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!

On Yahoo!'s Acquisitions

CowboyNeal posted more than 8 years ago | from the buying-up-the-web dept.

Yahoo! 108

Barry Norton writes "The Guardian has quite an insightful article about recent Yahoo acquisitions Delicious and Flickr. They quote Joshua Schachter, Delicious' creator: 'We're excited to be working with the Yahoo search team - they definitely get social systems and their potential to change the web. We're also excited to be joining our fraternal twin, Flickr!' And why Yahoo's interest? The article opines: 'It takes a lot of the hard work out of searching the web. The very clever thing about social software is that it puts the burden on to the user, not the provider.'"

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

In Soviet Russia (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14269011)

In Soviet Russia, acquisition YAHOOS YOU!!!

Re:In Soviet Russia (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14269026)

You aren't remotely funny

Re:In Soviet Russia (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14269122)

I KNOW!!!

Re:In Soviet Russia (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14270572)

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

Lameness filter encountered.
Your comment violated the "postercomment" compression filter. Try less whitespace and/or less repetition. Comment aborted.

bad phrasing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14269030)

The very clever thing about social software is that it puts the burden on to the user, not the provider.

That sounds much worse than it is.

Yahoo Meme Pulls Ahead of Google (3, Informative)

broward (416376) | more than 8 years ago | (#14269191)

Interesting graph comparison of the major search engines.

It shows Yahoo pulling ahead of Google in 2005, and the
search engine battle itself is peaking in hype and media interest.

Yahoo's emergence into first place could be a function of their social software acquisitions.

http://www.realmeme.com:8080/roller/page/realmeme? entry=google_versus_yahoo [realmeme.com]

Re:Yahoo Meme Pulls Ahead of Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14270730)

People keep talking about memes. Sometimes, I think memes are the new meme.
In any case my questions are (off topic, but I guess somehow related to joint interest and social networks in general):
1) Why are meme's important? (please don't answer that they are a reflection of what other people think are important).
2) No seriously, do they hold any value in and of themselves? (yes I read the meme miner stuff)
3) No seriously, aren't they little more than gossip? Do they reflect/create any real long term impact?

wrong idea about Social Networks and search (5, Insightful)

ChrisGilliard (913445) | more than 8 years ago | (#14269033)

It takes a lot of the hard work out of searching the web. The very clever thing about social software is that it puts the burden on to the user, not the provider.

If this is how Yahoo sees it, they're missing the point. Yahoo (and other web-portals) can use Social Networks to learn more about their users. For instance, a certain social circle may all be members of a bowling league, so maybe show bowling ball advertisers to people that have a direct connection with the bowling league circle. The connection I see is more in delivering more appropriate content to users, not saving money on search.

PR...! (5, Interesting)

mister_llah (891540) | more than 8 years ago | (#14269070)

What you see there is the Public Relations Friendly(tm) version of the advertising plan you speak of...

When making a statement about such an acquisition, you don't say "The very clever thing about social software is that we can sell advertising at higher rates because we can tailor the ads to the market and promise more responsive viewing."

It's not that they are missing the point, it's that it doesn't sound very good to come out and say something that sounds so self-centered.

Re:PR...! (1)

ChrisGilliard (913445) | more than 8 years ago | (#14269110)

The article opines: 'It takes a lot of the hard work out of searching the web. The very clever thing about social software is that it puts the burden on to the user, not the provider.'

This led me to believe the author of the article is the one that thinks this is what Yahoo is thinking. Which is why I said if that's what they think, they're missing the point.

Re:PR...! (1)

mister_llah (891540) | more than 8 years ago | (#14269138)

Er, I guess I drew the wrong conclusion when you said, "If this is how Yahoo sees it, they're missing the point."

I thought you meant that literally, as opposed to "this is what the author thinks that Yahoo thinks"...

I am still a little confused, but as long as I know what your original meaning was intended to be, and that it makes my statement rather irrelevant, I think it would be best if I stopped typing now! :)

Re:PR...! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14270147)

It's ok, reading all these nonsense of yours with a +1 karma bonus really makes me to poke.

Re:wrong idea about Social Networks and search (3, Insightful)

BandwidthHog (257320) | more than 8 years ago | (#14269091)

I don’t see that as a way to save money on search, but more as a way to offer a different kind of search or, in trendy parlance, to make searches more relevant. Basically what you’re doing with the whole user tagging thing is getting a bunch of human brains to categorize things for you, and the structure of the system causes those brains to only work on parts of the system that they personally give a damn about. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the infrastructure needed to sustain that is actually more expensive in the long term than large clusters of servers calculating PageRank or some other algorithm.

Re:wrong idea about Social Networks and search (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14269318)

Triumph says: "You are a huge nerd."

That's just part of it.. (3, Insightful)

Lysol (11150) | more than 8 years ago | (#14269105)

Sure, social networks can mine users data and habits, that's a big deal. But I'm sure Yahoo gets that. But don't underestimate having an army of users doing your work for you. I've worked for companies that would have killed to have users doing their work for them in this way. In fact, it's almost a sure thing to say that future 'content providers' will employ more of this along with AI and not have many companies employees - if any - touching any of the input data. As a programmer, sounds good to me..

Re:That's just part of it.. (1)

BandwidthHog (257320) | more than 8 years ago | (#14269181)

not have many companies employees - if any - touching any of the input data

But then who would administer the moderator [slashdot.org] bitchslaps [wikipedia.org] ?

Re:That's just part of it.. (4, Insightful)

cei (107343) | more than 8 years ago | (#14269213)

Not like this is particularly new for Yahoo... when they first started out as just a web directory, most of the source of their portal was from user submissions, not crawling & indexing. In many ways, del.icio.us is a throwback to the early days for Yahoo, replacing hierarchal categories with tags.

That's just part of it..Skin Rash. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14269379)

"In fact, it's almost a sure thing to say that future 'content providers' will employ more of this along with AI and not have many companies employees - if any - touching any of the input data. As a programmer, sounds good to me.."

That's geeks for you. Less touching, more machines.

Re:wrong idea about Social Networks and search (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14271020)

this really pisses me off. i dont want to be delivered content. i want to find it myself. everything on the internet has turned into this advertising game. i dont know when this started. god dammit. let me find information without being bombarded with shit.

Re:wrong idea about Social Networks and search (1)

babbage (61057) | more than 8 years ago | (#14272257)

If this is how Yahoo sees it, they're missing the point. Yahoo (and other web-portals) can use Social Networks to learn more about their users. For instance, a certain social circle may all be members of a bowling league, so maybe show bowling ball advertisers to people that have a direct connection with the bowling league circle. The connection I see is more in delivering more appropriate content to users, not saving money on search.

Then they aren't missing the point. To quote the article [guardian.co.uk] :

More important to a huge business such as Yahoo is how social search could bring new ways to cash in. Search engine firms make money through advertising, and in the short run, a tighter focus increases the likelihood of being able to charge higher prices for ads. In the long run, social groups might emerge inside the search engine - for example, a group of doctors in Hong Kong who share their bookmarks - who could be specifically targeted by advertising campaigns.

They get it. Or at least, the Guardian's reporter thinks they get it.

So how long... (2, Insightful)

User 956 (568564) | more than 8 years ago | (#14269039)

So how long until Yahoo changes their name from Del.icio.us to "Yahoo Social Bookmarking Service", just like they changed Konfabulator to "Yahoo Widget Engine", Oddpost to "Yahoo Mail" and Launch.com to "Yahoo Music"...?

They bought it... (2, Interesting)

mister_llah (891540) | more than 8 years ago | (#14269081)

I'd wager it won't take very long, unless they intergrate the social network into their already existing Yahoo! Groups ...

They bought the companies... I think it's a lot more straightforward/honest to change the name.

Yahoo! is not a holding company or anything, they are in a brand war with Google, they need to get their name out there, it's just good business.

===

I don't want to make any inferences, so I will just ask... do you think that it is at all questionable that Yahoo buys these companies and changes the name?

Re:They bought it... (4, Insightful)

Phanatic1a (413374) | more than 8 years ago | (#14269132)

I'm far less concerned about their changing the name then about them completely ruining what made the original company worth purchasing in the first place.

Launch.com was great, until Yahoo took it over and made it completely fucking useless and annoying.

Re:They bought it... (2, Interesting)

ravenwing_np (22379) | more than 8 years ago | (#14269235)

Mr Schachter is an intelligent man with his own vision. Many companies were bidding on del.icio.us. I have faith that he joined the company that allowed him to keep as much of his original vision as possible.

Re:They bought it... (2, Interesting)

User 956 (568564) | more than 8 years ago | (#14269276)

Mr Schachter is an intelligent man with his own vision. Many companies were bidding on del.icio.us. I have faith that he joined the company that allowed him to keep as much of his original vision as possible.

You mean like when AOL bought Nullsoft for WinAmp? [slate.com] That turned out greaaaat.....

Re:They bought it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14270387)

I remember del.icio.us early days when Joshua was ranting about how he will never sell out to Microsoft, because it's Evil. Now, let me ask you a simple question: "Is Yahoo Less Evil Than Microsoft?"

Re:They bought it... (1)

X (1235) | more than 8 years ago | (#14269644)

Launch.com was great, until Yahoo took it over and made it completely fucking useless and annoying.

I dunnoh. It seems pretty great these days, particularly with the YMU service. What is making it useless and annoying for you?

Re:So how long... (1)

ToasterOven (698529) | more than 8 years ago | (#14269642)

Don't forget about Overture... er - I mean "Yahoo Search Marketing".

What's next... they buy out Slashdot and call it "Yahoo News for Nerds"?

Re:So how long... (2, Insightful)

scsscs (669925) | more than 8 years ago | (#14269779)

Yahoo wont change the name. Unlike Konfabulator and Oddpost, which were acquired for their technology, Del.icio.us, like Flickr, was acquired for its community. The name is an important part of the community. I do suspect that eventually Yahoo will merge logins with Del.icio.us like they did with Flickr, and that Del.icio.us data will find its way into other Yahoo services, but other than that I think Yahoo will be hands off and support Joshua Schachter's vision of what the site should be.

You can bet your ass, they will (2, Insightful)

User 956 (568564) | more than 8 years ago | (#14270032)

And just like with Flickr, when the Yahoo business weasels force everyone to get a Yahoo login, it's going to piss of a heck of a lot of people. [napsterization.org] How's that for suporting the "community" that they just paid a big chunk of good money for?

Re:You can bet your ass, they will (1)

Deep Fried Geekboy (807607) | more than 8 years ago | (#14270394)

Oh, for God's sake. They pissed off one whiner who couldn't decide whether he wanted to associate his Yahoo ID with his Flickr ID. Oh noes!!111!!

The acquisition of Flickr has been handled surprisingly well.

Re:So how long... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14270484)

About as long as it took Google to rename Keyhole to Google Earth perhaps?

A couple of obvious misspellings (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14269082)

Delicious is spelled "del.icio.us" and Flickr is spelled "Flïck..krr" I hope you're more careful in future.

YAHOO is trying to catch up... (3, Interesting)

PenguinBoyDave (806137) | more than 8 years ago | (#14269084)

With all of the services Google has been offering, YAHOO has to catch up if they hope to stay on top. Google started simple and grew. YAHOO exploded, and has never really grown. Personally, I like what YAHOO has to offer, but I spend much more time on Google.

[OT] Re:YAHOO is trying to catch up... (0, Offtopic)

l00k (910333) | more than 8 years ago | (#14269126)

quoting from your sig:

"If man evolved from apes, why are there still apes and not more people?"

following that line of logic your question should ultimately be: "if everything evolved from primitive life then how is it that there has been more than one species of animal in existence at any one time?". the answer is probably easily understood if you bring to mind the fact that children descend from, in our case, 2 animals and not the entire species.

yeah yeah, mark me down as off-topic.

Re:[OT] Indeed! (0, Offtopic)

mister_llah (891540) | more than 8 years ago | (#14269161)

Yet apes exist, and in great variety... but there is no variety in the developmental stages of humans.

The apes we are descended from have not changed much in thousands of years, meanwhile we've developed from apes and there are none of our anscestor species in the world today.

This causes me great confusion.

So basically, you mean to say, we are evolved from apes, and there are some apes that didn't evolve, so they are still around. Many species of apes, really.

Then we have men, who have evolved from a common anscestor, and we just didn't look back, we kept going. We had a number of physiological changes and migrations throughout Africa, but we never diverged into seperate population groups, and every single population group (dispersed throughout Africa) simultaneously evolved (with variations of a thousand years here or there)... ... then as we moved out of Africa, we had no splinter groups, all over the world... no lost chains? We all evolved at almost the same rate (again with minutely small variations)... and now we are equally developed... while the apes remain incredibly diverse (and largely unchanged) ...

Perhaps you can see why I am confused...

Re:[OT] Indeed! (1)

mctk (840035) | more than 8 years ago | (#14269215)

"If man evolved from apes, why are there still apes and not more people?"

And the real question becomes, why aren't there any hairy humapes? You know? It's like in that Britney Spears song, "Not a Girl, Not Yet a Woman", but only with apes and humans and stuff. And, hey, where did woman come from? And couldn't we reverse engineer an ape-baby? You raise a good point about the rate of evolution, and how we all evolved at the same rate, but I gotta say, that ain't true. HOLLYWOOOD SQUARES, need I say more? Or, maybe we have evolved splinter groups and they wander among us. It's like that society in the Foundation. You know?

FORWARD THE FOUNDATION.

Re:[OT] Indeed! (0, Offtopic)

l00k (910333) | more than 8 years ago | (#14269242)

So basically, you mean to say, we are evolved from apes, and there are some apes that didn't evolve, so they are still around. Many species of apes, really.

yeah, basically.

but we never diverged into seperate population groups, and every single population group (dispersed throughout Africa) simultaneously evolved (with variations of a thousand years here or there)... ... then as we moved out of Africa, we had no splinter groups, all over the world... no lost chains

well actually there are plenty of bones to suggest that our species' family tree was not linear at all, and quite messy really with possibly many branches existing at the same time. digs and new finds have suggested that contrary to the perception our growth was one variation after the other, than many variations existed at the same time, and perhaps coexisted. now, on the fact that there is only one variation of human today that makes finding out how the variations either merged, or died off, a fascinating journey.

the question of why variations of apes haven't evolved since the breakoff group that initially formed the family tree of humans, is a very good one. but is only baffling under the assumption that evolution is a constant and steady process with no speeding ups nor slowings down, which of course is clearly not the case given the sequences suggested in the fossil record. whatever evolution is, it appears to happen sporadically, but it does appear to happen (and be happening). i feel like i'm in a shampoo ad.

Re:[OT] Indeed! (1)

Paua Fritter (448250) | more than 8 years ago | (#14269737)

Yet apes exist, and in great variety... but there is no variety in the developmental stages of humans.

There has been a lot of variety, though many of the other branches of our extended family have become extinct. The reason that you think that "only apes are left" is just that this word "apes" has traditionally been applied precisely to the ones that are left, and not to us. So it says a lot about how we name things, but nothing about the actual states of affairs (i.e. who evolved from whom, and when). It's purely semantic - it's like wondering "when I finish eating, why is that the only things left are leftovers?" :-)

The apes we are descended from have not changed much in thousands of years, meanwhile we've developed from apes and there are none of our anscestor species in the world today.
This causes me great confusion.

It is confusing, because evolutionary biologists have changed their minds a lot, as evidence has accumulated over the years.

Why not check up the great article on Wikipedia about apes [wikipedia.org] , and get it straight in your mind?

So basically, you mean to say, we are evolved from apes, and there are some apes that didn't evolve, so they are still around. Many species of apes, really.

Actually, we evolved from earlier apes (but we are still a kind of ape!), and in the meantime other kinds of ape also evolved from those same ancestors. There's a whole family tree there (a "super-family") - at one point our species diverged into proto-gorillas and proto-human-chimps, and later the human-chimps diverged into humans and chimps (so humans and chimps are like brothers, and gorillas are our cousins).

Then we have men, who have evolved from a common anscestor, and we just didn't look back, we kept going. We had a number of physiological changes and migrations throughout Africa, but we never diverged into seperate population groups, and every single population group (dispersed throughout Africa) simultaneously evolved (with variations of a thousand years here or there)... ... then as we moved out of Africa, we had no splinter groups, all over the world... no lost chains? We all evolved at almost the same rate (again with minutely small variations)... and now we are equally developed... while the apes remain incredibly diverse (and largely unchanged) ...
Perhaps you can see why I am confused...

Yes ... you sure are :-)

You need to abandon the misconception that apes and humans are something distinct. This is empirically false, and it's leading you astray. Many people find it something shameful to think of themselves as an ape (don't know if that's you) but really it's nothing to be ashamed of at all. Have a banana!


PS In regard to "lost chains" etc, haven't you heard of "Neanderthals"? - they were a kind of human which died out quite recently.

Re:[OT] Indeed! (1)

mister_llah (891540) | more than 8 years ago | (#14269783)

If we are not distinct, where are the 'spaces between' ape and man, now?

If ape exists as it has since we evolved... and we have evolved... despite ONE group splintering and dying off (the neanderthals) ... we still have no variation in human physiology.

If we evolved from earlier apes, why haven't other apes similarly developed?

If humans are apes, shouldn't there be some intermediaries? SOMEWHERE? Heck, even in the rain forests or something...

I can't pretend to know much about physical anthropology, I had a one week overview in cultural anthropology and that's it. I was left with the same questions I have now... the same confusion.

Sadly, this is not the sort of confusion that can be cleared up by saying 'We are apes. This explains the lack of human variation, because there is plenty of variation in apes, and we are apes, so therefore, there is plenty of human variation.' (perhaps I am getting the wrong idea from your post) ...

We have some physical evidence, but there things just don't seem to add up, to me.

The theory is that we became more intelligent when we started eating meat. I'd be curious to see some studious on the subject (where gorillas or other apes were fed meat, to see what impact it may have had on their offspring)...

===

However, honestly, it is an issue of little real importance to me. Where I came from doesn't matter much, I am here now. Debating any sort of evolution seems rather like intellectual masturbation... ... but hey, who doesn't like a little bit of that, ey? ;)

Re:[OT] Indeed! (1)

Paua Fritter (448250) | more than 8 years ago | (#14269919)

You ask "If we evolved from earlier apes, why haven't other apes similarly developed?". The anser is that your question contains an error - the other apes have also evolved! At one time, there were apes which were the ancestors of modern gorillas, modern humans, modern gibbons, and other modern apes. Then these families diverged. One family evolved into gibbons, and another evolved differently, into another species of ape (a species which is no longer extant). Eventually this species diverged again, and again, producing at various times, orang-utans, gorillas, humans, bonobos, and chimpanzees. Over time, all of these families became more distinct from their common ancestors, and from each other. Modern gorillas are emphatically NOT identical to those early ancestors.

As for your other question, about why aren't there more intermediate species extant today - the answer is that they became extinct. Why did e.g. Neanderthals become extinct? Some people think that Homo Sapiens Sapiens were better adapted to the warming climate, being lighter. Who knows? It's an interesting historical research area for paleoanthropologists, but I don't see why it should cast any doubt on the idea that humans evolved from apes! I mean - who else could we have evolved from?! Cats? :-)

Re:[OT] Indeed! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14270087)

I mean - who else could we have evolved from?! Cats?

Given that my cats seem to have a higher IQ than a fair percentage of the people I've met in my life (ok,

Just turn on TV.. people eating maggots on TV just hoping to earn some money, getting their tongue "forked" and head implanted with plasic ridges, whiskers, tatoo'd like a snake/cat/whatever... great for a career in the freak show, but...

It seems sometimes as if as we "evolve" (and I use the term loosely), the intelligence level drops. Maybe someday cats *will* take over (although its more likely cockroaches as the nukes proliferate).

Re:[OT] Indeed! (1)

geoffspear (692508) | more than 8 years ago | (#14271353)

If humans are apes, shouldn't there be some intermediaries? SOMEWHERE

Umm, there are.

Chimpanzees and bonobos are a lot more closely related to us than gorillas are. Hell, they're more closely related to us than they are to gorillas, too. If both gorillas and chimps are "apes", then there's no biological reason to say that humans aren't apes.

If you look different in certain ways from your father, wouldn't you expect that you must have an inetrmediate family member who's more closely related to both you and your father who looks halfway between the two of you? If not, why not?

Hey! (2, Interesting)

isecore (132059) | more than 8 years ago | (#14269101)

Don't forget Konfabulator! They bought that as well. [slashdot.org]

Yahoogle (1, Interesting)

komodo9 (577710) | more than 8 years ago | (#14269111)

This is just the next step in Yahoo, Google, and Microsoft fighting to provide more features than any other website. Google buys Blogger, so Yahoo needs delicious. Google makes maps, so MSN needs to make them also. Everyone's copying each other, and Google usually starts it. -- United Bimmer BMW Enthusiast Community [unitedbimmer.com]

Yahoogle-CowboyNeal slope. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14269136)

"Everyone's copying each other, and Google usually starts it. "

Google buys Slashdot.

Re:Yahoogle (1)

apflwr (930636) | more than 8 years ago | (#14269188)

Maps.msn.com existed long before Google maps. Sure, they probably stole the idea from Mapquest, but don't give Google credit for that one.

Re:Yahoogle (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14269371)

I'm not seeing sat photos (which, granted, MapQuest once had, but for some stupid reason or another got rid of,) movable maps (click and drag vs. click to re-center,) or maps that scale to the size of your display (hell, MSN maps doesn't scale well at all in Firefox, the whole damn page is bunched up to on the left when viewed at 1280/1024.)

These are things that Google's map system DOES do correctly, among many others, which MSN, Yahoo! and MapQuest all fail at.

Nobody said that Google invented online maps, but they sure as hell made them far better than the competition. As an added bonus, that habit of one-upping the competition is far from being limited to just maps.

Re:Yahoogle (1)

X (1235) | more than 8 years ago | (#14269653)

These are things that Google's map system DOES do correctly, among many others, which MSN, Yahoo! and MapQuest all fail at.

You ought to check out the betas of maps that both Yahoo and MSN have. The Yahoo API's in particular are really nice. They don't have satellite, but of course WorldWind is better than Google Maps or Google Earth for that anyway.

Re:Yahoogle (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14269197)

Google started search? No.
Google started free email? No.
Google started newsgroups? No.
Google started analytics? No.
Google started online advertising? No.
Google started satelite maps? No.
Google started blogging? No.
Google started toolbars? No.

The only innovative thing Google has done is convince the masses a corporation is unable to do evil. And that's only innovative because nobody else has succeeded at it before.

Re:Yahoogle (5, Insightful)

tjr (908724) | more than 8 years ago | (#14269265)

Indeed, Google didn't invent any of those things, but they sure made them better. Substantially better, in some cases. Google is known for having a lot of scientists on staff, and they likely do a lot of original CS research to make things better, but they also must have a lot of really good HCI people who know how to design interfaces, and a lot of really good engineers who know how to actually build usable software.

Innovation vs Improvement (1)

Tetravus (79831) | more than 8 years ago | (#14269502)

Okay, so Google's not really innovative. They don't invent things, they make them better.
Sort of like the Japanese with manufactured goods. And what happened to the Japanese who, like Google, were supposed to take over the world?
Their economy imploded, and couldn't recover. Why? Because they weren't able to innovate when the train of 'things to improve' ran out.

If that holds true for Google too (and honestly I hope it doesn't) , woe unto he who owns their stock.

Re:Innovation vs Improvement (2, Insightful)

tjr (908724) | more than 8 years ago | (#14269602)

As long as Google continues to make sure it's web services are the best versions (the best webmail, the best ad utilities, the best search, etc.), then people will continue to use them. Even if Google never innovated anything else, but just continued to maintain their current product line, I suspect that they would be a profitable company as long as people are using the Web. But is Google really not an innovator? I think they are. They are currently into micro-innovation: they come up with lots of little, well-implemented ideas to make existing ideas better. We've had webmail for years, but I never liked it. I stuck with my POP3 desktop clients. It wasn't until I used GMail that I found webmail good enough to use over the likes of Thunderbird. Google's webmail makeover wasn't macro-innovation; it was still a webmail service, providing essentially the same functionality as hundreds of others. But it was micro-innovation: a bunch of minor tweaks and improvements to make the webmail experience a lot better than it was before.

Re:Yahoogle (1)

6*7 (193752) | more than 8 years ago | (#14270525)

"Google didn't invent any of those things, but they sure made them better."

Hmmm, groups.google.com didn't get any better as time passed, it is getting worse (for use as an archive and having to read borked posts made with their client).

Re:Yahoogle (2, Funny)

StikyPad (445176) | more than 8 years ago | (#14269739)

You keep using that word, innovative. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Re:Yahoogle (1)

gflores (728935) | more than 8 years ago | (#14270483)

How about GMail? Google Maps? Completely new and innovative. Google Desktop search, although not the first, popularized it and forced MS to come out with one.

Re:Yahoogle (1)

carlivar (119811) | more than 8 years ago | (#14269216)

You forgot:

Yahoo makes maps, so Google needs to make them also. Yahoo has news, so Google needs to have news also. Yahoo has stock quotes, so Google needs to have stock quotes. Etcetera.

Though Yahoo has live traffic info on their maps and Google has not copied it. Yet.

Doomsday Fast Approaching (1)

sonofdelphi (924286) | more than 8 years ago | (#14270402)

I liked the way you put it...Yahoogle

And finally it's gonna end up with: Google buys Yahoo! Microsoft buys Google. World Domination and Apocalypse!

(Note: In the above sentence G,M and Y are interchangeable)

And the difference between links and tags is? (1)

mulcher (241014) | more than 8 years ago | (#14269153)

One can also make the argument that the web was created by humans and social tagging (via HTML links)... this is more or less the same but not defined by a protocol standard yet.

Re:And the difference between links and tags is? (1)

poopdeville (841677) | more than 8 years ago | (#14270399)

I realize this isn't responsive to your post, but it got me thinking.

If Google and CLEVER [ibm.com] (Google's theoretical forerunner -- check out Kleinberg's paper for an early near-prototype of PageRank) have taught us anything, it's that algorithms that use the linking relation as a metric for ranking web pages relative to a keyword is completely natural. Such algorithms use the linking relation to measure what amounts to popularity or agregate usage.

In effect, they conflate authority with popularity. This is a great hack, since it uses the web's inherent graph structure to generate meaningful results in line with people's preferences. And this graph structure is a direct result of people choosing to link to (presumably) useful or interesting pages. But there are two problems:

  1. PageRank can be easily manipulated. Popularity is not the same as authority, so SEO people can abuse PageRank to appear authoritative.
  2. They put new web pages at a disadvantage. Frankly, when I'm searching for information, I don't care how popular a web page is. I just want an authoritative source. While this is a disadvantage for strictly informational searches, it is in the end a good thing for 'recreational' searches.

In effect, PageRank and the like have been cracked because their designers assumed that people would act in good faith when linking. Google constantly updates the algorithm to We require a new, dare I say, paradigm for generating search results with a metric that correlates strongly with authoritativeness and cannot be abused. I have some ideas, but the patent office, and maybe some journals, will hear about them well before any of you do.

This! (4, Funny)

OSS_ilation (922367) | more than 8 years ago | (#14269155)

Is! exciting! news!

Re:This! (1)

tpgp (48001) | more than 8 years ago | (#14270633)

The [theregister.co.uk] Register [theregister.co.uk] called [theregister.co.uk] . They [theregister.co.uk] want [theregister.co.uk] their [theregister.co.uk] joke [theregister.co.uk] back. [theregister.co.uk]

Yahoo and Google (4, Insightful)

mister_llah (891540) | more than 8 years ago | (#14269185)

Why is it that when Google makes a purchase, it is lauded as a brilliant idea... ... and when Yahoo makes a purchase, it is bashed and made to be a horrible thing?

===

Can someone explain this to me, and in a way that doesn't involve singular instances... a broad spectrum view of why so many people are so keen on Google and so unkeen on Yahoo...

I'd really like to know!

Re:Yahoo and Google (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 8 years ago | (#14269220)

Because yahoo has a history of screwing up what they buy after they get it.

Re:Yahoo and Google (1)

mister_llah (891540) | more than 8 years ago | (#14269336)

This would be a good time to supply some examples... thanks!

Google is getting slammed lately! (1)

sundoggy (939218) | more than 8 years ago | (#14269268)

llah, have you been reading the blogs and news lately? some are perceiving Google as the new Evil Empire supplanting MS. Of course, a lot of people are giving them a break to prove themselves since they've just embarked on this new path to world domination. The Web 2.0 crowd (excuse that term, I hate it myself) is going kind of gaga over Yahoo lately. They're doing some cool things. I think some people do have problems with Yahoo's changing half the stuff they buy. But they haven't messed with Flickr too much, and this is one of the things that is giving people a lot of confidence in Yahoo lately. Google is trying to do too much too fast and acting plain weird. That whole thing with Eric Schmidt not talking to CNET because they published info about him they found on GOOGLE! What fools. I love Google, but some of their new stuff ain't that cool. Gmail is hot, their maps are hot. But MS and Yahoo are showing stuff that is actually more compelling (I didn't say delivering, especially in the case of MS). I think they have a long way to go in proving MS Live. Meanwhile, the blogosphere is debating whether Google is the next Evil Empire, and for the most part applauding Google.

Re:Google is getting slammed lately! (1)

mister_llah (891540) | more than 8 years ago | (#14269358)

Well, I didn't mean in the whole of the interweb, I meant on Slashdot in particular... :)

===

It seems the vast majority of Slashdotters are vehemently pro-Google (and therefore, anti-Yahoo) ... and I just want to know... why?

Google has done its share of copying ideas from Yahoo, but when Google copies, it is called 'improvement' ...

It is the kind of double standard that reminds me of this:
http://yahooracists.ytmnd.com/ [ytmnd.com]

Google employees (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14270497)

Not to mention that there seem to be too many assholes working for Google. I had some contact with one of the Google Maps team, and they proved to be the most unprofessional bunch of people I have met in my life. They act like rock stars thinking they are gods and caring shit about normal, inferior people

Re:Yahoo and Google (1, Offtopic)

Concerned Onlooker (473481) | more than 8 years ago | (#14269270)

So far Google hasn't been directly responsible for getting a foreign journalist jailed.

Flickr site [flickr.com]

Reporters sans Frontiere [rsf.org]

Re:Yahoo and Google (1)

mister_llah (891540) | more than 8 years ago | (#14269347)

Yeah, but Yahoo! Maps hasn't been being used by enemy soldiers in Iraq (like Google Earth) for coordinating troop movements and such.

Yahoo may have given information to Chinese authorities, but it's not like they jailed the person.

Google helps greatly with the Great Firewall, too... [you may recall several articles on Slashdot about this]

===

If this is your point of contention, the reason you think Yahoo should be bashed, then shouldn't Google be bashed, as well?

Re:Yahoo and Google (2, Insightful)

tommers (893816) | more than 8 years ago | (#14269466)

And while I was very outraged when I first read about Yahoo and the Chinese journalists, I found it much harder to fault Yahoo when I found out that the warrant did not have any information about the accusation. It could have been to track down a murderer, terrorist, or pedophile or it could have a Chinese kid wearing a shirt saying "My government are meanies". Its much harder to expect a company to deny the police information just because they don't like every single crime that country accuses people of. Yahoo! is big enough that they should take a stand when they know what the issue is, but besides leaving China entirely, given what I know now, I can't imagine how Google could have acted the least bit differently.

Re:Yahoo and Google (1)

typan (853191) | more than 8 years ago | (#14270562)

Yahoo! is big enough that they should take a stand when they know what the issue is
I agree that they could take a stand, but in my experience organizations take less of a "stand" the bigger they are.

Re:Yahoo and Google (1)

MikeURL (890801) | more than 8 years ago | (#14270356)

So you think that if Google is furnished with a lawful order in a foreign country they are going to tell the government to piss off?

BECAUSE THIS IS SLASHDOT YOU GODDAMN STUPID FAGGOT (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14269343)

Why else would you even ask that stupid fucking question? Did your mother spend too much time shoving her tongue up your toddler anus when you were very young? Your small, taut anus, that smelled of roses and peppermint? And you moaned with delight as you experienced your first taste of sexual pleasure as you lay on your stomach, with the smell of baby powder in the air, and daddy walking into the changing room -- to his delight he gets to taste your backside too... and only then did you first discover the real pleasure of the human penis...

Re:Yahoo and Google (1)

bill_kress (99356) | more than 8 years ago | (#14269366)

Because typically when Google makes a purchase, it is a brilliant idea... ... and when Yahoo makes a purchase, it is a horrible thing.

Re:Yahoo and Google (3, Funny)

Scooter's_dad (833628) | more than 8 years ago | (#14269611)

Can someone explain this to me, and in a way that doesn't involve singular instances... a broad spectrum view of why so many people are so keen on Google and so unkeen on Yahoo...

When I go to www.google.com I see a clean, empty page with a few lines of text and an input box. When I just visited www.yahoo.com, I saw Donald Trump's face. 'Nuff said.

Re:Yahoo and Google (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14269791)

Yahoo! is a portal, not just a search engine. If you want to compare Google to Yahoo!'s site, pick a comparible branch of Google:

www.yahoo.com vs. news.google.com

Both cluttered with crap I can't be arsed reading there because I can get it skewed and triple-fisted on SlashDot instead.

Comparing Yahoo!'s search site to Google is a little more even:
search.yahoo.com vs. www.google.com

Re:Yahoo and Google (2, Insightful)

ramsj900 (885385) | more than 8 years ago | (#14269794)

1)With google products I always feel like they designers are on my side of the equation trying to make my web experience I want to use google to enhance. Yahoo always feels like they are ramming content...any content if I will just spend 5 more minutes on their site. 2)Yahoo's convoluted entanglement of pages and half-baked, half-operating, offerings seem like the same old shit, not even dressed up in a pretty package. Google rolls out stuff that is cool and different in an attempt to address how users actually view the web. Yeah google has AdSense, but they don't try to hide it or apologize for the ad placements. To me it is like TV...I ignore 98% of the ads that don't apply to me. Yahoo weaves the sponsorship into the content and who knows what is content or marketing let alone everything I ever am interested in checking out has an up-charge attached. Let the frickin sponsors pay my way and build it in to the cost of the product over time. 3) Finally...yahoo mail = 789 spam emails a day (for real!) Gmail = 3 spams, and they are from sites I actually visited once. WTF

Re:Yahoo and Google -- Welcome to Wall Street (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14269938)

When's the slashdot crowd going to distinguish business from techie bullshit?

Everyone on here arguing about the "xyz 123 version 2.41 semiconductor fuzzy logic ultra-edition release of obscure technobabble revision 4, therefore is logically better/improved/etc. over ".

Remember the old saying: "what goes up, was put there by someone".

First Web 2.0 Post ! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14269192)

xml rss rdf atom ajax blogs wiki

Re:First Web 2.0 Post ! (1)

BandwidthHog (257320) | more than 8 years ago | (#14269214)

xml rss rdf atom ajax blogs wiki

Nothing happened when I moused over it. Have you implemented Opera support yet?

Yahoo tends to smash instead of improve (2, Informative)

get quad (917331) | more than 8 years ago | (#14269218)

Now if someone could just get across to Yahoo that the acquisition and crushing of All Seeing Eye over not getting their way in a lawsuit with XFire is pissing off alot of gamers, perhaps people would gain a bit of insight as to why Yahoo is generally loathed only slightly less than AOL.

World Domination (1)

ImaNihilist (889325) | more than 8 years ago | (#14269300)

Yahoo, Google, and Microsoft will eventually buy ALL the internet services that exist and then battle it out.

Yahoo HomePage is TOO BUSY. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14269310)

They keep adding more and more stuff into the Yahoo page
but it justs looks too busy.

Google - damn - the logo, the search box, some small print.
Sweet Perfection!

Google could do something to clean up those page designs.

And drop any useless graphics and go easy on the advertisements.
Especially moving GIF, Flash, talking video ads with sound, etc.
Ads that complex are just annoying, not encouraging business.

Re:Yahoo HomePage is TOO BUSY. (1)

generic-man (33649) | more than 8 years ago | (#14269906)

http://search.yahoo.com/ [yahoo.com]

http://search.msn.com/ [msn.com]

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

If you want just search, you can get just search. Besides, why aren't you using the search box in Firefox or a QuIcKs1l\/3r plugin for all your searching? That's even more compact.

Re:Yahoo HomePage is TOO BUSY. (1)

-kertrats- (718219) | more than 8 years ago | (#14269911)

search.yahoo.com has what you're looking for.

PHP: CREATED BY FAG JEWS, LOVED BY DIRTY NEGEROS (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14269312)


ANY TRUE HUMAN BEING (READ: WHITE PERSON) WOULD NEVER WRITE SOFTWARE IN SUCH A NIGGARDLY LANGUAGE! ANYONE WHO CREATES SOFTWARE IN SAID LANGUAGE IS A RACE TRAITOR! GET RID OF YOUR NIGGARDNESS! DROP THE KIKESPEAK! ABOLISH THIS ANTI-HUMAN FAGGOT COMPUTER LANGUAGE AT ALL COSTS!

Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about. Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page) If you want replies to your comments sent to you, consider logging in or creating an account Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads Please try to keep posts on topic Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about. Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page) If you want replies to your comments sent to you, consider logging in or creating an account Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads Please try to keep posts on topic

Good acquisition (1)

ivanov7000 (939220) | more than 8 years ago | (#14269321)

Their acquisition seems reasonable to me. In this way they can target people with specific needs

Dupe Quote - Ripoff of Del.icio.us Purchase Story (-1, Redundant)

licamell (778753) | more than 8 years ago | (#14269351)

Todays article: "The Guardian has quite an insightful article about recent Yahoo acquisitions Delicious and Flickr. They quote Joshua Schachter, Delicious' creator: 'We're excited to be working with the Yahoo search team - they definitely get social systems and their potential to change the web. We're also excited to be joining our fraternal twin, Flickr!' And why Yahoo's interest? The article opines: 'It takes a lot of the hard work out of searching the web. The very clever thing about social software is that it puts the burden on to the user, not the provider.'"

Dec. 9th: "The developers at del.icio.us have announced that they were purchased by Yahoo!. From the post: 'We're proud to announce that del.icio.us has joined the Yahoo! family. Together we'll continue to improve how people discover, remember and share on the Internet, with a big emphasis on the power of community. We're excited to be working with the Yahoo! Search team - they definitely get social systems and their potential to change the web. (We're also excited to be joining our fraternal twin Flickr!)'" For background on this purchase, carre4 writes "Stuart Maxwell, Jeff Barr, and Yahoo! team's Jeremy Zawodny recently did an interview explaining What's so cool about del.icio.us, in which Jeremy gave a non-committal answer about Yahoo acquiring del.ico.us"

Why this is a bad idea. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14269492)


Algorithms and 'communities' used to deliver content based on previous and current interests are completely
perverse if you think about it. What defines human intelligence? It is the capacity to grow, to change. All of us move from one thing to another in our lives. We are not cast in stone. Generally the more intelligent you are the faster you will move through lifes chocolate box. Politically you'll be a fascist at 14 where the simple rules of power seem appealing, but by your 20s you'll have discovered other people, community and responsibility and start to take on socialist ideologies. In your late 30s you'll learn to temper ideologies with realism and become more of a conservative liberal. Perhaps by retirement your fear of progress and change will take you full cycle back to the stagnant naivety of right wing thinking again. Throughout this life you will have interests in cars, then not. Maybe your passion for football will wane and a love of fishing will take over, only to be replaced by a love of flying or motorsports. Your teenage apathy for diet might blossom into a curiosity for food and fine wines. Even seemingly immutable characteristics have the capacity to change. Atheists become believers and vice versa, you might even change your sexuality. The thinking behind much of the current attempts to direct content at people based on their profile is damaging. You simply become more of yourself. So these are actually inhibiting and stifling technologies. To circumvent them I find it useful to develop multiple online personalities, or to occasionally correct my profile by taking an interest in far right politics for a week, or suddenly becoming a fan of art movies, or looking at property in the south. This has huge payoffs, not least of which I get to know the views of my enemies and occasionally I genuinely take on new ideas and interests that were far outside of my scope. Only this way do I stop profiling from effectively connecting my arse to my mouth and exploding me in a feedback loop of drowning in my own shit. As Einstein said "Life is a bicycle, to stay on it you must keep moving" Profiling and hanging out in cliques stops you from doing so. I dare to say, even this very Slashdot website is one such example.

Re:Why this is a bad idea. (1)

MikeURL (890801) | more than 8 years ago | (#14270372)

Interesting post AC and even though it may just be a C&P it has relevance to this social bookmarking. In fact, I'll quote it for the people not reading at -1.

"Algorithms and 'communities' used to deliver content based on previous and current interests are completely perverse if you think about it. What defines human intelligence? It is the capacity to grow, to change. All of us move from one thing to another in our lives. We are not cast in stone. Generally the more intelligent you are the faster you will move through lifes chocolate box. Politically you'll be a fascist at 14 where the simple rules of power seem appealing, but by your 20s you'll have discovered other people, community and responsibility and start to take on socialist ideologies. In your late 30s you'll learn to temper ideologies with realism and become more of a conservative liberal. Perhaps by retirement your fear of progress and change will take you full cycle back to the stagnant naivety of right wing thinking again. Throughout this life you will have interests in cars, then not. Maybe your passion for football will wane and a love of fishing will take over, only to be replaced by a love of flying or motorsports. Your teenage apathy for diet might blossom into a curiosity for food and fine wines. Even seemingly immutable characteristics have the capacity to change. Atheists become believers and vice versa, you might even change your sexuality. The thinking behind much of the current attempts to direct content at people based on their profile is damaging. You simply become more of yourself. So these are actually inhibiting and stifling technologies. To circumvent them I find it useful to develop multiple online personalities, or to occasionally correct my profile by taking an interest in far right politics for a week, or suddenly becoming a fan of art movies, or looking at property in the south. This has huge payoffs, not least of which I get to know the views of my enemies and occasionally I genuinely take on new ideas and interests that were far outside of my scope. Only this way do I stop profiling from effectively connecting my arse to my mouth and exploding me in a feedback loop of drowning in my own shit. As Einstein said "Life is a bicycle, to stay on it you must keep moving" Profiling and hanging out in cliques stops you from doing so. I dare to say, even this very Slashdot website is one such example."

Re:Why this is a bad idea. (1)

vidarh (309115) | more than 8 years ago | (#14270756)

Yet we already do filter by interests. Most of us pick newspapers biased to our political views, TV channels that feed us programming that match our interests, go to restaurants that serves the type of food we already know we like etc.

We experiment mainly in two ways: Where one preference means we come in contact with someone who doesn't share our preferences in another area - for instance meeting friends who share an interest in programming but eat different food than me might get me to try eating something new -, and general curiosity; wondering if there isn't "something else" out there.

I share some of your worries. I am sure some people will self-reinforce many traits much more than today. And I am concerned that society will become much more resistant to change, and much more polarised, if everyone gets their own version of "truth" and can limit their exposure to other thinking much more efficiently.

On the other hand, I try to be hopeful that most people will still be curious, and will still rely on where some of their interests intersect with someone otherwise very different to try new things.

Social Book Marketing? (1)

xoip (920266) | more than 8 years ago | (#14269638)

The Del.icio.us acquisition by Yahoo is about to turn into one of the most innovative and powerful marketing tools since Adsense. Visitors who swarm a site will be presented with end up with highly targeted ads being served at them and advertisers will have better market segmentation as tags are grouped by user.

del.icio.us fear (1)

fncll (159437) | more than 8 years ago | (#14269806)

I worry that del.icio.us-- which is the best, though not the most featureful, service of its kind-- is going to get ruined by Yahoo. Of course they say they are not going to mess with it and that it won't get merged into MyWeb and Joshua can do his own thing... and I'm sure that no small part of the acceptance of the offer is based on Flickr surviving the transition pretty well (even given the balking at the Yahoo account thing)... but we've all heard this story before. Yahoo ruined Launch. AOL gutted Winamp. No one ever plans for it to happen.

On the positive side, with the resources they have, imagine what they could do! Google deserves the credit it gets not for inventing new things (though how quickly we forget how innovative Google has been-- no one likes the king of the hill) but for taking existing ideas and making them a LOT better. Sometimes.

Re:del.icio.us fear (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14270512)

Yahoo bought Kelkoo in Europe, but I haven't seen any changes there.

Still Haven't Found What I Am Looking For? (1)

sonofdelphi (924286) | more than 8 years ago | (#14270148)

Presently it seems that both Yahoo! and Google are both presently concentrating on lapping up growing and popular websites.. When will the serpents eat their tails? The question is: Who (Yahoo!/Google) is going to acquire the other(Google/Yahoo!)? I wish they used this time and effort to improve their search technologies - which seems to be stagnating - they're putting their feet into too many boats - forgetting where they came from, their roots, what made them what they are really.... ...because I still haven't found what I am looking for!

Re:Still Haven't Found What I Am Looking For? (1)

tommers (893816) | more than 8 years ago | (#14270282)

I could understand skepticism about the significance of social search, but Yahoo seems to be focusing on how many of these community features can improve the search relevance experience. Since search engines are so complex and there are so many things to balance, it seems it gets harder and harder to improve an engine through tuning alone, so working on longer term concepts that improve relevancy in new ways might end up creating the next evolution in search relevancy.

But, I do agree that over the past two years search engine relevancy has certainly not improved in the ways mail and maps have. But I think this is less because it is a priority and more because new stragies are needed to improve them.

Keeping my fingers crossed.

Re:Still Haven't Found What I Am Looking For? (1)

sonofdelphi (924286) | more than 8 years ago | (#14270345)

Aren't these acquisitions just a ploy to gain market- and mind-share? It's just that they are making it look like these would be used for improving search results.

Social networking is a powerful marketing idea but nothing more, in my book. Search relevance improvement is out of the picture.

Oh, for a non-commercial Web again! What I need is information, not your product...

Rest of the quote (1)

sulli (195030) | more than 8 years ago | (#14270435)

The very clever thing about social software is that it puts the burden on to the user, not the provider.

And it's very easy to send a copy to the Chinese Communist Party so that the user can be properly "re-educated."

Waiting to be bought out (1)

Shadowin (312793) | more than 8 years ago | (#14271708)

Since we're talking about acquisitions, does anyone else get the impression that eventful.com is trying to get bought by Google?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?