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!

Google Suggest

michael posted more than 9 years ago | from the freedom-to-innovate dept.

Google 655

Cristiano writes "As you type into the search box, Google Suggest guesses what you're typing and offers suggestions in real time. This is similar to Google's 'Did you mean?' feature that offers alternative spellings for your query after you search, except that it works in real time." It crashes Konqueror, but works nicely on Mozilla. Update: 12/11 by J : The engineer who thought of it, then built it in his "20% time," blogs about the process.

cancel ×

655 comments

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

/. Spelling (3, Funny)

Zorilla (791636) | more than 9 years ago | (#11052726)

> loose

Google
------
Did you mean: lose?


Yeah, Slashdot needs this badly.

Re:/. Spelling (4, Funny)

MillionthMonkey (240664) | more than 9 years ago | (#11052760)

When I type "loose" it doesn't suggest "lose".

It does suggest "loose women".

Re:/. Spelling (1)

Zorilla (791636) | more than 9 years ago | (#11052793)

Yeah, I didn't do any checking on that, but I do think it would be a good idea for something like this to be integrated into the post filtering. If it detects the word, "loose," used as a verb, it stops you so you can verify.

Re:/. Spelling (4, Funny)

RobertB-DC (622190) | more than 9 years ago | (#11052829)

When I type "loose" it doesn't suggest "lose".

It does suggest "loose women".


It also suggests "loose weight". I can't believe how many web sites there are devoted to loosing weight. I guess that's the origin of the term, "to throw your weight around" -- so many people loosing it, and throwing weight will certainly loose it. What a bunch of loosers.

(and looking at that paragraph long enough makes me wonder if I've loosed it, myself)

Re:/. Spelling (1)

sisukapalli1 (471175) | more than 9 years ago | (#11052795)

Going by stereotypes... I suspect some people may be searching for other people with "loose morals" :). I am sure, many would be on "lose weight" stuff too. What would Google suggest?

S

Cool! Just like form AutoComplete (4, Insightful)

GillBates0 (664202) | more than 9 years ago | (#11052733)

but with a HUGE database/archive of possible candidates at it's disposal.

Wonder how it'll hold up when it gets out Beta though...it's bound to be pretty computationally intensive.

Re:Cool! Just like form AutoComplete (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11052764)

I wonder how long before spammers use this maliciously to create word lists to direct traffic.

Re:Cool! Just like form AutoComplete (5, Funny)

mdf356 (774923) | more than 9 years ago | (#11052859)

It's surviving a slashdotting. What more do you want?

Cheers,
Matt

Re:Cool! Just like form AutoComplete (4, Informative)

dustinbarbour (721795) | more than 9 years ago | (#11052877)

Yes, it would be intensive for their server should everyone decide to use it in place of standrd Google search. However, the algorithm behind their "Did you mean" runs in O(n^2) worst case and O(n) best case. Not too shabby.. The algorithm is what makes it possible.

Re:Cool! Just like form AutoComplete (3, Interesting)

ciroknight (601098) | more than 9 years ago | (#11052895)

This is why Google is such an awesome concept.

Instant access to any piece of human knowledge, and it now can guess what you are looking for right as you can type. The only next improvement I can think of is if it did related searches to the term you searched for, but I'm not sure how you would represent all of that data at once. Leave it to the Google geniuses ;)

Try this: (5, Interesting)

elid (672471) | more than 9 years ago | (#11052749)

Type in g. Then type o. Then type o again. And again. Keep typing o's... Look what happens :-)

Re:Try this: (2, Funny)

darth_MALL (657218) | more than 9 years ago | (#11052782)

Try typing "mi". (saw this in an article)
Top 4 results:
Microsoft
miniclip
Michael Moore
miserable failure

Re:Try this: (1)

mdf356 (774923) | more than 9 years ago | (#11052798)

OMFG, that's hilarious.

"goooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooogle" is too long a word.

Cheers,
Matt

Great.. (2, Funny)

BossMC (696762) | more than 9 years ago | (#11052751)

[ Niagra Falls ]
[Google Search] [I'm Feeling Lucky]

Did you mean viagra?

Re:Great.. (2, Interesting)

APDent (81994) | more than 9 years ago | (#11052849)

Except, if you actually watch the drop-down list as you're typing, once you've typed "nia", it's already suggesting "niagara falls" with the correct spelling and 3,090,000 results. True, "niagra falls" (incorrectly spelled) is also in the list, but since it only has 129,000 results, it's probably clear which one you're actually looking for if you're not trying to make a joke about Viagra.

This is pretty amazing, really.

Re:Great.. (1)

BossMC (696762) | more than 9 years ago | (#11052943)

Jesus, I've been spelling it wrong since I've been able to write! Why didn't anybody say anything?

Not useful (1)

danuary (748394) | more than 9 years ago | (#11052752)

It excludes any even vaguely dirty words. What fun is that?


I mean, that's all I use google for anyway...

re: not useful (1)

ed.han (444783) | more than 9 years ago | (#11052796)

you know, as funny as that is, my first thought also was "what about 'dirty' words" and the possible problems they'd hear about from parents, etc. my suspicion is that they'll be able to relax the filters that prevent those words from cropping up in search results.

ed

Re:Not useful (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11052836)

What do you care, you can still look for pr0n and with only one-hand typing !

Thanks again, Mr. Google !

Re:Not useful (1)

RealityMogul (663835) | more than 9 years ago | (#11052925)

Type "shi" into it? Look at the second result you get. Type in the full word and you get some really strange results that I don't want to click on for fear of seeing tubgirl again.

Already tried it before (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11052753)

and I can't see that it's hugely useful. Just like I'm Feeling Lucky, it's not terribly helpful except on a rare occasion. However, I would prefer to have it than not, so I guess that's about as good an endorsement as you can get with something as good as Google.

Crashes Konqeuror? (5, Informative)

Shaman (1148) | more than 9 years ago | (#11052756)

Not mine. Worked like a charm. Version 3.3.2 on Gentoo Linux 64bit

mod parent up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11052924)

Konq ok here too. 3.3.2/

No, I mean down. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11052948)

Well, it seems to work, until you type anything more that a few chareters long!.

Re:Crashes Konqeuror? (2, Informative)

Espectr0 (577637) | more than 9 years ago | (#11052947)

Also, safari works fine

Is it any coincidence (4, Funny)

Moth7 (699815) | more than 9 years ago | (#11052757)

That when you enter "P", the first suggestion is "Paris Hilton"? I guess this just proves that porn really does drive every new technology ;-)

Re:Is it any coincidence (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11052820)

Some of the results are comical. Try typing "Britney Spears", "Lindsay Lohan" or "Tara Reid".

Re:Is it any coincidence (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11052856)

did it ever occure to you that it is possible that she has so many results there because she is a beautiful, clever, smart, and funny girl?
i wish paris was my best friend, my best friend ever.

(ps: you think you are so cute with your little wink at the end - fuck)

Re:Is it any coincidence (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11052902)

Yet type "porn" and it has nothing to suggest, not even "pornography". However, type "pr0" and it suggest a whole bunch of "pr0n..." stuff. Odd.

Re:Is it any coincidence (1)

dustinbarbour (721795) | more than 9 years ago | (#11052917)

What's sad is that Google is probably basing the temporary results off of rank or the number of times that string has been queried. So is it possible that "Paris Hilton" is the most often searched term that starts with a 'P'? I think so. It's a rather sad commentary on the state of human affairs, if yuo ask me.

Re:Is it any coincidence (1)

kkovach (267551) | more than 9 years ago | (#11052921)

If it were any good it would recognize any link from slashdot and take you directly to porn, without having to type even a 'p'.

- Kevin

Neat, but on older systems... (1)

keraneuology (760918) | more than 9 years ago | (#11052758)

I know many systems that are still in use that won't be able to handle this. I also hate any drop down box that has more than 5-6 options so for my tastes it is a little long.

Second Post (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11052761)

Google suggests "Paris Hilton" for P...

Suggest failed (2, Funny)

SunPin (596554) | more than 9 years ago | (#11052762)

I typed "tits" and it drew a blank.

I'm disappointed (1)

SeanDuggan (732224) | more than 9 years ago | (#11052814)

What, no "tits Audobon society"?

Re:Suggest failed (1)

aurb (674003) | more than 9 years ago | (#11052953)

The same with porn, sex, but fortunately pr0n worked =-)

Re:Suggest failed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11052960)

Starting with "nicest" brought up a lot of suggestions though.

Now that I like.. (1)

dustinbarbour (721795) | more than 9 years ago | (#11052766)

Numerous times I am forced to look something up without know precisely how to spell it. This should make it easier to find what I'm looking for. Granted, I don't think their dictionary will contain the names of off-the-wall places like Mike's Crabshack, but they do seem to have a rather large dictionary.

Re:Now that I like.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11052912)

Looks like you need to know how to spell the beginning, at least -- it is doing prefix matching (ie "whi" -> "white") not spelling suggestions. For example it includes in its suggestion list "new yrok times" which has only 5000 est hits, and only on the results page does it say "did you mean New York Times?"

Doesn't work for me. (1)

bchernicoff (788760) | more than 9 years ago | (#11052767)

It behaves exactly as the normal Google search page.

blow... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11052769)

looking for "blow..."
google suggests a blow job
oh what fun

All I want is SEX.... (3, Funny)

ilikeitraw (706793) | more than 9 years ago | (#11052773)

... and I get SEARS !? SEARS is not sexy. It is probably the extreme opposite.
Google needs to open there eyes and know that some people (mostly male I assume) need extremely quick "relevant" results when they are out of passwords, and ... eh... need extremely "quick" results.

Re:All I want is SEX.... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11052862)

... and I get SEARS !? SEARS is not sexy. It is probably the extreme opposite.

You young wipersnappers never had to whack off with the sears catalog, I see...

Does not work with Opera 7.54 (0, Flamebait)

tomcio (143235) | more than 9 years ago | (#11052774)

What is it with google and Opera hate?

All the sites, not just them.

Re:Does not work with Opera 7.54 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11052876)

Go whine someplace else. Opera dons't fill a need. Mozilla is free and MS has its tax. If Opera dosn't work right then complain to them and spend your money on education.

Re:Does not work with Opera 7.54 (1)

Freexe (717562) | more than 9 years ago | (#11052936)

It almost works with opera 7.6,
and gmail works with 7.6, it supports javascript talking to the server more with that version

Fun but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11052778)

Good fun, a nice novelty, but is this actually useful to anyone?

Re:Fun but... (0, Redundant)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 9 years ago | (#11052804)

Useful to me. Infact I am very impressed.

My view (1, Interesting)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 9 years ago | (#11052780)

I am very impressed. Very impressed indeed. But what can be done in case one's idea of a term is essentially mis-spelled?

Re:My view (1)

kormoc (122955) | more than 9 years ago | (#11052905)

Maybe just type the full word and press enter and have it search like normal?

Advertising potential (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11052784)

I wonder how long it will take before companies are able to pay for their 'suggestions' to show up at the top of the list.

Re:Advertising potential (2, Informative)

luuc (595203) | more than 9 years ago | (#11052956)

Type in:

a => amazon
b => best buy
c => cnn
e => ebay
f => firefox (!)
h => hotmail
i => ikea
m => mapquest
u => ups
v => verizon
x => xbox
y => yahoo

Great...

P...aris Hilton (1, Redundant)

joshua42 (103889) | more than 9 years ago | (#11052785)

p -> Paris Hilton

Very useful, thank you.

Re:P...aris Hilton (1)

sulli (195030) | more than 9 years ago | (#11052818)

Hey, some people are making European travel plans! [hilton.com]

Re:P...aris Hilton (1)

QuantumRiff (120817) | more than 9 years ago | (#11052881)

t -> tara reid

Wow (1, Interesting)

pHatidic (163975) | more than 9 years ago | (#11052792)

That is amazingly fast. What language do you think that menu was programmed in?

Re:Wow (1)

Moth7 (699815) | more than 9 years ago | (#11052901)

Don't know about the backend, but the frontend [google.com] appears to be written in Javascript. Assuming that is the frontend - I didn't have time to check anything more than the fact that it's included by the completion page and not by regular google.

Re:Wow (1)

kormoc (122955) | more than 9 years ago | (#11052955)

What you see is Javascript or CSS I'd say.

Good for seeing what popular searches are. (1)

altgrr (593057) | more than 9 years ago | (#11052797)

And, if you type in "speed o", fourth or so on the list is the ever popular speed of light in furlongs per fortnight.

How does this come up with results, though? Does it just base them on the popularity of the search, or does it base them on how many produce results that users click through to?

No good... (2, Funny)

Omicron32 (646469) | more than 9 years ago | (#11052799)

Hmmm....

p -> paris hilton
po -> poems
por -> porsche

I'd say it's pretty obvious what I intend to search for. This thing is utterly useless. (Although, in it's favour, I must say the Paris Hilton first link was pretty good.) :)

awesome (1)

Apreche (239272) | more than 9 years ago | (#11052801)

this is the awesome. How can I integrate it with the search box in firefox? I feel an extension coming on.

Bleah (1)

TooMuchEspressoGuy (763203) | more than 9 years ago | (#11052803)

This seems like something little better than that annoying feature in MS Word that tries to correct every word you type. In short, I'd rather it be made an optional feature, so that when I'm searching for Cthulhu it doesn't suggest, say, Thulium. I want to search for Lovecraftian dark gods and not the 69th element on the periodic table, doggoneit!

(Note that this suggestion is actually what was offered while typing out the Great Old One's name in MS Word.)

Notes (2, Interesting)

parmadil (811515) | more than 9 years ago | (#11052812)

* It works on KHTML-based Safari, so it the crash must be a Konq-specific problem.

* It ignores, um, non-work-safe input.

* It works fine on moderately esoteric topics -- I started typing n-s-a-r and it found NSArray, NSArrayController, NSArchiver, etc.

How is it so FAST!? (3, Interesting)

topham (32406) | more than 9 years ago | (#11052813)


It is blazingly fast. I expected it to be slowwwww.
Can somebody outline how it works?

Re:How is it so FAST!? (1)

10000000000000000000 (809085) | more than 9 years ago | (#11052891)

well, they assign 481.2 million Chinese to read what you are typing and make suggestions!
that's how! [slashdot.org]

Re:How is it so FAST!? (2, Informative)

mbyte (65875) | more than 9 years ago | (#11052923)

hmm, i think it loads the search results in the background. When i type in some text and look at my squid logs i see several of the following queries:

http://www.google.com/complete/search?

So, basicly they use some javascript to handle on keypress event, send the data to google and back, and display them .. but i'm also amazed how fast it is ! (one point can be that the search pages result about 500-1000 bytes ..)

google whacks (2, Interesting)

manganese4 (726568) | more than 9 years ago | (#11052815)

Well it definitely makes it easier to look for google whacks

Newsworthy? (1)

31415926535897 (702314) | more than 9 years ago | (#11052823)

Sorry if this is offtopic or considered flamebait, but...

Why does everything Google does get on the front page of Slashdot?

Don't get me wrong, I love Google, and this is a neat feature, but this makes it to the front page?

Perhaps because it's innovative? No, this has been in various software products for years (especially notable on PDAs like the iPaq). Maybe it's really novel because it's on the web? Yes, it's on the Internet now so Google should patent it!

Sorry, but I just get this feeling that when I see "The next story will be posted soon..." that it will be a story about how Google or Apple will have done something trivial (look, a 3d button on the web!) but we're all supposed to start drooling over it.

Google Su (1)

10000000000000000000 (809085) | more than 9 years ago | (#11052825)

type that and see what the first result is :]

Re:Google Su (1)

kid nickng (830274) | more than 9 years ago | (#11052907)

showing Google is a neutral search engine

on by default ? (1)

vluther (5638) | more than 9 years ago | (#11052831)

I find autocomplete sometimes to be annoying, I hope
this feature will be optional with a google cookie or something. Autocomplete can sometimes be just as annoying as clippy.. imho.

As it happens (1)

RealProgrammer (723725) | more than 9 years ago | (#11052834)

I was just needing a way to solve all of my problems at once.

  • Dear Google,

    I forgive you for that newsgroups date search thing.
    And the newsgroups deep linking thing.
    And the joining the Wall Street Suits thing.

    I know my opinion has been on your mind, so just know we're square. Keep up the good work.

    Sincerely,

    RP

let's get all the obligatory jokes out there (-1, Redundant)

dolem98 (815203) | more than 9 years ago | (#11052843)

in soviet russia 1,860,000 results.
in soviet russia you 45,400 results.
in soviet russia your mother was a hamster 1 result.

SCO invented this feature years ago.

Yeah, but it doesn't run on Linux, or at least konqueror apparently.

1. Autocomplete search for "make money by..."
2. ????
3. PROFIT!

My mind just went blank and I can't think of the rest of the usual suspects...

Yahoo! (1)

headisdead (789492) | more than 9 years ago | (#11052848)

The results also appear to be very close aesthetically to Yahoo Mail's "AutoComplete," but are cleverer in that they don't need additional client-side software/plugins. And Yahoo! haven't been clever enough to add this to their search frontend...

Let's try typing in "test" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11052850)

test
tests
testing
testicular cancer


IT WORKS PERFECTLY

Privacy? (2, Insightful)

Frisky070802 (591229) | more than 9 years ago | (#11052851)

I'm surprised no one has commented on privacy yet. It looks to me like it uses past queries to suggest future ones, because as soon as I zoomed in on an unusual name, it offered a couple of bizarre queries that could only have been typos (one was a two-word query, so it wasn't simply every word indexed -- unless they know every pair of words that quickly?).

I don't mind Google knowing what I ask, but I'm not sure I want the world to see them.

Re:Privacy? (1)

dema (103780) | more than 9 years ago | (#11052951)

I not sure how you think "the world" will see your searches. But this is from Google's privacy policy [google.com] .

Cookies
Upon your first visit to Google, a cookie is sent to your computer that uniquely identifies your browser. A "cookie" is a small file containing a string of characters that is sent to your computer when you visit a website. We use cookies to improve the quality of our service and to better understand how people interact with us. Google does this by storing user preferences in cookies and by tracking user trends and patterns of how people search. Most browsers are initially set up to accept cookies. You can reset your browser to refuse all cookies or to indicate when a cookie is being sent. However, some Google features or services may not function properly without cookies.

Good idea. (1)

Azul (12241) | more than 9 years ago | (#11052853)

What a useful idea, form autocomplete based on popular search terms implemented entirely in JavaScript and showing you the number of results your search would produce. Makes you wonder why nobody had implemented this feature before.

Hmm, the number of results it reports that each search would produce seem to be slightly less than the actual number of results they do. I suppose they need to resync their databases.

I can see it now (4, Funny)

Timesprout (579035) | more than 9 years ago | (#11052863)

"It looks like you are searching for lesbian porn, would you like some help with that?"

"It looks like you are searching for lesbian porn again, do you remember what I showed you last time?"

"I know, I know, Lesbian porn,and can you rate these pages so I can update my page index?"

"Hello freak, try these"

The ABCs of Google Complete (5, Interesting)

Hatta (162192) | more than 9 years ago | (#11052873)

A is for Amazon
B is for Best Buy
C is for CNN
D is for Dictionary
E is for Ebay
F is for Firefox (yay!)
G is for Games
H is for Hotmail
I is for Ikea
J is for Jokes
K is for Kazaa
L is for Lyrics
M is for Mapquest
N is for News
O is for Online dictionary
P is for Paris Hilton (wtf?!)
Q is for Quotes
R is for Recipes
S is for Spybot
T is for Tara Reid
U is for Ups
V is for Verizon
W is for Weather
X is for Xbox
Y is for Yahoo
Z is for Zip Codes

I wonder... (2, Interesting)

Lizard_King (149713) | more than 9 years ago | (#11052878)

... how they prioritize the suggestions in the list. It's definitely not by the number of results per suggestion. Are there any revenue opportunities here for GOOG?

Hard to not see this as for google, not for us (1)

barchibald (207846) | more than 9 years ago | (#11052888)

Hey:

Seems like this is a slippery slope toward increasing searches on indentified keywords, rather an unpredictable search words. If it can't be predicted and isn't common then it can't be sold via adwords.

If they can consolodate outlier searches that they believe (or can convince the searcher) are really looking for something that is more commonly searched for via a specific phrase then its in their interest to do it.

Other than spelling mistakes, what value is this to the user? I just gon't see it as much more than a way of increasing google $.

Google suggests wrong spelling as well (2, Interesting)

witcomb (636938) | more than 9 years ago | (#11052889)

I figured I would look up mountain biking. However, in my quick typing I entered mountian instead and it continued and accepted that. It gave me many valid searches, which I probably wouldn't have found if I entered the search string properly. Of course, it did indicate that mountain was spelled incorrectly as normal.

I figured this could be a useful feature as you probably don't make an effort to misspell your entries, yet many items on the web could have useful information with the misspelled word. So, I entered mount to see the completion, and no mountian, just correctly spelled words.

I guess we'll just have to continue to misspell everything.

Test results (1)

carniz (739091) | more than 9 years ago | (#11052893)

p..r..0...[nothing suggested]

This is crap. I expected it to suggest pr0n already after the P.

What are these people making ? (1)

Gori (526248) | more than 9 years ago | (#11052897)

Im am wondering more and more what is Google really upto.
Worlds biggest distributed operating system, a cache of each page they every visit, predictive text input, remebers everything you ever seaarched for, never throw anything away email, search your desktop, and any scientiffic thing ever published....
Soon, we will not be browsing the web, we will be browsing google....
Anybody dare to phantasize what this all means ?

Litigious Bastards (1)

luuc (595203) | more than 9 years ago | (#11052903)

Top result for "liti..."

Browser Wars (2, Informative)

alva_edison (630431) | more than 9 years ago | (#11052904)

Before more people complain that their browser doesn't work, here's [google.com] [labs.google.com]what google specifies as the browser requirements.

Didn't Microsdoft patent this? (2, Interesting)

jaal (708037) | more than 9 years ago | (#11052909)

I remember long back, one thread on slashdot where it was discussed how microsoft patented the idea of showing the options as the user types in. I am not sure though.

Just like Gmail (1)

Lizard_King (149713) | more than 9 years ago | (#11052910)

It looks very similar to the technology Google uses in Gmail. When you compose a new message, as soon as you start typing in email addresses in the To: field, Gmail presents a similar drop down box with matching suggestions from your contacts.

Comment Post! (1)

Zorilla (791636) | more than 9 years ago | (#11052911)

Google Suggest - brought to you by the grammar that gave you Secret Collect! [homestarrunner.com]

Konqueror (1)

topace (456054) | more than 9 years ago | (#11052932)

Works great here in Konqueror 3.3.1

Weetabix (1)

Vollernurd (232458) | more than 9 years ago | (#11052935)

What the hell have the Google guys been eating? It was a plain ol' fashioned search engine for years, then in the space of 6 months they offer email, that desktop search thing, a server for people to buy, etc...

I'll have what they're having.

Where's the profit? (1)

slapout (93640) | more than 9 years ago | (#11052937)

The question I have is will these autocomplete words be words that advertisers pay to be there? Or will they actually be the most popluar stuff searched for?

Google starts to suck (1, Flamebait)

kompiluj (677438) | more than 9 years ago | (#11052938)

Well the new Groups really suck - try reading any group that deals with postfix or sendmail - all examples really screwed up.
And now that... - Google is going the same way that all went. Take for instance Microsoft. Ten years ago it was the icon of geekhood, they made a really good compiler, assembler and whatnot. And now? They even had a lapse of sobriety with Win 2k - quite a decent product - but it finally got fscked up by creeping featuritis disease [catb.org] when transformed into Win XP Proffesional.
And now Google. Bill Gates is ready to welcome you in the club.

S = MacDonalds or Hoovers? (1)

caluml (551744) | more than 9 years ago | (#11052945)

The fact that a lot of people search for "s" makes me wonder if they have the same problem as me in Firefox. I can't remember what I do, but it ends up searching for "s", and I end up at MacDonalds or Hoovers.

What Google needs is Lexis-Nexis and Journal tabs (3, Insightful)

F34nor (321515) | more than 9 years ago | (#11052949)

What Google really needs is a for pay LexisNexis tab so you can find real information from real sources in real time. That and a tab that indexes full text medical and science journals. Those damn journals! I love em but I don't have hundreds of dollars a year for each Psych. journal I want to read and hate going to libraries if I just want to see what's shaking in the world of science. With full text periodicals and full test journal search Google would become a singularity of information.

...meets google and the net (1)

bicho (144895) | more than 9 years ago | (#11052950)

clippy...

Cock Block (1)

Voltara (6334) | more than 9 years ago | (#11052954)

I tried searching for information on my pet cockatiels, but google cut me off at "cock"!

sp chker (1)

demon411 (827680) | more than 9 years ago | (#11052964)

when i can't spell something, i just type the word into google and press search and it spell checks it for me. autocomplete is nifty that it gives the # of results for each possibility

-a is for amazon, b is for best buy, and c is for cnn top 9 reasons to quit slashdot today [washington.edu]

Hmm. Does interfere with FireFox autocomplete (2, Informative)

DollyTheSheep (576243) | more than 9 years ago | (#11052968)

I have a list of queries, which I repeat every day or week or so. FireFox has now gathered them in its own form autocomplete. Now google interferes that with queries, I don't want to submit.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>