] .

Marketing dept. (3, Funny)

lukewarmfusion (726141) | more than 10 years ago | (#8315546)

Imagine the cash shelled out to develop their new name - and they come up with Slurp. Some marketing jackass is sitting in his yacht, drinking - no, *slurping* - a pina colada, and thinking to himself, "I can't believe they paid my for that."

Triumph the Insult Comic Dog (1, Troll)

LookSharp (3864) | more than 10 years ago | (#8315551)

"I'm sorry, the correct answer is 'who gives a shit?'" :)

Seriously, I'm sure we're all deeply concerned about which search engine Yahoo is using today. I forget, do we WANT Google to become the master search engine, or not? Or is that another thing we change day by day?

What are the perceived implications? That will answer my follow-on question, "Why is this newsworthy?"

Re:Triumph the Insult Comic Dog (0)

WhatAmIDoingHere (742870) | more than 10 years ago | (#8315699)

If you're going to mention Triumph, you have to mention things that are great for him to poop on, as well.

Re:Triumph the Insult Comic Dog (1)

meta-monkey (321000) | more than 10 years ago | (#8315727)

It's newsworthy to me. I run a small business that depends in large part on attracting visitors to my website. When you do a Google search for my keywords, you get all kinds of crap. Inktomi, and now Yahoo, give much better results.

Let's say you're in Mytown, and you're looking for a widget supplier. So you search in Google for "Mytown widget supplier." You'd think that, perhaps, that would return a list of widget suppliers in Mytown. Directories of Mytown Widget Suppliers, or reviews of said suppliers, would also be appropriate. Not on Google. Instead, you get widget suppliers on the other side of the country. You get posts on somebody's blog about how their brother-in-law, who visited Mytown once, is really into widgets and loves Air Supply.

I've got about 10 competitors in town with decent (i.e., searchable) websites. Only about four of them even show up on Google. And they bounce around like crazy. For awhile I was number 1. Then I was on page 7. Then I dropped off completely. Then I was back at #2. Same thing with my competitors...with no rhyme or reason. I'm not saying that Google in any way "owes" us placement in their search engine, but I am saying that their results are not always relevant. There's no way that twenty pages of blog entries or random websites that have absolutely nothing to do with Mytown Widget Supply are more relevant than the list of the top ten or so Mytown Widget Suppliers, when the search terms are "Mytown Widget Supplier."

On Yahoo, now, we're all there. I just did a search, and found my site and every one of my competitor's sites within the first two pages. That's a much better search result for somebody who searches for "Mytown Widget Supplier."

Oh yeah (-1, Troll)

Dark Lord Seth (584963) | more than 10 years ago | (#8315554)

Hey, it seems the search engine war has begun!

Yes dear. Now everyone who used Yahoo for searches will be scarred for life as ANY word returns at least 15000 sponsored links. Yes, that has GOT to be good for search result quality. Uh huh. Nothing like making search results useless by adding dozens of irrelevant sponsored links gets the people interested in your search engine. By the way, the world is flat and MS Windows is cheaper then Linux.

Re:Oh yeah (4, Interesting)

glpierce (731733) | more than 10 years ago | (#8315649)

The sponsored links have a very odd system. Case in point: I tried a test search for (in quotes) in both Google and Yahoo!. Google gives no sponsored links for "cubital tunnel syndrome", one for "tunnel syndrome", and eight for "carpal tunnel syndrome" - all are relevant. Yahoo!, however, gives a sponsored link for carpal tunnel syndrome in a search for "cubital tunnel syndrome", three different links for a search of "tunnel syndrome", and eight for "carpal tunnel syndrome".

What's significant here? The search for "cubital tunnel syndrome" gives a sponsored link to a carpal tunnel syndrome site, despite the fact that it is not relevant, and the search terms were in quotes. More interestingly, that sponsored link does not appear in searches for "tunnel syndrome" or "carpal tunnel syndrome".

Something is wrong here.

search results design (5, Informative)

bstil (652204) | more than 10 years ago | (#8315555)

Yahoo has gone so far as to imitate Google's search results design:

title: blue, size +1
excerpts: two lines
date: green, size: green, "cached" link: gray, etc.

Yahoo does not have a time stamp for pages, but everything else looks very similar!

Yahoo is Inktomi (5, Informative)

Soukyan (613538) | more than 10 years ago | (#8315559)

Yahoo! has owned Inktomi since March of 2003 so the name change is cosmetic issue. As to dropping Google, it was only a matter of time. I'm thinking Yahoo!'s Paid Inclusion Services to their search engine technology is making a tidy profit. The problem? Their search technology still doesn't appear to be as reliable, accurate or quick as Google.

Re:Yahoo is Inktomi (1)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 10 years ago | (#8315643)

Ooh, that explains why I thought Yahoo! had "used" Inktomi before. :-P

Yahoo's Own Search (5, Insightful)

faust13 (535994) | more than 10 years ago | (#8315561)

Overall, I'm pretty impressed with Yahoo's new search. It returned relavent results, and a little to my surprise that were different that what Google offered.

In the long run competition is good, and I hope that we yield the benefits from having two good search engines. Although, I'm still apprehensive about Yahoo's "paid inclusion." Which seems to offer misleading results to the Internet novice.

Check out what I'm trading []

Didn't Yahoo use Inktomi in the past? (3, Informative)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 10 years ago | (#8315564)

Hmm... I just have a feeling they did and that it sucked. :-) But it seems Inktomi recently released Web Search 9 [] of their search engine (version 9?) and this change by Yahoo! seems to coincide with that one well enough that they might use some brand new engine, and not just rolling back to some old pre-Google quality crap.

Here's by the way the press release, which I think should have been linked to from the /. article at least:
Yahoo Press Release []

Re:Didn't Yahoo use Inktomi in the past? (1)

bad-badtz-maru (119524) | more than 10 years ago | (#8315708)

The results that Yahoo is serving is not "pure Inktomi". MSN licenses Inktomi search also and MSN's results never match pure Inktomi either, although Yahoo's results are much further from pure Inktomi than MSN's are. I suspect that Yahoo will maintain their own algorithm for Yahoo Inktomi and a separate algorithm for Inktomi licensees.

yeah, who does googles searches. (1)

way2trivial (601132) | more than 10 years ago | (#8315573)

I'm serious.. I was curious about their 'farm' is a nice page that tells you your ip. Google's cache for that page at TF-8& shows the machine that indexed it was at which IP lookup traces ultimately back to a microsoft centric company with ip, hosting and data services.. what is google's database holding a record that originated from there-- any theories?

I do googles searches!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8315711)

Where did you find that information? I did a simple nslookup on that IP and came up with OK to me!

Thank you.. (4, Interesting)

bob670 (645306) | more than 10 years ago | (#8315574)

Microsoft, for once your black touch came near something as simple and useful as Internet searches, everyone smelled blood and money in the water. Yahoo and anyone with a little cash will now try to turn searching into huge profits and advertising tie ins, it will become more difficult to do legitimate research, then we can have another round of funding, create another tech bubble and screw the industry up some more. With both Linux and Mac OS X having proven themselves as outstanding alternatives to Windows I do wish more people would wake up to switching and start depleting Microsft's cash coffers a little, that way they coudn't move in and screw up other industries like smart phones, gaming and now search engines. And if you don't see the tie-in between Yahoo's actions and Microsft overtures toward search you are not paying attention.

Re:Thank you.. (3, Insightful)

bad-badtz-maru (119524) | more than 10 years ago | (#8315666)

Uh, I am paying attention and I don't see the tie-in between Yahoo's actions and Microsoft's "overtures". The first company to successfully monetize search results was our old buddy Google, MS came in late in the game as always.

Re:Thank you.. (0)

WhatAmIDoingHere (742870) | more than 10 years ago | (#8315736)

Don't forget your foil hat, man.. You seem to be able to draw a line from Microsoft to All Evil Everywhere. Next, you'll be posting about Billy Bob Gates and Kim Jong being in bed together.

Slurp? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8315575)

Why not call it Yahoo! Suck and cut out all the marketing nonsense

searches (4, Interesting)

scarolan (644274) | more than 10 years ago | (#8315578)

Lately the quality of Google's search has declined significantly, especially for less common phrases. Seems a lot of what comes up is spam/redirect pages that are just packed with keywords to get you to visit a porn site.

Googling vs Yahoo!ing vs Slurping (1)

theguywhosaid (751709) | more than 10 years ago | (#8315580)

assuming yahoo steals the show and becomes the more used search engine, what will happen to the verb google?

yahoo not google? (-1)

Tirel (692085) | more than 10 years ago | (#8315582)

I just searched for "FloodMT" and got exactly same results on both google and yahoo. Strange coincidence

Results (4, Funny)

savagedome (742194) | more than 10 years ago | (#8315588)

Searching for Yahoo on Yahoo [] comes up with about 102 million hits.

Searching for Yahoo on Google [] comes up with 119 million hits.

Google got depth :)
Yahoo can't even search its own kind!

nice page (4, Interesting)

minus_273 (174041) | more than 10 years ago | (#8315590)

i like the new lean yahoo page: also the results are comparable to google. Searching for my name turned out a few things i had never seen on Yahoo. Quite nice. I think i have another search engine to use. Gotta love capitalism! (2, Interesting)

GillBates0 (664202) | more than 10 years ago | (#8315595)

Slightly OT, but take a look at that page [] (No images, just text page for those at work) lists all the misspelt versions of britney spears detected by their spell checker.

Not sure why this page is even up doesn't look like it's linked to from anywhere else.

And even the location is's under their Jobs area. I think this page isn't supposed to be up on a public server...maybe somebody'll look at it here and correct a possible vulnerability.

Re: (1)

romcabrera (699616) | more than 10 years ago | (#8315716)

It IS listed from somewhere else. I'm to lazy to search for it, but there is somewhere in their site they explain about the spelling correction google does, and that page is an example of the many variations the name of Britney has among searchers...

Yahoo had a search engine?? (4, Insightful)

filtersweep (415712) | more than 10 years ago | (#8315604)

Pardon my sarcasm, but their officially "approved" "directory listings" were never all that easy to break into if someone wanted their own site listed and I've always been very skeptical that sites paid for their placement as Yahoo supplanted their "free" services with more and more paid and subscription-based services. I'm not suggesting that they should not run as a "profitable" business, but what is advertising and what are legitimate search results? It is not unlike deciphering Fox News' editorial content from their 'journalism.' I'm sure this will all quickly devolve into a paid product placement scheme.

They still seem to be using Google for the images (2, Interesting)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 10 years ago | (#8315613)

Yahoo's image results [] still seem to be done through Google [] ...

It's still google for me (2, Interesting)

lennart78 (515598) | more than 10 years ago | (#8315618)

I just entered '' into my browser to see what it looked liked nowadays. Yahoo is still positioning itself as a portal, and rams a bunch of ads down my throat before I had a chance to hit the back button.

Their search engine seems to be working fine (but slow, compared to google), and no image-based ads between the results.

War/Competition usually means improvement of usability of their respective products. I'm all for that...

Re:It's still google for me (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8315715)

uhh, do


google - a verb (1) (562495) | more than 10 years ago | (#8315620)

I tried to google around for more news on this topic but found nothing.

Yahoo/MSN vs. Google/Altavista (1)

commo1 (709770) | more than 10 years ago | (#8315632)

Has anyone really found a good use for Yahoo? Categorized searches are dangerous and not even remotely relevant, and the results encourage bad searching habits. I cannot count the number of times I have had customers and family members tell me thay could not find a webpage based on a Yahoo or MSN search even one week after the initial search took place. Case in point: "Hotel Italy Frommers" will bring up extremely different results than a Google or Altavista search. A week later, the relvancy has changed completely, because of the new structured relevancy and changing of categories/subcategories. A search of the same type on G/A will still eventually turn up the same page, given a few more relevant search terms. I have tried for years to steer people away from "MySearch" and "Yahoo/MSN"-type engines, to no avail, and that job is getting no easier by the day, due to pop-ups and spyware. Granted, the Google/Altavista searches will still do a graduated ranking based on trademarks and web-address relevancy, but at least they are not categorized, unless you are using their "directory" service, which intends to emulate Yahoo's structured searches. So: does the search engine really make any difference to the relevancy of searches for these types of search engines? For that matter, is the real-life relevancy of Google "directory" based searches really the result of the search engine, or is it based on the structure of the categorization schema?

Slurp... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8315633)

Yahoo posted an FAQ about the crawler, called Yahoo Slurp, and said that it "collects documents from the web to build a searchable index for search services using the Yahoo! search engine."
Surely deserves a patent.

Slurp? (0)

byolinux (535260) | more than 10 years ago | (#8315637)

Big Gulps anyone?

Competition is good (2, Insightful)

rqqrtnb (753156) | more than 10 years ago | (#8315638)

Just cause Google is currently the leader doesnt mean Yahoo doesnt deserve the chance to take the crown!

Would you prefer technology stagnate?

Good luck to the teams at both google and yahoo!

I dont believe in brand loyalty. Cause no company has believed in customer loyalty.

Competition is good ... and there will be more (4, Informative)

rm007 (616365) | more than 10 years ago | (#8315728)

Technology Review [] has a discussion of the coming rivals to Googol in this month's issue. One of them is an Australian outfit called Mooter [] which does some nifty clustering of results (somewhat familiar to those who remember Northern Light [] , once a web search engine, now a provider of enterprise search engines). They discuss several others, including efforts by Microsoft, but the general point is that Googol (and Yahoo and Alta Vista etc. before it) have shown the search business to be a very profitable area if you are the leader, so there are a lot of eager pretenders to the throne. Competition is good, web users will end up with better searching, whether from Googol or another provider.

And the winner shall be... (2, Insightful)

chamilto0516 (675640) | more than 10 years ago | (#8315639)

And the winner shall be the search engine that get's what I want somewhere in the first page of results. I know this is a combination of the following:
  • Size: how many documents are in the index
  • Ease-of-Use: how intuitive is it and how much functionality is there for me to specify what I am looking for (try putting TLA's in your search, can you opt out of blogs or include them, etc.)
  • Rankings: how are the results ranked (tied to "Ease-of-use" above). Great the web page I want is on the 5th page. Trust me, 99% of us probably will give up before we find it.

When a web search says that it found 1.7 billion documents that might have what you need, your search criteria is not narrowed enough. An yes, when it shows that it found those 1.7 billion documents in 45msec, that is just some ego stroking.

In even bigger news... (1)

syzme (584270) | more than 10 years ago | (#8315642)

Look! Look! Google has changed its look! Well, a little bit at least. Now there aren't colored backgrounds on the different search links on the front page, and there are gradient backgrounds for the headers of the various pages once you have searched. Wierd timing.

Re:In even bigger news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8315741)

You are looking at a "bucket test", google like most big engines feeds a small number of its users into new designs to test if they work etc, they can have half a dozen new "designs" running under test at the same time.

coockies (0)

PhuckH34D (743521) | more than 10 years ago | (#8315645)

At least their coockies dont last till 2032, but only till 15 april 2010 22:00:09 :)

Ya-who? (1)

kortex (590172) | more than 10 years ago | (#8315652)

And this will affect 90% percent of searches made how?

no brainer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8315662)

Everyone knows that google took the domain "" Only a matter of time before yahoo did this no? Google seems to be moving towards a portal status, which would directly complete with Yahoo... so no surprises...


Too many features. (2, Insightful)

rqqrtnb (753156) | more than 10 years ago | (#8315685)

Y! should research how many of their features are currently used regularily by their users. IMHO, I do not think that cramming a web site with extra features does improve the user experience.

It is good to see that Y! is interested in iproving their services in many areas, but they should concentrate on some specific business instead of trying to get a part of the market in as many different business markets as possible.

Call me oldfashioned, or offtopic, or whatnot, but I miss the days when you could talk to some store owner who has been specialized in one specific field and who could give you advice based on his experience. Don't get me wrong, I know that such people still exist, but they are getting rarer if you compare to all the Wal-Martish stores that are "diversifying" their line of products and services. The same is seen online...

it has been going on for some time now (1)

termos (634980) | more than 10 years ago | (#8315731)

I think you mean it has been going of for quite [] some [] time [] now [] .
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?