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!

Yahoo! Yields Search Dominance to Google

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the bowing-out dept.

Yahoo! 180

Unsichtbarer_Mensch wrote to mention a Seattle PI story in which Yahoo! CFO Susan Decker states that they're not aiming to be the No. 1 Search engine. From the article: "Yahoo!'s comments underline the difficulties any Internet company faces in trying to challenge Google's dominance of the Web search industry. Google has at least double the market share of Yahoo! and Microsoft Corp. in Internet search, the largest and most profitable segment of online advertising. 'In some countries, it's already game over in search, with Google the clear victor,' said RBC Capital Markets analyst Jordan Rohan in New York. 'Google's product development pipeline runs at such a fast rate that it's very difficult for any company, Microsoft or Yahoo! to catch up.'"

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

Dupe (1)

Reikk (534266) | more than 8 years ago | (#14550093)

I already read this yesterday in digg.com

Innovation (4, Insightful)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 8 years ago | (#14550103)

it's already game over in search

That's a great attitude for promoting competition and innovation! It's good to hear we'll never see any new ideas come out of these companies.

Re:Innovation (2, Insightful)

decipher_saint (72686) | more than 8 years ago | (#14550129)

Trying is the first step toward failure...

Re:Innovation (2, Funny)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 8 years ago | (#14550207)

Homer: Kids, you tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is, never try.

Re:Innovation (2, Interesting)

QMO (836285) | more than 8 years ago | (#14550391)

"Trying is the first step toward failure..."

That soulds like something from http://www.despair.com/ [despair.com]

Re:Innovation (4, Insightful)

mspohr (589790) | more than 8 years ago | (#14550384)

Many times in the computer world it has been pronounce "game over" and many times the game has changed. (think WordStar, EasyCalc, Lotus123, MS-DOS, MSIE, and yes, Windows and MS Office).

The market leader always likes to tell people "don't even try to beat us" but people can and will beat them.

Re:Innovation (2)

tehlinux (896034) | more than 8 years ago | (#14550543)

"it's already game over in search"

"That's a great attitude for promoting competition and innovation! It's good to hear we'll never see any new ideas come out of these companies."


I still expect to see a lot of good ideas come out of Yahoo!, even in their search technology. This isn't necessarily a bad attitude if you think about it. You don't stop a speeding train by stepping in front of it.

Re:Innovation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14550849)

'In some countries, it's already game over in search, with Google the clear victor,' said RBC Capital Markets analyst Jordan Roha.
RBC invested in SCO.

Very funny, now untie me. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14550107)

Jordan Rohan, my Lord, is ready to fall.

the analogy police might arrest me for this, but.. (3, Insightful)

B3ryllium (571199) | more than 8 years ago | (#14550110)

Isn't that like saying "IBM yields OS Dominance to Microsoft" when talking about IBM PC-DOS or OS/2 vs. Windows XP? :)

Re:the analogy police might arrest me for this, bu (3, Interesting)

macadamia_harold (947445) | more than 8 years ago | (#14550187)

Wasn't Yahoo's strength always that it was a directory, not a search engine? They've always outsourced their search .

Re:the analogy police might arrest me for this, bu (1)

B3ryllium (571199) | more than 8 years ago | (#14550451)

If anything, that just makes my analogy Double True :)

(Due to IBM outsourcing PC-DOS and possibly parts of OS/2 development ... specifically to MS, I believe ... :))

Re:the analogy police might arrest me for this, bu (2, Insightful)

mrklin (608689) | more than 8 years ago | (#14550768)

Yahoo's strength, and the company itself has said that over and over, is that it is a media company which encompasses being a directory, a portal, a provider of services - one of which includes search.

my only fear is... (5, Informative)

gg3po (724025) | more than 8 years ago | (#14550117)

I've loved google in the past, but my only fear is that as they evolve into a defacto monopoly, their "do no evil" bit will be tossed. One dominant provider of any service (monopoly) is never a good thing, no matter how good the source started out. Power corrupts, and all that...

Anyone remember googlezon? (1)

Rooked_One (591287) | more than 8 years ago | (#14550146)

I think that was the name of it - showing how google would merge with amazon and make some hilarious new system in which all your info would be right there for the world to see.

Re:my only fear is... (3, Interesting)

Mrs. Grundy (680212) | more than 8 years ago | (#14550166)

I doubt it will be as simple as tossing their 'do no evil' mandate, but rather the law of unintended consequences will take hold as they grow. Things they think are harmless or even good can and probably will have effects they cannot control. This is especially difficult as one tries to balance the ethical dilemma of doing 'no evil' to shareholders as well as users simultaneously.

Absolute Power (1)

millahtime (710421) | more than 8 years ago | (#14550287)

Google already is a massive power when it comes to search. They are not quite there yet but on the way to having the market share of Microsoft when it comes to search. With Google branching out into all of the other areas of a web portal and leveraging their popularity to steal people away from others at what point will Google become too dominant? Personally, I would rather see 3 big names (at least). A single party system can dictate too much, a 2 party system has too much fighting between the two. We need more options and less dominance.

Re:my only fear is... (1)

ClearlyPennsylvania (918245) | more than 8 years ago | (#14550389)

Compare Google and Microsoft: Microsoft: high switching costs to users. You want to use a Mac? Go for it, but: you'll be unfamiliar with how to use it, your machine at work will likely not be a Mac, not all your software will run, etc... Google: low switchings costs to users. You want to use Yahoo? Go for it. You'll know how to use it already, and there are no compatibility issues. Microsoft: doesn't need the trust of users. Google: counts on the trust of its users - they need it for gmail, talk, etc. So, you see, this "do no evil" thing is not just something the execs like to say - it's something that they need. Additionally, the larger a company grows, the more its culture is ingrained. Simply by Google starting off with a culture of "do no evil," it's much more likely to stay that way for a long time.

Re:my only fear is... (1)

ClamIAm (926466) | more than 8 years ago | (#14551105)

Additionally, the larger a company grows, the more its culture is ingrained. Simply by Google starting off with a culture of "do no evil," it's much more likely to stay that way for a long time.

Similarly, compare Google's early days to Microsoft's. MS has pretty much always been a lot more evil.

Re:my only fear is... (1)

porkThreeWays (895269) | more than 8 years ago | (#14550390)

If their recent refusal to give the gov't information regarding what people searched is any indication, they are already on the way.
k thx slash sarcasm

Seriously though. That bold move made them take a huge stock hit. Giving away those records wouldn't have negatively affected their business, so the only conclusion I can really come to (given their history) is that they did that purely for moral reasons. They are smart guys and knew their stock would take a hit, but did it anyway. Does this sound like an evil company to you?

Re:my only fear is... (1)

guaigean (867316) | more than 8 years ago | (#14550440)

No, it doesn't sound like an evil company. If anything, Google has held a very good history with their "do no evil" process. My fear is not of Google now. My fear is of Google in 10 years when the benevolent dictatorship realizes its power, and someone unscrupulous takes over. It is a reoccurring theme in history, and is likely to happen eventually. I just hope that their dominance does not encourage others to avoid the market.

Re:my only fear is... (1)

OOGG_THE_CAVEMAN (609069) | more than 8 years ago | (#14550463)

That stonewalling sure is mysterious, and cheers up those who want to stick it to the current Justice Department, but I think the real problem for Google is they have *shitloads* of data on what web sites folks visit, and this is possibly fundamental to their ability to offer relevant ads that are their revenue source.

Letting anybody with a subpoena go trawling through this ocean of data could really open Google up to having to support a lot of litigation, and probably opens up serious liability issues for Google itself, although IANAL, so I couldn't really say.

That hit on their stock price could be due to the market realizing "hey, Google isn't using magic powers, but is dependent on some huge, mysterious apparatus that might be outlawed or sued into oblivion." Sounds like a real issue to me.

Re:my only fear is... (1, Insightful)

BewireNomali (618969) | more than 8 years ago | (#14550719)

dude, do no evil is diametrically opposed to any publicly held company. they can and will do more evil.

when amazon started up, everyone thought that they'd get smashed by the brick and mortar retailers - B&N, Borders, et al. The only way they were able to thrive was through diversification. I caught my business partner buying sex toys on Amazon. If only she were hot.

The contention was that the brick and mortars could discount the internet guys into oblivion since they didn't rely on the web as a sole source of revenue. It's a valid contention to a certain degree, but Amazon exists and isn't doing badly.

So if I were a google shareholder - I'd be very afraid that they aren't making money off anything else. I don't think Microsoft is actually a serious competitor here - rather Yahoo - with its all encompassing portal services. It's an interesting and well integrated one stop solution. Google honestly seems slapdash in comparison. And lets not forget, Live.com is coming along nicely.

The web Gods shine down on Google as its taken Yahoo and Microsoft eons to mount serious competition. But to date - Google only sells one product that seriously and significantly affects the bottom line. shareholders won't stand for that. Google's leadership will be forced to diversify or be deposed. Thus the erosion of the culture begins.

Re:my only fear is... (1)

TMarvelous (928161) | more than 8 years ago | (#14551304)

Being the dominant provider doesn't make a monopoly especially in search. It's as democratic as it gets. I can type in any url I want when I'm looking for information and google can do nothing to prevent that. Now if Google became my ISP and denied my access to MSN or Yahoo search they would be behaving as a monopoly. btw - I spell-check my posts in Outlook before submitting them and M$ capitalized the leading G in Google for me!

They don't need to do evil (1)

Doros (887174) | more than 8 years ago | (#14551366)

If Google gets a Microsoft-like grip on the search market (>90%), they don't need to do evil. Doing nothing at all is bad enough. Once they own the market, they don't need to compete, and all those innovative features that keep streaming out of Google might dry up.

Just a matter of time (3, Insightful)

Vivek Jishtu (905067) | more than 8 years ago | (#14550124)

First it was altavista then yahoo and google. Lets see who is next :)

Re:Just a matter of time (1)

Eightyford (893696) | more than 8 years ago | (#14550191)

First it was altavista then yahoo and google. Lets see who is next :) Askjeeves. No. Not really.

Re:Just a matter of time (1)

kjh1 (65671) | more than 8 years ago | (#14550208)

Agreed. At this point, it's hard to see how Google can be surpassed, but just think about it: are all of your search results exactly or even close to what you thought you would find? Nope. That's why there are at least a half dozen search engine upstarts that are working on the next generation of search technologies. Google has now attained a position like Yahoo where search is hardly their means of survival, but search is still a killer (and necessary) web application and someone else will come along and clean Google's clock.

_KJH

Re:Just a matter of time (1)

stevesliva (648202) | more than 8 years ago | (#14550493)

I tend to agree. If Google was be the usurper, why can't it be usurped itself?

I wonder, though, if it's now possible to achieve the step-function improvement in relevancy that Google achieved. And I think that this time around, the giants won't be sleeping-- They'll buy the upstarts or copy them.

Re:Just a matter of time (1)

kminchau (850732) | more than 8 years ago | (#14550506)

First it was altavista then yahoo and google. Lets see who is next :)

Microsoft!!

(Ducks and hides from the inevitable comments being thrown at him)

Re:Just a matter of time (1)

Vivek Jishtu (905067) | more than 8 years ago | (#14550641)

It is quite possible that Microsoft is up next. With integration of MSN search into IE7 it won't take long for people using Vista to get used to MSN. They did it with IE. People were used to Netscape but as soon as IE came preinstalled netscape was history. With microsoft anything is possible. Though I would hate it.

Yahoo in neutral (4, Interesting)

peterdaly (123554) | more than 8 years ago | (#14550153)

"We don't think it's reasonable to assume we're going to gain a lot of share from Google," Chief Financial Officer Susan Decker said in an interview. "It's not our goal to be No. 1 in Internet search. We would be very happy to maintain our market share."

"maintain our market share" is what's interesting. She doesn't even say increase. That is not a good sign for Yahoo's search business.

I can imaging Ask employees giddy with glee seeing that search engine #2 has consciously put their search market share in neutral.

-Pete

Re:Yahoo in neutral (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14550215)

Growth is overrated. Seriously, if Yahoo can maintain a profit at the #2 place, then there is no need to grow. It might be nice to grow... assuming that you can show that the investment into growth will return a better profit than what you have now. Just because you're a bigger company doesn't mean you have bigger margins, only a better shot at an economy of scale, and when you're on the internet and webpages are dirt cheap, you don't get a lot of positives from that.

Re:Yahoo in neutral (1)

PriceIke (751512) | more than 8 years ago | (#14550375)

Growth in and of itself is without value. But growth for the sake of greed/ever-increasing profit almost always becomes (begets?) evil.

If I were a Yahoo shareholder, I'd be concerned by this statement given, because it effectively is a signal to the #3 search engine that says, "hey, we're ready for you guys to pass us. We're not gonna fight too hard to stay here.. knock yourself out."

They'll get eaten alive... (1)

NigelJohnstone (242811) | more than 8 years ago | (#14550397)

... and not in the good way.

"Seriously, if Yahoo can maintain a profit at the #2 place, then there is no need to grow."

Until someone else comes along with new ideas and walks all over them. Thats what Google did to Altavista & Lycos, Altavista quit trying because it wasn't making big money and Google took their market away from them.

I talked (rather exchanged emails) this afternoon with Ricardo Baeza Yates, the man Yahoo hired to head their Spanish research arm and by the sound of it he's after the cream of any PhD's he can get, so I don't believe this woman when she says loser stuff like that. She's just spouting off.

Re:Yahoo in neutral (1)

vertinox (846076) | more than 8 years ago | (#14550649)

I can imaging Ask employees giddy with glee seeing that search engine #2 has consciously put their search market share in neutral.

I don't think Yahoo makes their bread and butter off of web searches. Its mostly on the finacial pages (note, when you look up a stock quote on google it points to finance.yahoo.com). They mostly likely have realized they can't compete and will have to make their monies elswhere.

Re:Yahoo in neutral (1)

blamanj (253811) | more than 8 years ago | (#14550856)

You realize she said "maintain our market share," don't you. In a competitive market (think Ford, GM, Toyota), you don't maintain by giving up. You have to continue to innovate or you'll get creamed.

She'll probably catch flack inside Yahoo, but I think all she was saying is that search is not their #1 priority. Makes sense considering how many other things they're doing.

Take a leap! (5, Interesting)

Arthur B. (806360) | more than 8 years ago | (#14550159)

Maybe they are not going to catch google at this "raw brute-force search engine game"... good for them! Why would one try to imitate such a primitive way of searching. Come on, this is the prehistory of search engines, there is so so much more to do. They should take a leap into next generation search engines. When I look for a movie, I go to imdb, when I look for a scientific article, I go directly to wikipedia... I wish I'd use only one site but I need to look for more than a movie title, I want to specify it is a movie, and if in my native language "movie" is written just like "baby diapers" I still want to be unambiguous... Google still relies VERY heavily on syntaxic tricks... there are so many "tricks" in Google maps it is sickening, just for the sake of keeping a single search bar. The future is clearly semantic, I think Google is seeing it with Google base but for the moment, this is their only "appearant" use.

Re:Take a leap! (1)

mojosupreme (949038) | more than 8 years ago | (#14550401)

Dear Arthur, I am glad you feel that way and only hope you are not alone. I know I thought similarly so I devised a product that would probably help you out. Essentially, it is a domain-specific vertical search engine, called http://www.metamojo.com/ [metamojo.com] - enter your query and then INSTEAD of pressing enter, click on the category of interest from the list below the search box. Instead of blindly returning results from ALL over the Web and the engine assuming what context you are searching for, you - the user - tell the search engine what state of mind you are in. After all a student searching for Berlin might want WWII info, a couple might want travel info... Alternatively, you can check out: http://www.flickmojo.com/ [flickmojo.com] for films and movies http://www.arcademojo.com/ [arcademojo.com] for video games http://www.escapemojo.com/ [escapemojo.com] for travel. the list goes on and on. Is this the best search engine out there? Of course not. Is there such a thing? Of course not. Is this a search tool for everyone? Of course not. Is there such a thing? Of course not. All to say, it does seem to be for someone with your needs. Enjoy, and mainly I look forward to your feedback, Cheers MojoSupreme

Re:Take a leap! (1)

Arthur B. (806360) | more than 8 years ago | (#14550907)

Yep this is nice... but far from being enough... category specific search is just one thing, the web need to be pushed to full semantic searches, to allow me to look for example to map the people who liked a particular movie, see the list of schools who have a teacher teaching a particular subject etc.

del.icio.us (2, Interesting)

massysett (910130) | more than 8 years ago | (#14550652)

Maybe they are not going to catch google at this "raw brute-force search engine game"... good for them!

Some say they are already going in this direction, which is why they acquired del.icio.us. Why have computers characterize pages when humans will do it for you, and for free? Sometimes I search for things in del.icio.us, and the other users' bookmarks turn up some good results. It will be interesting to see if Yahoo can harness this in a big way.

Re:Take a leap! (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 8 years ago | (#14550828)

Personally, the feature I most want to see on google is for all the wikipedia-sucking site results to be listed as being "similar" to the wikipedia result. Oh yeah, and, I'd like to be able to exclude all those fucking sites that require you to pay to see an answer, that's #2. If I could bomb those guys' house I probably would, they're poisoning search.

Re:Take a leap! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14551094)

yeah. i hate searching for a tech support problem for my computer and get 'yeah if you pay for us we'll get you the last critical step to being able to use your computer again!' FU I PAY FOR THE INTERNET GaAHHH

Re:Take a leap! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14551069)

You're crazy. The next time you decide to go to IMDB, try searching for the movie/actor name on google first. 90% of the time the IMDB site will come up at the top (because 90% of the time the IMDB answer is the best one out there). Ditto for wikipedia.

You don't have to use any crazy tricks to make it happen, it will just happen. Sure, if you add imdb or wikipedia to your query, it increases the chances, but it is usually unnecessary. Besides, adding the term to the query if you don't get the results you want is much faster than using the internal search engines from either of those sources.

Re:Take a leap! (1)

Arthur B. (806360) | more than 8 years ago | (#14551148)

This "often" works because the "syntax" is a good hash function for the semantic... as long as the movie title is rather unique, it'll work. Try looking for a movie called "the web" for example... Adding imdb or wikipedia to the query? Well, this is precisely adding semantic to your query.

Re:Take a leap! (1)

ClamIAm (926466) | more than 8 years ago | (#14551134)

and if in my native language "movie" is written just like "baby diapers" I still want to be unambiguous

Given the quality of most Hollywood movies, this probably isn't entirely unaccurate.

Hi, I'm Yahoo. My mistakes teach me nothing. (5, Funny)

DysenteryInTheRanks (902824) | more than 8 years ago | (#14550175)

Hello, my name is Yahoo. During the dot-com boom, I forgot search was important and let Google take over my core franchise. Then in 2002 I spent $235 million [yahoo.com] buying Inktomi to try and catch up and create the "highest quality search."

Now, just as Google becomes choked with spamblogs and linkfarms and results bought and paid for by SEOs, I am once again ceding competitiveness in the most important part of Internet media.

If you are a shareholder, and this bothers you, please remember you bought stock in a company WHOSE NAME MEANS FUCKING IDIOT [m-w.com] .

Thank you, and have a nice day.

drama queen (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14550271)

please -- such drama.

yahoo is better search and has many more products and tools than google.

that's a fact

Re:drama queen (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14550648)

You are a queerbo. And you are wrong. And your mother was wrong for having you. And you have no sense of humor.

That's a fact.

Yahoo = "boorish, crass, or stupid person" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14550765)

If you are a shareholder, and this bothers you, please remember you bought stock in a company WHOSE NAME MEANS FUCKING IDIOT.


Jerry Yang's business card reads "Chief Yahoo" . I thought a liberal education is supposed to teach you this stuff, but no wonder:

http://www.epinions.com/content_73675148932 [epinions.com]

Re:Hi, I'm Yahoo. My mistakes teach me nothing. (1)

pthisis (27352) | more than 8 years ago | (#14551213)

During the dot-com boom, I forgot search was important and let Google take over my core franchise.

Since when was search ever Yahoo's core franchise? It started off as a way to share the founder's bookmarks online and evolved into a hierarchical link categorization system. Then it added portal features and tacked on a search engine. But http://www.dmoz.org/ [dmoz.org] is much closer to their original "core business", and even http://del.icio.us/ [del.icio.us] is much closer to what they do than Google is.

I'm not even sure they had a general Internet search box before they went with Google in that capacity, and they only got into developing such a thing after purchasing Inktomi in 2002 (well after the dot-com boom).

Google's search competitors were other search engines, mainly Lycos and Altavista (Lycos being the older of the two and the first widely used general search engine, Altavista being the predominant search engine by the time Google was in the field).

only a message to investors (4, Insightful)

snooo53 (663796) | more than 8 years ago | (#14550186)

This doesn't mean Yahoo is going to abandon searching by any means. Instead I think this is a message to investors not to grade them by their search marketshare becuase they don't consider that important anymore. If anything, this opens up the door to more innovation because they can be the quiet underdog. Yahoo can focus more on R&D and let google try to struggle to maintain dominance when investors are breathing down their necks about profit numbers and market share

Not too long ago, didn't AMD essentially throw in the towel to Intel by saying they weren't going to compete for the fastest processor anymore? And look at what they are offering today with their 64bit processors. As long as yahoo continues to innovate they aren't dead

Re:only a message to investors (1)

mcguyver (589810) | more than 8 years ago | (#14550657)

Instead I think this is a message to investors not to grade them by their search marketshare becuase they don't consider that important anymore.

I couldn't agree more. Yahoo has much more than just search results and the focus should be elsewhere. Google on the other hand is search engine first that generates its revenue by being the largest adsense website. Google's focus is obviously search.

Google was the victor. They still are (for now). (4, Interesting)

mmell (832646) | more than 8 years ago | (#14550196)

But even a quick look will show you that Google is aware of their preeminence in the search engine arena. While they are still innovating, I'm just waiting for them to become so caught up in their own greatness that they kick back and rest on their laurels.

Because that's when somebody'll come up with "a better mousetrap" and unseat the reigning kings of search. Anybody here remember Browser War I (BW I)? Microsoft won that one and suddenly Insecure Exploder didn't need to be improved any more.

Sorta like the way Wal-Mart grew up (hellfire, I can remember driving out of the city to a rural area just to shop at Wal-mart. Now that they're a retailing juggernaut I avoid Wal-mart whenever possible - their customer service sucks almost as bad as their mostly-imported product lines).

Re:Google was the victor. They still are (for now) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14550827)

Precisely.

The day google puts scrolling FLASH spamverts all over the page and animated gifs, *that's* the day I switch to another engine.

Oh No! (0, Troll)

Burning1 (204959) | more than 8 years ago | (#14550209)

Oh no! The bastard monopolists at Google are crushing the freedom-loving people at Yahoo and Microsoft!

I'm trying to figure out what happened. It seems to me that many slashdotters have a fundimental urge to root for the underdog. Slashdot seems to fear any company that becomes successfull. Shouldn't we all be proud that an ethical company that relies on Open Source Software has become a dominant player in the search industry?

If someone knows an honest example of google violationg (our) trust, I'd be interested in hearing about it.

Very interesting coincidence (4, Insightful)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 8 years ago | (#14550236)

The /. quote on the bottom of this page:

Lack of capability is usually disguised by lack of interest.

Not quite applicable (1)

GroeFaZ (850443) | more than 8 years ago | (#14550501)

'Google's product development pipeline runs at such a fast rate that it's very difficult for any company, Microsoft or Yahoo! to catch up.'

To me this looks like a pretty clear confession of having smaller balls. Erhm. A smaller pipeline. NO NO NO, not that, you know what I mean.

Quality of Google Search has decreased however... (4, Interesting)

us7892 (655683) | more than 8 years ago | (#14550242)

It used to be that technical searches (the kind you use at work when searching for code snippets, general help, etc.) turned up some excellent result using Google. Back when AltaVista was still around, I switched to google because Google had great result lists.

In the past year or so, there are just too many junk results. Sites which exist only to flood us with google ads; sites that are fake (you know the ones, with obviously bulk generated text to "match" your search); and poor "help" sites which also seem to exist just for ad revenue...

The next "google" will be the one that filters out the garbage, and brings the result lists back to the way they were 1999-2001...actually, Google will probably allow us to mark results as bogus, like a personal "black list". Maybe they allow this already?

Re:Quality of Google Search has decreased however. (2)

Daniel Baumgarten (645894) | more than 8 years ago | (#14550355)

They do. It's called "Personalized Search."

Re:Quality of Google Search has decreased however. (1)

OOGG_THE_CAVEMAN (609069) | more than 8 years ago | (#14550382)

Google has to deal with the Web as it is right now, not as it was in the ancient past of 1999; that's not to excuse them, but crap results could mean the Web has a lot more crap now. It's very hard for a computer to make these decisions, but I'm sure Google has lots of smart people trying to fight off the hordes of people who want to pillage the clicks of the billions of visits to Google.

In any case, I believe if you are logged into your Google account, you get a link "Remove Result" on your searches, which probably fees back in some way to improve future search results.

Re:Quality of Google Search has decreased however. (1)

davidsyes (765062) | more than 8 years ago | (#14550579)

Introducing "Gargle" and "Googerine". We're better than Yahoo! and Google. We take in your request, we rinse, and then regurgitate it back to you. It's probably going to have some garbage, but it'll be a lot cleaner with less "data plaque"...

Re:Quality of Google Search has decreased however. (2, Interesting)

mikepaktinat (609872) | more than 8 years ago | (#14550663)

You should check out the firefox extension "customizegoogle"

It lets you filter results in "black list" fasion(among other crazy google customizations)

Re:Quality of Google Search has decreased however. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14550770)

Check out the "Remove result" link next to every result blurb.

happy or sad? (1)

dotpavan (829804) | more than 8 years ago | (#14550247)

Yahoo must be confused as to whether it should be happy or sad, happy that it had invested in the then startup called Google, or sad that the small baby has overtaken the daddy himself!

Good Move (1)

skubeedooo (826094) | more than 8 years ago | (#14550248)

I'm not really surprised, it seems like there is far more scope for improvement in turning the web into a useful platform than there is in trying to make a search engine epsilon better than Google's. In the tech industry it seems you only supplant the incumbant in his own domain by being an order of magnitude better, as Google did in the 90's. Maybe search just doesn't have any potential order-of-magnitude improvements that could help Yahoo leapfrog Google. Perhaps they're better off staking their place in the next revolution - the web as a platform.

Conan, what is best in life? (2, Funny)

MightyMait (787428) | more than 8 years ago | (#14550268)

To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women.

The new elite industries... (1)

lpangelrob (714473) | more than 8 years ago | (#14550269)

'Google's product development pipeline runs at such a fast rate that it's very difficult for any company, Microsoft or Yahoo! to catch up.'

It's not just coincedence that Google only hires the best and brightest to work for them.

So is this going to be the future of industry in the U.S.? Whoever gets the brightest and smartest, not only wins, but dominates for generations to come?

If so, the populace is woefully unprepared. Considering that teachers are largely mediocre, the educational system is underfunded and in many areas of society education just isn't really that important, what will happen to a declining, undereducated workforce in the next 50 years?

Re:The new elite industries... (1)

dioscaido (541037) | more than 8 years ago | (#14550956)

"dominate for generations to come"? Don't you think you are jumping the gun a bit?

Looking out for #1 (2, Insightful)

digitaldc (879047) | more than 8 years ago | (#14550292)

"It really ought to be their goal" to be No. 1, he said. "Whether it's realistic or not."

I'm a big dreamer. I shoot for unrealistic goals all the time and it totally works for me.

Ummm...so? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14550311)

This is, with due respect, stupidly alarmist.

There are a lot of computer makers out there who do NOT aspire to be Dell. There are radio stations that do not aspire to be ClearChannel. There are financial compaies that do not aspire to be Citibank.

"Largest volume" does not and never has implied "best." Nor does it imply "most profitable."

Yahoo is not throwing in the towel and abandoning having a good search product. They're saying that, on their list of priorities, topping Google purely on volume is not their highest priority.

Superior Product (1)

TheDoctorWho (858166) | more than 8 years ago | (#14550323)

By and far Google has been a superior product over any other search engine ever made available since the dawn of the internet. Even when google first started you could find great results with minimal serach criteria. And the results you were looking for would nearly alwasy be on the front page. Other search engines just could not do the same thing, not even close.

Well, I for one (2)

gallwapa (909389) | more than 8 years ago | (#14550326)

I for one have been using google for over 6 years now - and the search results have always been EXACT. I have never liked the link whore page that is Yahoo, and before that I used "Infoseek" (1996) because it had "Search within results" - after they became "Go" it went downhill and I switched to google. I have never seen an instance where Google hasn't delivered on its promises, for all but 1 period of time. I remember being frustrated in late 2002 early 2003 when the search results were including meaningless blogs. I didnt give a damn about other people's opinions in my search, I just wanted to get to the page I searched on two months ago. At any rate, Google fixed that, has gone public, and has been offering a number of quality services since. With the aquisition of Keyhole, the advent of google local, froogle, News, alerts, and specifically GMail and Google Talk, google deliver what I want as a customer. I want a lightweight experience that *I* can add to if I choose. I *LIKE* the google talk client because it doesnt have 283423492340234 smilies, and all the other 'crap'. I like GMAIL and Google search for its simplicity and un-cluttered look. A google search within my email? Thank you, Lord. To say that Yahoo may still innovate and stuff - good for them, let them innovate, but if there is a Google branded product, I'd be more apt to go for it first: I'll let a computer analyze my email for targetted ads a lot faster than I'd allow the Yahoo toolbar, for Y! messenger get installed. Yahoo Messenger - "Idiot" Messenger, think about it. Google has held true to its very explicit privacy policies, and makes known EXACTLY what will be going on in a short, readable paragraph or two.

Re:Well, I for one (1)

gallwapa (909389) | more than 8 years ago | (#14550360)

...now if only slashdot would recognize a carriage return instead of having to type

when I forget to change the format setting

dang it

Re:Well, I for one (1)

op12 (830015) | more than 8 years ago | (#14550414)

You don't have to like the link whore page that is Yahoo: http://search.yahoo.com/ [yahoo.com]

Re:Well, I for one (1)

jack_csk (644290) | more than 8 years ago | (#14551149)

Given the recent news of search engines handing over user search records to governments, even the warrant does not specify a crime may have happened, Yahoo!, MSN, and AOL have a lot of things to do before any of them have "true dominance" to Google.

Makes sense. Yahoo is much more than "search." (5, Interesting)

dpbsmith (263124) | more than 8 years ago | (#14550344)

I'm reasonably net-savvy, but wife is a computer layperson. She's quite "computer literate" but has no real depth technical understanding. She bought a Gateway about six years ago, choosing Gateway because the liked the Holstein motif. She specifically wanted it to be _her_ computer and wanted me _not_ to "help" her or hang over her shoulder or kibbitz.

When you double-clicked the IE icon, it brought you to a Gateway-badged version of the Yahoo home page. So, her network experience started with Yahoo and she never turned back.

By the time I offered to help her configure Outlook Express to work with our ISP's email, something I thought she might have trouble with, she said "But I already have email." She had signed up for a Yahoo account, and she thought and still thinks that there's no reason at all to use anything else. (And she was proved right when our ISP had some infuriating email outages, lasting several days each, and my email was interrupted while Yahoo's was completely unaffected).

She uses Yahoo weather, Yahoo maps, belongs to several Yahoo groups, books her plane flights with Yahoo travel, and so forth and so on. Yahoo is well-designed, engaging, caters to novices, and is a portal to many things that she wants to do on the Internet.

It is, in fact, all the things that AOL tried to be and wasn't.

The only thing she doesn't use Yahoo for is searching. Within about a month after Google launched, I discovered it and was impressed by how much better it was than either Yahoo or Altavista. I mentioned it to her, she tried it, she loved it, and has used nothing else since.

I have no idea at all what Lycos and all the others are up to these days...

Re:Makes sense. Yahoo is much more than "search." (1)

Caspian (99221) | more than 8 years ago | (#14550735)

"Yahoo is well-designed, engaging, caters to novices..."
And that, my friends, is why it will never go away, even if Google eats its lunch. There will ALWAYS be a market for "search solutions for noobs". Of course, Google could buy Yahoo!...

Re:Makes sense. Yahoo is much more than "search." (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14550761)

Makes sense. Yahoo is much more than "search."

I think that's true. I think Yahoo (wisely) saw the rapid emergence of Google and tried to shore up other markets neglected by Google.

Here in Korea, where I am at present yahoo seem to have a pretty good share off e-mail but they do compete with Korean companies like Daum. As to whether they can maintain competetiveness in the future, I don't know. I'd hazard a guess that they should keep looking for new markets and maybe rebrand themselves. For allot of people the word Yahoo now symbolizes 2nd. (soon to be 3rd?) best

Re:Makes sense. Yahoo is much more than "search." (1)

idfubar (668691) | more than 8 years ago | (#14550835)

Yahoo still has a ton of content and features that Google doesn't offer. The comprehensive nature of their offerings keeps me going back even though I'm plenty net-savy.

Makes Sense.... (1)

porcupine8 (816071) | more than 8 years ago | (#14550366)

I use Yahoo for many things every day - maps, email (yes, I like Yahoo's implementation of both of these better than Google's), weather, yellow pages, movie times, you name it. General searching? Never. They do plenty of other things (many of which could be thought of as very narrow search engines, like for movie times or weather), I can see why they don't want to put all their effort into competing with Google for the general search market. They're not giving up, they're just choosing to focus on other parts of their business.

Horsepucky! (5, Informative)

pla (258480) | more than 8 years ago | (#14550381)

Google's product development pipeline runs at such a fast rate that it's very difficult for any company, Microsoft or Yahoo! to catch up

Yeah, right, whatever. Although it sounds like a good excuse to give to one's own unhappy shareholders, Google's success has nothing to do with rapid "product development". Their core product hasn't changed (other than cute logos and the necessary shift from a 32bit limit a few years back) all that much, from the perspective of the end-user, since inception.

Not to say that Google doesn't keep coming out with cool new toys. But as much as they beat every clone to the punch with GMail, with their desktop search widget, and the rest of their toys - their core "product" still weighs in at 1.3k, fits on a 640x480 monitor, and has a single significant input field.


So why has Google kept their market against a player like Microsoft?

Because I don't need to wade through massive flash-hell to do a search. Because the search results page doesn't take great pains to obscure the content with the advertising. Because they told the DOJ to go pound sand rather than turn over my (and your) search histories. Because they just do what they do well, and found a way to make a tidy profit at that without annoying me. Because they proudly know "what is the answer to life, the universe, and everything?", when most companies would fire the developer who put in such a "useless" feature.


Because they "do no evil", put simply.

Re:Horsepucky! (1)

code65536 (302481) | more than 8 years ago | (#14550622)

You know, I remember back in the day when Yahoo! was the darling of news media and many people in the media wrote about their style: uncluttered, minimal graphics, and clean. Today's Yahoo! looks an awful like MSN. Cluttery--much unlike Google. It's ironic, no?

Re:Horsepucky! (2, Interesting)

OOGG_THE_CAVEMAN (609069) | more than 8 years ago | (#14550763)

their core "product" still weighs in at 1.3k, fits on a 640x480 monitor, and has a single significant input field.

I think this view of their "product" is totally naive.

Google makes squat from that blank page. They make lots of money from sticking tiny, unobtrusive, but still lucrative ads on all sorts of websites, including their own.

As long as they keep finding new ways to stick their ads all over the place on pages people want to view, and the ads stay lucrative, www.google.com itself could vanish, and GOOG would keep making money.

Re:Horsepucky! (1)

pla (258480) | more than 8 years ago | (#14551240)

I think this view of their "product" is totally naive.

Fair enough opinion...

But consider this: While adblocking software/plugins has become increasingly common (and when IE7 comes out, I'd say we can safely change that to "ubiquitous"), most of us deliberately do not block Google's text ads.

Why?

The same reasoning applies. Because it doesn't annoy me. It sits there on the side of the page, humbly minding its own business and, if I really want, I can look over and see what it has to offer me today.



But yes, I will concede as naive my view of GOOG's main product as "www.google.com". As will all advertising supported organizations, we the viewers count as their real "product".

Though, the cheese tastes good and they don't zap us very often.

Yahoo Calendar (1)

TheSync (5291) | more than 8 years ago | (#14550388)

Yahoo Mail's integrated calendaring ability makes it more useful to many people than Google Gmail. I think Gmail needs to add a calendaring function.

Maybe if yahoo! (1)

catahoula10 (944094) | more than 8 years ago | (#14550452)

Maybe if Yahoo! took all the crap off their main page like Goggle did people would go back to them. Goggle's clean front page is the only reason i switched from yahoo to goggle.

Re:Maybe if yahoo! (1)

tommers (893816) | more than 8 years ago | (#14550613)

Its been said many times before, but I might as well point out again that http://search.yahoo.com/ [yahoo.com] provides the same interface as Google.

The philosophy of the front page does affect other areas of the site, but the lack of a clean search front page would be resolved by search.yahoo.com if that were your only reason to switch.

Not a serach engine... (1)

starrift (864840) | more than 8 years ago | (#14550508)

I think it is important to point out that Yahoo! is not a search engine, it is a directory. People hand pick the websites at Yahoo! unlike google's web crawlers which are automated. So technically they aren't even in the same category. But the above article still applies. Just a little fact I thought I would throw in.

Re:Not a serach engine... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14550829)

Wow, someone has been living under a rock, for, I dunno, past 4 years.

Yahoo has gotten better (3, Insightful)

SilentChris (452960) | more than 8 years ago | (#14550514)

I've got to say Yahoo has impressed me lately. Not in search, which still pales compared to Google, but in everything surrounding it.

1) Less clutter. They still have the occassional (highly annoying) Flash ads, but a year or two ago people screamed at them for literally clogging the pages with ads. Today they've scaled them back quite a bit, and the content vastly outnumbers the ads (which it should).
2.) Yahoo Mail Beta. If you get a chance to use this thing, do it. It's f'ing amazing. Think Outlook in a website. Works great on Firefox. Easily blows the doors off even Google Maps in terms of sheer "How the hell did they program that?" One can argue whether or not Outlook in a website is a good idea (I love it) but you can't help but be impressed by the programming.
3.) Yahoo News. Sorry, Google still owns search, but their news site (even out of beta)... lacks. Yahoo cleanly brings a ton of sources together with a lot of great photos. Browsing the "Most Viewed Photos" is fun (even if it results in seeing one-eyes cats).
4.) Yahoo Widgets. Which they bouugh (Konfabulator). Excellent acquisiton. Konfabulator's always been awesome (I've programmed a number of widgets) and the graphical polish is way better than anything you see on most Windows apps.
5.) Yahoo Groups. Still the best source for free pr0n. I mean... a great way to get friends and family together. ;)

I still use Google all the time for search, but Yahoo is commanding more and more of my attention for everything else. If they used Google as the search engine, I'd probably head there full time.

Reminds me of the old days (1)

Masa (74401) | more than 8 years ago | (#14550676)

Maybe Yahoo! should start using a LISP again.

Re:Reminds me of the old days (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14550852)

Maybe Yahoo! should start using a LISP again.

Wouldn't that be Yathoo!?

It works best if you lengthen the 'a' and o

Yaaaaaaathoooo!

Search Logs (1)

DieNadel (550271) | more than 8 years ago | (#14550687)

At least Google is trying to fight against handing over their (our?) search logs. According to the articles shown here about this incident, Yahoo! and Microsoft already complied with the demand to give the logs, and I think that such a coward company, that has no guts to fight our government, should not have their products used.

All i want for Christmas is to be #3... (1)

jennarose023 (947540) | more than 8 years ago | (#14550740)

granted that google seems to be the monster that can't be killed, but when was the last time you were in a meeting and your boss says "ok people, this year we are aiming for #3!" It's sad don't you think?

Betcha I could beat Google in an afternoon... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14550786)

Create your own search engine that happens to display a new pron image on the engine home page every time you search and you'll be #1 in a few hours...

How to knock Google off the top of the hill... (3, Interesting)

maillemaker (924053) | more than 8 years ago | (#14550855)

Make the top 10 search results actually relevent again.

Google is rapidly becoming a disappointment for me. Or rather, I'm quickly learning after doing a Google search to immediately click to page 2 of the results to see the "real" results.

Page 1 of the results seem to largely be irrelevent to what I'm /really/ searching for - it is far more relevent to people who have paid to have their URL returned when my keyword is typed in.

I can't tell you how many times I've typed in "chicken" (or whatever) and been presented with a top-10 list of "results" for web sites that have absolutely nothing to do with chicken - they've just paid someone to make sure their web site /appeared/ to be associated with chicken.

You want to beat Google? Find a way to make a search engine that doesn't pad the results with irrelevent paid advertising.

Interestingly, I'm finding the "legitimate" paid results - those down the right side of the screen, to often be more relevent to my searches than the top 10 URLs presented in the actual search body.

Steve

Redundant, but... (1)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 8 years ago | (#14550959)

... we are speaking here of different beasts. Yahoo started as directory, google as raw search engine. Then yahoo moved to community, and google keeped as mainly search engine... maybe a lot of services (mail, news, maps, groups) but one of the things that makes them bright is the search.

As search, i think is almost a monopoly. Not only their website is the default search for most people, but most browsers and desktop apps that have the possibility of an internet search use it, and is the default "plugin" for most websites. In fact, i think that google could be a good monopoly of not content by itself, but the generic "engine" behind (search, maps, talking, etc)

Yahoo focus is a bit different, they are building communities, portals, etc, and there they are the dominant party. They could switch to using google as search engine and dont lose visitors or value, because the target is different.

Of course, google can play a catch up game and really start to build competing communities and portals, but i dont think so, looks like they are building a minimum implementation of features to make those features the base that anyone related must reach to succeed (think in gmail 1gb space). In any case, is a good opportunity (for both and for whoever want to enter those games) to improve, both in reach (i.e. yahoo maps is too focused in us/canada) as in intelligence (making it easier/more integrated/more usable)

Yahoo failed with its directories (1)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 8 years ago | (#14550984)

I could never get a site of mine listed in any category, even personal, on Yahoo. They take forever and you have to practically pay them off to have have a shot at getting listed, even though they have a freebie option. If they'd open up their directory to a "community-maintained and policed" system, they'd have an incredibly useful system. Imagine if a Yahoo user could add a comment to an entry saying, "I found this useful for researching topic XYZ." You could have tons of metadata to enhance the search engine, and categories could be peer-moderated by people who pay a $5 processing fee to Yahoo to have a Yahoo rep receive a photo ID by fax proving that you're a real person, not some troll signing up for the 15th time in a row.

Yahoo could have made a lot of money if they'd bought Google, let them take over the entire search and directory side of Yahoo and opened up the directories to a community process.

Ironic (3, Interesting)

PingXao (153057) | more than 8 years ago | (#14551293)

It's ironic that this story was posted today. Only 3 hours ago I used the Yahoo search engine for the first time ever. Google has been serving me a ton of broken cache links over the last few weeks, and today I finally had enough. Google also needs a way to turn off their supplemental search results. If there are only 2 or 3 hits on something then that's all I need to see. I don't need 3 extra pages of dreck. I got modded as a troll for posting these sentiments in a different story the other day but I am completely serious. I have had Google as my home page for 5 years now and I'm not abandoning it. I'm just saying that if Google wants to maintain their overall superiority and excellence of quality there are a few things they need to attend to.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?