Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
News

A Pair of Google Bits 183

Posted by CmdrTaco from the needle-in-a-haystack dept.
Vengeance writes "Check out this excellent BusinessWeek story about Google's business strategy and how it can survive without selling out to banner ads. The best line in the article: Google saves money by using Linux :)" Here's a second story about Google's Toolbar Plugin and privacy concerns that it raises (course in this case, it looks like it blatantly tells you what its doing, so if it bothers you, you at least can't claim ignorance. And it doesn't look like a big deal either). It raises an eyebrow, but not my red flag.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

A Pair of Google Bits More

A Pair of Google Bits

Comments Filter:
  • Well, they assume that we spend the web searching all the time. That it's natural to put our start page on a search engine, or portal hub.

    It isn't.

    Most people I know pick news sites, or even something to make them laugh. I search when I need too, and I use different engines for different needs. I use google for something technical like Motherboard BIOS updates, I use Yahoo for something local, I use IE's integrated search for other things. I use Ask Jeeves for amusement...
    The point is that why should we dedicate our real estate to a tool that doesn't get all the searching done for us? Where does this business model fit into gathering the millions of users, and a service that other search engines don't have?
    And they wonder why the market is crashing, it's because the companies still don't understand the consumer...
  • I didn't see any reference to p0rn sites in the first and second page of altavista results. Most of the "black bear" were hotel/motels.

    --ricardo

  • This ranking method makes me think of Erdos Number.

    You can read in extenso here:Erdos Number Project Homepage [oakland.edu] but basically there is a graph constructed with vertices for each one of them and edges for co-authored papers.

    One such vertex is Erdos and the Erdos number of mathematician C is the length of the shortest path from C to Erdos.

  • Concerns over where Google is going to make it's money, and the fear current users have that Google is going to change, really only confirms one thing; the interests of customers and the interests of businesses are not compatiable with each other.

    An obvious point, I guess, but it is pretty curious, seeing as how businesses exist strictly to perform a service for customers.

    Here's hoping Google finds a way to thrive without "selling out" to banner ads or somesuch. I'd love to see conventional thinking get shaken up were Google to manage what most folks consider will be impossible.
  • guess what, an algorithm. Attacking patented algorithms is one of the favorite past times of slashdot and company. While I realize some readers only specifically object to actual abuses, a great many go beyond that by attacking whole classes of patents and people. I simply use this opportunity to illuminate some of the ignorance and fundamental inconsistency of those people. Thats all.

    One thing I don't think people realize is that slashdot is composed of a couple hundred thousand users. Just because there's a vocal minority against patents and a vocal minority that praises Google for patenting PageRank doesn't mean they're the same vocal minority. In actuality, there might not be a single person that thinks that way, so I don't think it's fair to call slashdot readers hypocritical (there's another reason for that, too, it's called an overbroad generalization) just because two conflicting viewpoints come out on such a large scale. How would you like it if non-citizens of the United States ridiculed us for being indecisive and hypocritical over any of the national issues simply because there are conflicting oppositions?

    --Xantho

    P.S. Oh wait, they already do...

  • your first line was "I'm not sure I'd trust Google with this information any more than I'd trust Amazon"
    Amazon does not have this information, Alexa does, that is implying that Alexa is Amazon. Alexa does NOT share its data with Amazon.
  • Just because a company uses Linux doesn't make them good people.

    Did anyone else join the generous Google Affiliates program, and then be disqualified and accused of fraud (resulting in non-payment of commission)?

    I work at an ISP that put the google search form on the front page, which resulted in customers doing around 25000 searches for which Google promised $0.02 each.

    It would have been much more polite to say "we ran out of money" instead of claiming they were being cheated and not paying up. Then they refuse to answer queries on how they arrived at this conclusion, even though we wanted to continue to promote Google for free.

  • Re:Okay people, straw poll here... (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    At 1 cent I'd be paying at least 50 cents a day. That is, $54,325,244.20 canadian.
  • I'd rather they let advertisers pay for it.

    As long as the ads don't slow the page from loading, who cares? (and if they do slow it, you can always use junkbusters or whatever to block the ad).
  • Um. They're NOT selling your privacy. They're just providing a service where it looks up whatever page you're on on their site, which incidentally has to send the address you're on to them, because it's part of how it works.

    RTFA.

    --
    Obfuscated e-mail addresses won't stop sadistic 12-year-old ACs.
  • Hmm, I apologize for the confusion. I guess it would have been clearer if I had said "I'm not sure I'd trust Google with this type of information any more than I'd trust Amazon."

    Steven
  • Uh, Google's not a metasearch... it uses its own database...
  • What is your definition of "non sellout" ? It's easy to say "boo" but how about a potential solution? I guess selling out for you means "earning any sort of revenue" whether for profit or expenses. That said, I disagree and feel you're mixing facts with assumptions.

    -- .sig --
  • Text or portal, it still gives you crappy results.
    --
  • Well... some would argue that its not enough just to be on install... or that that's asking a lot. For instance, if it is in theory a configuration (even though I'm sure its two different installs)... wouldn't configuration be better INSIDE the program, not upon install?

    ----

  • Well, I don't want to give away the secret at this early stage, but Google makes most of its money from licensing the search engine itself (like to yahoo), and they hardly make any money off of the main site, www.google.com. They consider the www.google.com more of a demosite for rich inve$tor$ from big, expensive companies.
    ------------
    a funny comment: 1 karma
    an insightful comment: 1 karma
    a good old-fashioned flame: priceless
  • Yeah, that's about it. I won't download the thing because I don't want it telling them where I go, even anonymously, but I'm not going to cut off my nose to spite my face and stop using Google as some extremists have suggested (and what, pray tell, in my line of work [research], would be the better alternative?) -- it's simply the best.

    I particularly like Google because it sort of picked up where Infoseek left off when it got Disnified... I mean, what else is the Net for but doing research??? :)

    Signed, Interrobang,
    Wayback Infoseek Fan & Google Convert
  • Google says it. Maybe you are suggesting that they aren't being honest?
  • Who's talking about stopping using Google itself? That would be a completely irrational response to a feature that they don't force you to use, in a program that they don't force you to use.

    --
    Obfuscated e-mail addresses won't stop sadistic 12-year-old ACs.
  • RTFA.

    The thing that sends the addresses of sites you visit to Google, only does so if you _choose_ to use that feature in a program you _choose_ to download. It even tells you in the install what the feature does, and asks whether you want it on or off.

    If Microsoft had made something like this and done it as well as Google, I'd say "Holy shit, they got a clue".

    --
    Obfuscated e-mail addresses won't stop sadistic 12-year-old ACs.
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Yes, there are two versions of the new Google toolbar. Yes, even if you download the advanced version with PageRank, you can easily turn it off.

    Yes, it is quite likely that the 23 million search requests that Google handles every day, any of which result in a Google cookie with a unique ID in it generated by Google (assuming you don't already have such a cookie), are not personally identifiable at this time.

    But added to these 23 million requests per day, are now the PageRank surfing history lists. These use the same Google cookies. If you don't have one already, one gets set immediately the first time you visit any page after your toolbar is installed with "advanced features" activated.

    Most people don't know anything about cookies. Google is well on its way to building the best database in the world on search terms and surfing patterns.

    What happens if someone buys Google and changes their current privacy policy?

    And consider this ugly little fact:

    The PageRank toy on the toolbar is a trick. It's only significant to less than one digit, ranking almost all non-porn sites between 5 and 9 on a scale of 1 to 10. The real PageRank is significant to at least 4 digits, according to a paper by Brin and Page delivered at an April, 1998 conference. You are potentially giving up a lot of privacy for this bogus PageRank toy in their toolbar.

    And finally, put this in your pipe and smoke it -- all Google cookies expire on January 17, 2038.

    Now I ask you, how does a 37-year cookie help Google improve their customer service? Why not a two-week expiration date? Why not a non-persistent cookie that lasts for the current browser session only?

    How long will it be before Google's data gets connected to personally-identifiable information?

    Wake up, people.
  • Check out:

    http://www.google.com/mozilla/google-search.html

    I'm using it on Linux with Mozilla and Galeon. (Galeon supports the %s thingie described at the end.) It's not as full featured as the IE toolbar.

    Let the "Netscape 6" flame wars begin!
  • i heard that about northernlights, too...about 5 years ago. nobody is objective enough nowadays that you can believe anything anybody says. everybody is going to own stock in a search engine , even if indirectly.
  • Since Larry Page was touting his PageRank in early 1998, I'm wondering now about the application date on the PageRank patent application. The papers he published while in the computer science department at Stanfard regarding PageRank fall under the "one year rule" for the PTO. From the time of the first such publication (or presentation at a conference), he has one year only to file an application. Otherwise, the patent application is DOA at the PTO.
  • #3 might be arguable.

    Didn't excite use link popularity to rank pages? Maybe Google's is an extension of excite's, but the idea is definitely not theirs.
  • guess what, an algorithm. Attacking patented algorithms is one of the favorite past times of slashdot and company. While I realize some readers only specifically object to actual abuses, a great many go beyond that by attacking whole classes of patents and people. I simply use this opportunity to illuminate some of the ignorance and fundamental inconsistency of those people. Thats all.
  • After becoming interested in Google's Toolbar, I decided to download it. Not after I agree to the Terms of Use, that is... Check this out :

    You agree not to modify, adapt, translate, prepare derivative works from, decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble or otherwise attempt to derive source code from Google Toolbar. You also agree to not remove, obscure, or alter Google's copyright notice, trademarks, or other proprietary rights notices affixed to or contained within Google Toolbar.

    Ugh, apparently the 30 PhDs "who would rather punch code" didn't much care for the whole DeCSS case. Oh well, Google's Toolbar has just lost a user.


    -Fred
  • "When somebody searches for 'cancer,' should you put up the site that paid you or the site that has better information?" Brin is betting better information will win the day.

    Who cares, as long as I get my Horoscope.

  • There can't be two diffrent *default* configurations. If you have to disable certian unwanted features after installation, that configuration is, by definiation, not a "default".
  • Anyone Search the toolbar for 'slashdot' and then click on the first link it shows? The page Rank is only like 4/5ths of the way green. Just Found that a Touch interesting....
  • I am not going to present easy answers by hyperlinking you directly to the scientific works of those who studied what can be learned from link structure on the web. I believe it would be more educational if you took the trouble to find out this for yourselves.

    Call me a cynic, but that sounds more like a dodge framed as a lesson than an actual refutation. Yes, there are many papers on link structure. The issue is whether anyone else (i.e., other than Page and Brin) had come up with something closely resembling PageRank, complete with a "recursive" ranking formula. I'm not up on the research, and I don't know the answer, and it's hardly reasonable to expect every Slashdot reader to do a literature survey to the point of inspecting the algorithms proposed for similarity with PageRank.

    If you know of one or two clear examples, then please link to or otherwise cite them--or at least the names of some relevant researchers. Otherwise, dear AC, please keep your FUD to yourself.

  • Since are always collecting stats on their visitors. At least google is being upfront about it. I'd rather be told that you'll be selling my privacy taher than them putting on a show like realplayer did back a while ago. By being honest, I think google did the right thing.
  • I wonder who has the AdWord "sex"? Or for that matter, "hintz"? I bet those people got a lot of bang for their buck!
  • Because privately held corporations have shareholders too. Being publically held simply means that there are MORE shareholders, generally more dollars invested, and that it meets certain SEC requirements.

    This is relevant because management has a responisibility to the investors. The founders (or management) can't simply do whatever pleases them; that is not what it means to be privately held. To be more specific, these shareholders are predominantly venture capitalists and they CAN be awefully demanding (sometimes unethically so...I know from experience). Right or wrong, if the founders push it too far they can get fired.
  • When I first read this, I thought:

    2*10^100 bits, whoa, that's a lot!

    No jokes about Googlebit bandwidth or Googlehertz beowulf clusters, please... We've had enough.
  • Those buttons are the coolest things since sliced bread. Highlighting a word and hitting Google search, or hitting GoogleScout on a page to find related pages, is really useful. Guess you can tell I like Google.

  • Even more importantly (Score:4)

    by Tony Shepps ( 333 ) on Tuesday December 12, 2000 @08:10AM (#564757)
    Regarding the Google Toolbar, does it work? Do you find it useful?

    It's unfortunate that we get boggled down first in privacy concerns before discussiong whether the product is a good idea in the first place. I mean, I understand why this has to happen now, it's just unfortunate.

    (But I really am interested in people's opinions of the toolbar...)
    --

  • This article just oozes with hypocrisy. If this was Microsoft using a toolbar to track ALL the sites you were visiting, there would be rioting in the streets. Just because Google is a geek favorite, don't just give it free reign of your web surfing habits..

    I don't care if it's the Vatican tracking my web suring habits, I don't like it. You could learn alot about me knowing I visit New Gumbrea [newgumbrea.com] and then the Jessica Alba [talboa.com] page, followed by a trip to Yahoo! [yahoo.com] to buy a spycam that fits in a kleenex box!!

    =-=-=-=-=
    "Do you hear the Slashdotters sing,

  • Where's the Money Going to Come From? (Score:4)

    by Luminous ( 192747 ) on Tuesday December 12, 2000 @08:10AM (#564759) Journal
    I am simply shocked, shocked I say, that these 30 PhD's aren't doing this out of 'pure love' for the internet community.

    Why does earning money have to play a role?

    At no point in time will I begrudge Google from earning money, so long as they keep their priorities straight. If they have to bow to the 'pay-for-top-link' crowd, then make the paid links a different color so we know which link was the commercial link and which was the information link. When the two actually coincide . . . cool, do something special.

    The reason I use Google isn't because it lacks banner ads, it is because it gives me good results. The fact I don't have to wade through banner ads is just a wonderful bonus. Let them please make a good living doing this, let Google set the example for other businesses to follow.

  • Google has already started selling ads a few months ago. Though the cool part is that anyone can buy them online.
  • BZZZZT wrong - it's a single install, just a different default configuration. You can reclaim your precious privacy after you install it by reconfiguring the toolbar.
    Sean
  • Been using it for 20 minutes and I like it already. Has a nice 'up' button for navigating through web site directory hierarchies. Everything else you can more or less get by using the Google site, but the toolbar makes it quicker :)
    Sean
  • I've been using it for the last week or so and I find it to be very useful. One especially nice feature is that it will highlight my seach words in the current document, so I can find what I am looking for on the page very quickly with a visual scan.
  • Well, I, for one, have heard numerous SPECIFIC people praise google's wonderful technology (and the like) in one hand and bash software patents with the other. What's more, I suggest the majority of posters (especially those with upward moderation) are advocates of doing away with (software) patents entirely whenever the issue is broached. In fact, I'm quite sure this is the position taken by slashdot's "editorial" staff.

    So to answer your question, it's a substantially different issue. When a foreigner refers to the US, he refers to the entity as a whole. This entity, however, contains multiple individuals each with seperate opinions. There need not be any contradiction with any individual for conflicting opinions or even seperate voting outcomes. Slashdot is vastly different from the situation you describe. Where the United States is a large country with diverse people, Slashdot is a largely self-selecting group (i.e., geeks) of like minded individuals, all sharing their opinions (to the extent that slashdot is essentially comprised of the sharing of opinions). I can say with confidence what is said. I have heard numerous people on slashdot contradict themselves, how many foreigners can make the same claim in that general criticism of the United States? Not many. Just because I can't be bothered to actually name them doesn't mean i'm being unfair to anyone.
    A more relevant question would be: How would a bunch of neo-nazis on a racist message board like it if I challenged their rhetoric with their own positions? Those who are guilty of hypocrisy know who they are.
  • Perhaps you just need to learn how to refine your searches better.

    Sometimes you don't even have enough information to do a well-refined search. You don't even know the proper jargon to look for. In these cases, unranked search engines like NorthernLight or AltaVista are the worst thing you could use. Google is much better at this kind of search, even though your first few searches may just be spent finding out what your search terms should be.

    But I agree that NorthernLight is a very good backup site if the eminently qualified Google can't find what you're looking for.

    And I have to observe that while I was using AltaVista, I would regularly see pr0n hits, nothing inconvenient, but they were there. But I never see them using Google.

    Also, if I know the site but forgot the URL, and type into Google good keywords, Google always brings the site I want up on the first page, generally in the top 1 or 2 hits.

  • I'm not referring to PageRank itself, nor any part of it, as an actual algorithm. I compare Google's fundamental design (or value) to a worthwhile patentable algorithm insofar as it is a rather fundamental concept, not something that would be properly protected by a copyright or overly narrow patent. [What's more, even if some insist that the concept itself might not be entirely novel, its execution certainly is.] I suggest that if Google's patenting of PageRank is tenable to individuals on slashdot, then so should be the patenting of algorithms in the broadest and most theoretical sense. Unless, of course, they can give a very specific reason. However, the vast majority of assaults against _any and all_ software patents here would also apply to PageRank.

    Without getting too entrenched in the details of this matter, I fully realize there are concerns with the actual application of patents (even here in this specific application). My intention is simply to broaden (or challenge) the thinking of some people here, to let them know that not anything that can be described loosely or (possibly) subject to independent re-invention by other individuals should necessarily be denied IP protection offhand. Most users here can appreciate what Google has done, having suffered inferior search engines before Google's existence. I, also, believe most people here can understand why Google might _need_ to protect this with what appears to be a broad patent (i.e., in laymans terms "using links on the WWW to quantify relevance").

  • Re:Even more importantly (Score:3)

    by sparks ( 7204 ) <`moc.silibateal' `ta' `drofwarca'> on Tuesday December 12, 2000 @08:18AM (#564774) Homepage
    Yes. I like it a lot. If you set up your toolbar correctly it doesn't take up any more space either.

    PageRank doesn't seem all that useful to me but the "Page Info" menu has some cool stuff in it, like "find reverse links" and a "similar pages" option that actually works.

    The whole thing is very well done; the integration between the site you're viewing, the toolbar, and the google site is very well done. If you use google a lot (it's my home page) this is definitely worth having. I'll be keeping it.

  • Note to moderators: before you mod something up as 'Informative', you might want to check the accuracy of said information.

    There is only one version of the toolbar, but two different default configurations. You can enable or disable any of the 'features' after you install it.
    Sean

  • The toolbar needs some refining. One big issue is that the Toolbar search results come up on a regular Google page that also contains a search box. If the user conducts another search, mistakenly (or by habit) using the web-based search box, none of the toolbar features work on that search query. A custom version of Google is needed to integrate with the toolbar.

    Google is currently hiring for a usability analyst. Hopefully they'll smooth out the rough edges.

  • I started using google long ago, when it was still .stanford.edu. I guess they had only 4 or 5, or maybe even just 2 people at that point. Since then, from my end-user perspective, almost nothing changed (which is, by the way, a GOOD thing - the site's just as awesome as it used to be). So what the fuck do these 100 people (including 30 PhDs) in the research department work on? The only thing that comes to mind is scalability, but 100 people.....

    Just why do the companies, even the great ones, think that their headcount MUST grow?
  • Nooooo, it's not because they use Linux that we're not beating the hell out of them (although I am sure that it helps). The key issue here is that they are extremely upfront about what their toolbar program does. In fact, they even present a default config that sends no information to Google. I have no doubt that if they had kept this secret, someone would have found out (let's face it, someone always finds out), and they would have gotten slammed. It boils down to this: If you want to collect information on someone, let them know that you want to, and give them a way to opt out. They have done this with their big warning box and privacy-friendly default config option. Hence, while I wish it didn't send stuff back to Google, they were very above-the-board about this.
  • Ok, now this I gotta see. Here's yahoo's results:

    You might note that Yahoo has recently switched to using Google instead of Inktomi. If you had read the article, you would have noticed that. His friend might have done the search before they switched. That would also explain the mysterious "duplicate the same couple resources over and over again" that you noticed. Just a thought.

  • Let me quote from the second linked article:

    Based on traditional citation analysis, PageRank has made the search provider an instant hit on the Web,

    And I can vouch for having seen in Science mention of exactly such citation analysis, identifying important papers by how many other papers cited them. OTOH, AIUI Google is more complex than a simple citation count, since the contribution from the citing papers is weighted by how important those papers themselves are, based on their own citations... I haven't heard that traditional citation analysis does that. But I don't know that much about the details.

  • I've used the toolbar for about two days now and really really like it. Like other people said, you can customize it so it doesn't take up much space and I removed the page rank option simply because it wasn't extremely useful.

    I guess what I like the most about the toolbar is that not only is it extremely convenient (search from anywhere), customizable (you can have searches appear in a new window if you like) and easy to use, it has options that apply to any web page you might be looking at, not just the one you are searching for. You can use the backward linking and related pages tools on any page, as well as the highlighting utility which will highlight on the current webpage the terms you enter in the textbox. I find this much more useful than straight search because I can use it for many distinct words.

    So all in all, I'm very pleased with it. Google has once again proven that they are at the cutting edge of providing exactly the services people want without anything more.

  • Why, why, for the love of God why. Why do people use portals? I don't understand. When I want to search, I go to google and I search. When I want to look for good deal on plane tickets, I go search for them. Can someone explain to me exactly what activity these portals are suppose to accomplish? Because as near as I can tell, the only thing they do is increase the required bandwidth.

    God does not play dice with the universe. Albert Einstein

  • Funny Ask Jeeves story (Score:5)

    by StandardDeviant ( 122674 ) on Tuesday December 12, 2000 @08:45AM (#564798) Homepage Journal

    Friend of mine works for (large Texas-based computer manufacturer who uses Ask Jeeve's engine as the basis of their online tech support thing, called Ask Dudley or some equally shitty name). According to him it would give "interesting" results sometimes when it was first brought online and it's vocab hadn't been trained/tuned much.

    For example: searching for ATAPI.SYS would bring up as one of the options something like "I'd like to know more about EAT PUSSY." (Somehow ATA PI.SYS (space for empahsis) sounded like that to Ask Jeeve's engine.)

    Needless to say, that was changed real quick. :-)


    --

  • Only if they abuse it like certain [fraunhofer.org] organisations.

  • Re:30 Ph.D.s (Score:5)

    by crgrace ( 220738 ) on Tuesday December 12, 2000 @08:45AM (#564800)
    So what the fuck do these 100 people (including 30 PhDs) in the research department work on?

    In large engineering projects, such as search engines, the amount of work to be done is something more than linearly related to the size of the project. Back when google was two guys, they had defined the key algorithm and it was really cool. But.... really cool is a long, long way from a business. For example, how do you index over a billion pages and still keep the search fast? How do you distribute the database and the searches over linux machines to reduce cost at little (or no) expense in reliability? How do you keep crafty webmasters from tricking your algorithms?

    Do you really think google is the same as it was, just bigger? Give me a break.

    Just why do the companies, even the great ones, think that their headcount MUST grow?

    They don't. Exar [exar.com] is the world leader in analog interfaces for digital imagers and they've been around since the 1960s. They have around 200 employees.

  • Of course this glaring omission will be overlooked, these are Linux zealots you're asking.
  • There are two versions that you can install

    And there are also two versions of this article [slashdot.org] on Slashdot right now. Usually there's at least a few days lag before accidentally reposting identical stories. Someone didn't even check the last few hours of new articles...

  • Sure, I have, though for most everything it's exceptionally fast. I believe the strategy is simply to fit in a combination of common words, but a unique query (never used by other users...they seem to cache). To this end, you can type something like: Peter Jane Josh Mike Joseph Jack Dave Ted Frank Fred....only change one or two of the names, it should take 1.3 seconds or so. Gotta run, bye
  • > I wonder who has the AdWord "sex"? I bet those people got a lot of bang for their buck!

    Actually, nobody is currently paying for the AdWord "sex," precisely because of the lack of bang for your buck. The cost per impression seems cheap, 1.5 cents, but with a tiny text ad, most click-throughs are horrible. If one in a 100 click on your link (and it'd have to be a great or deceptive ad to get that), that's $1.50 a surfer. Goto.com will give you a much better targetted click for $0.15/clickthrough (not impression) on the term "sex," which is what might be deemed closer to "market value."

    Gambling is about the most expensive search term you'll find on Goto, and for that you'll see people competing on Google for the AdWords exposure. But for most other AdWords users, I have a tough time believing they're making a profit on the ads. More likely they're either ignorant (ad agencies might be out of touch with a client's sales), or they're justifying it as "building market share."

    You'll note that a large number of common terms have no AdWords purchased, like cars, drugs, sex, and cds. (AdWords are the ads on the right, not at the top). It could be the newness of AdWords, but I think it's more due to advertisers realizing the poor return on advertising. The ads are unobtrusive to a fault. They could give better clickthroughs while sticking to all-text ads by allowing advertisers to use larger fonts, different fonts, or even just bold instead of plain size=1 and size=2 Arial.

    As a result, Google is leaving probably 98% of their AdWords ad space white, making $0, rather than price the space more competitively, allowing more eye-catching text ads, or otherwise making ad sales more attractive.

    On the up side, their software for creating, placing, and tracking ads is top notch. They've got an excellent process in place. I don't think they've hit the right answer yet, but they've got a great technical infrastructure from which to try new things.

  • Wow... (Score:3)

    by kaphka ( 50736 ) <1nv7b001@sneakemail.com> on Tuesday December 12, 2000 @11:31AM (#564812)
    I don't mean to distract you all from your ranting, but has anyone noticed that this Google toolbar [google.com] is really, really cool? It's not just another obnoxious way to make sure you get funneled towards their site (i.e. both IE's and Netscape's "search features".)

    Among other things, it can highlight instances of your search terms on a page, instantly transfer you to Google's cached copy of your current page, and search for pages on the same site as the one you're viewing. It also adds an "up one level" button (the web equivalent of "../").

    The only feature that has privacy issues is the "PageRank" display, which tells you how "important" the current page is. It's not very useful, and it's easily disabled.

    Google also gets points for using all of IE's advanced features properly. Those of you who frequently claim that ActiveX is only useful for trojans should try installing this toolbar, as it's an excellent counter-example.

    Nice job, Google people.

  • 3. Actually not patentable because there's prior art.

    Just one simple question: How do you know?

    Do you have access to a database containing all prior art? No you have not - that's one of the main problems with software patents! You can't make a "complete" search for prior art, so how do you know that there isn't someone which created excatly that feature years ago, but for some reason didn't patent it?
    You would have to go through most of what is published on the internet (and more), which you simply just can't.
    When the patent office (at least in Denmark, but I believe it's the same practice elsewhere) is searching for prior art, they only search in *their own database*! Most prior art doesn't exist in their database - it is published on the internet and/or elsewhere.

    Another problem is that patents is supposed to further innovation by publishing the invention, others should be able to benefit from it, but how often do you search in a patent database for information?
    Are patents easy to read and understand? No, they most certainly are not - mostly, they are written i an obscure language, which only patent lawyers understand.

    Ps. Sorry if some of this is not clearly written, english is NOT my primary language, and is just a quick comment. Take a look at one of my prior comments here [slashdot.org]. It contains references to other places for more info, and it is probably more clearly written...

    Greetings Joergen

  • Re:Even more importantly (Score:3)

    by LocalYokel ( 85558 ) on Tuesday December 12, 2000 @08:30AM (#564819) Homepage Journal
    Speaking of IE tweaks, I have written the equivalent of the Digital Blasphemy [digitalblasphemy.com] Magic Dictionary, using Everything2 instead of Webster's. You simply select some text in your browser, right click, then choose the Everything2 Dictionary option to look it up on Everything.

    Check it out at my crappy page [angelfire.com].

    --

  • I was really impressed with how clear and up-front the privacy disclosure from Google was. On install it even says "read this - it's not the usual yada yada".

    The fact is there's no easy way to do the pagerank stuff without sending your URLs to Google. (I can think of some funky crypto protocols to do it, but it'd be messy). Given that they have a reasonable use for the data, and they disclose their collection of that data, I have no problem at all with what they're doing.

    I turned pagerank off anyway. My main concern is that private internal URLs also go to Google.

    PS - the Toolbar is really cool.


  • It probably depends on (as the other reply states) how Google treat their patent, and whether they start wielding it aggressively.

    It also depends on what they've patented. If it's perceived as being genuinely innovative and useful, then the typical /. audience will usually commend the correct use of the patent system. If it's perceived as something anybody could have done, then they'll need the same asbestos underwear as everybody else.

    One thing to note is that they've patented the technique they're using, not the software they've used to implement the technique. It's an algorithm, it's a non-obvious one (in the 'paperclick' style) and it's a bloody good idea - with an exceedingly well created implementation.

    I think most people find silly patents comical - it's only when they are used aggressively that peoples' hackles rise. And so far Google have shown a considerable clue level, so if that continues, I think they'll probably get away with having the patent flame-free.

    Kudos to them for having easily the best search engine I've ever used.

    ~Cederic

  • Re:Interesting quote (Score:5)

    by rgmoore ( 133276 ) <glandauer@charter.net> on Tuesday December 12, 2000 @09:03AM (#564826) Homepage

    Some of us think that approaches to a problem that are both non-obvious and extremely powerful (which, IMO at least, is true of Page Rank) are exactly the reason that patents were invented. This is not a patent that is:

    1. Overly broad so that it covers everything under the sun,
    2. Extremely obvious to the point that it's clearly not patentable, or
    3. Actually not patentable because there's prior art.

    Patents exist precisely to protect inventions that don't fall into one or more of the above categories. It's not so much patents that most slashdotters are angry about, it's patent abuses, and Google's patent clearly isn't abusing the system.

  • But when the whip comes down and shareholders start to demand a return on their investment, Google may have to swallow its scruples -- particularly if it hopes to keep banner ads off its pages.

    why does a privately held company have to please shareholders?

    tcd004

  • A bear is sub-culture of gay men. They are typically larger, hairier men, and older men or those who are attracted to them. Typically we simply want to be ourselves and are accepting of anyone. I suggest you look at the informational sight Resources for bears. [resourcesforbears.com]

  • for those with privacy concerns ... (Score:4)

    by porcorosso ( 178451 ) on Tuesday December 12, 2000 @07:55AM (#564831) Homepage
    There are two versions that you can install ...
    One doesn't gather info, but you don't have all of the 'features' either
    Guess everything's a trade-off ...

    ...

    Back to work ...
  • You might note that Yahoo has recently switched to using Google instead of Inktomi. If you had read the article, you would have noticed that.

    Yes, you are right, though it doesn't explain lycos. I was about to slam you for not trying an Inktomi-based search and posting the results.... but I tried to do the same, and it's damn difficult to tell if someone's using Inktomi or not. I found (via google) this out-of-date list [ctc.edu]. Inktomi has a list of partners, and yahoo's on the list, but it doesn't say what services each partner actually uses. This page at Inktomi [inktomi.com] mentions that AOL, iWon, MSN, and more (aprarantly 125) are using their search (it's mentioned in the top yellow box on the right side of the page). So, with that in mind, let's give these three a try and see if they product any porn sites with a query for "black bear":

    • AOL's results [aol.com] list Condos, T-shirts, AllAlaskanGifts (paid adverts), pages about actual black bears, the B&B, Hunting, Campgrounds (not the nude one from yahoo's present search), wildlife and conservation. Pretty good...
    • iWon's results page [iwon.com] displays nothing if Javascript is disabled. I gotta get that javascript popup filtering junkbuster patch [ed.ac.uk] installed. For the sake of this slashdot post, I'm turning javascript back on for a moment: hmm, they're doing funny stuff and that link may not take you directly to a results page.... easy enough to do the search, but here's what I'm seeing: page about different types of bears, lodging per state, travel info, photos and articles about american and alaskan black bears, more stuff about american black bears, american bear association, dietart habits of bears, wildlife park, black bear systems (a company, funny that none of the other searches turned this one up in their top results), campground, an inn, web design company named black bear, more stuff about bears and camping. So far one of the best search results in this "black bear" benchmark, and not a single porn site yet (neglecting yahoo's return of a clothing-option campground with black bear in the name), but still one more chance for porn at MSN.......
    • and here's MSN's results [msn.com] (damnit, went to MSN before turning javascript back off, going to shut if off right now.. ok), so let's see how MSN did: Univ of Maine Athletics (mascott is a black bear), more pages about univ of maine, info about diff species of bears, research about animal social systems, stuff about yellowstone, miccesota wince shute wildlife sanctuary, even more pages about univ of maine, the sanctuary in minnesota again, and the texas zoo
    Ok, three strikes. You're Out!! Inktomi's site claims these three are using it's search, and not a single porn site linked on any of the first-page search results.

    I did read the original post, and admittedly his point was that his friend tried "black bear" on yahoo 6 months ago and got porn, but for crying out loud, how fucking difficult is it to actually visit the search engine and type in BLACK BEAR and see for yourself if it really dishes up porn links? Ok, not everyone knows HTML to include nice formatting and links in their messages, but it's pretty simple to visit a search engine and actually see if it dishes up porn, instead of posting about how a third party accomplished this feat half a year ago!

    (ok, rant mode off, we all know the cronological order and moderation system reward early postings)

    I think it's pretty safe to say that one doesn't risk getting linked to porn when searching for "black bear" these days, and I'm skeptical that this condition really existed 6 months ago on yahoo. Some search engines (notably yahoo and MSN) have problems with wasting valuable browser screen space with redundant links, at least in this simple "black bear" benchmark. For a while now I've believe google was the best, but I'm pleasantly suprised to see that other search engines are doing quite well.

  • Portals are really useful for stuff you don't want to have to search for every hour. Weather. Stocks. News. Comics. TV listings. The latest kernel version.

    It's about convenience. Yes, I *could* go visit a news site, and then a comics site, and then a weather site, and then a finance site, and then a TV site, but it's really handy to have it all in one place.

    That's the same reason I have my Slashdot settings to include links to BBC News, Linux.com Tuneup, and Technocrat. It saves time. I can scan all this information on one page without visiting each page individually.

  • long ago, when it was still .stanford.edu

    Google also started at Stanford? Hmm...1998 [google.com]. Sheesh, that's not so long ago. I can say the same about Yahoo!, and I'm sure plenty of others here can too.

    Side topic: you know how most baby boomers remember exactly where they were when they heard JFK was shot? I have that kind of memory for exactly two things: when the Challenger blew up, and when my Yahoo bookmark (in Mosaic) redirected from stanford.edu to yahoo.com [yahoo.com]. I had already seen the bad side of internet commerce [mit.edu], but Yahoo was when I realized there could also be good witches [tripod.com] in the world.

    Scroll forward five years. Yahoo is an enourmous "portal" that actually makes a profit. Canter & Siegel have faded away, but their descendants thrive like cockroaches. Where will Google be five years from now?

  • Re:Okay people, straw poll here... (Score:3)

    by Keck ( 7446 ) on Tuesday December 12, 2000 @11:56AM (#564842) Homepage
    You aren't a math major are you? They currently boast 23,000,000 searches per day. Let's assume that if you had to *pay* (nevermind the fact that it's only a penny, if you have to go to the trouble to find a way to pay them, it's easier to use someone else) the daily usage will probably fall to maybe 5 million or less. Then they are raking in $50,000/day. 365 days a year, that's over $18E6/yr -- not bad for a search engine, even at the decreased usage rate -- BUT the big thing here is not the money you have to pay -- it's the privacy issue. IF they have a method to log each time I search, and tie that info to some account with which I pay them (maybe every 1000 searches or so), then it's one short line of perl from there to associating *WHAT* I searched for with my account... right now they can of course associate your searching patterns with your IP, but most people are still unfortuneate enough that they dial into a modem pool with a bank of IP's, and thus the association becomes less meaningful. But if you have an ACCOUNT to pay them with, that gets updated each time you search, I would certainly not use google any longer, despite the fact that they are the ONLY engine I use at the moment..
  • No, they don't.

    At least not last time I checked. They rank sites based on several factors (what else links to them, matching search words, etc.) but they don't sell. I have noticed that the top line of several searches is an ad but it is highlighted so it can't be confused as a search result.

  • forget the toolbar! for ease-of-use, check out the Google Browser Buttons [google.com]

    this is the greatest thing since sliced bread. highlight a word on any page, click the button, and presto! search results. PLUS it works with Netscape, IE, Opera, etc...

  • interestes of business and interests of customers not compatible?

    DUH!

    What is a business? A tool for parting a fool and his money.

    If a business acts in it's customers' interests, it's because they want to keep those customers, or get more customers. No other reason. Any company that says they're interested in what their customers thing is trying to butter you up. Nothing more. If you're shocked at the realization that businesses want you to give them your money and go away (or come back and give them more), then you've believed their customer relations' department's lies.

  • Okay people, straw poll here... (Score:5)

    by abhinavnath ( 157483 ) on Tuesday December 12, 2000 @08:36AM (#564853)
    How many of you would be willing to pay to use google on, say, a 1 cent/search basis? 2 cents? 5?

    1 cent sounds fair to me. I don't want them going out of business 2 years down the line, just because they don't sell pagerank spots or whatever. I need that search!

  • My fiance is just got her degree in journalism. Like the line in Pulp Fiction, that pretty much made me interested in journalism too. ;-) (We did talk a lot about what she studied, pretty relevant stuff to this modern, media-heavy age.)

    Anyway, having pull quotes from a business's competitors (NothernLosers and Astalavista, both of whose search engines I can't stand for the cruddiness of their result sets) is really, really stinky journalism. What a suprise both of them slammed Google! I'm shocked! Google must be a horrible company! :-/ This article must have been written by a high-school intern, as it obviously shows the person looked for The Other Viewpoint, but didn't try to get objective other viewpoints (like, at a guess, from stock analysts who are in theory neutral).

    And yes, we did snicker about her getting a BJ on graduation day. (Bachelors in Journalism) :-D She always was at the head of her class...


    --

  • Here's a radical proposal. A search engine is like a library cardex. While the library buys the books, the publisher pays for the cards in the cardex.

    Have the government financially support one pure research web site, like Google.com, and anyone and everyone who wants to have their web site's pages listed there needs to provide an XML description using a standard XML schema or DTD with links back to their own sites and web pages.

    That should take care of mom-and-pop porn sites who don't do any indexing work while the governmental nature of the site takes care of the presence of ads. They don't need the revenue stream to survive.
  • In the second article, it discusses the patent google has pending. Normally, this would show up in the headline of a slashdot article.

    I wonder why that little detail has been left out after the stance slashdot already takes on software patents?

    Because google is such a great search engine (relavent and without clutter), does that mean we overlook them when they use software patents?

    --
    Twivel

  • Pardon me for being curious, but enlighten those of us who are not involved the porn-surfing scene. He got porn sites from search for "black bear"? HTF does Black Bear has to do with porn? Last time I heard, there were humans, horses, and goats. But black bears?
  • Great - now, if they would just help US save money by SUPPORTING Linux, we could all be happy. I like the toolbar, but it only suppports Windows with IE5.
    Sean
  • In the last few years I have cycled between several search engines (including metacrawler). Google, by far, is the best meta search engine, it always seems to get the results I want, which is whats really important. I also have to say that I love the 'no frills' interface. As a visually impared person readability is key and I can easily browse Google ;-)

    As for Google losing it's "cool" in the near future? I don't think so, the only thing that could screw Google is if someone else comes up with a better search algorythm and Google does nothing to compete with it, but I don't see that happening in the near future.

    Capt. Ron

  • The toolbar in question... (Score:3)

    by jm91509 ( 161085 ) on Tuesday December 12, 2000 @08:43AM (#564863) Homepage
    is here [google.com].
    Jm

  • Re:Google Plug-in (Score:4)

    by pjrc ( 134994 ) <paul@pjrc.com> on Tuesday December 12, 2000 @09:27AM (#564869) Homepage Journal
    big_groo writes:
    On to Yahoo! and Lycos he goes, enters the search "black bear". Guess how many porn sites he got back?

    Ok, now this I gotta see. Here's yahoo's results [yahoo.com]:

    • Black Bear Cabin Rentals - manages and rents privately owned cabins located in the mountains of North Georgia.
    • Big Black Bear Shop - offering plush Teddy Bears and stuffed toys.
    • Black Bear Campground - offers camping in Orange County, New York.
    • Black Bear Campground - enjoy the sights, sounds and recreation available in the area.
    • Black Bear Camp & Lodge - clothing optional private campground and bunkhouse for adult men. --ok, but not really porn
    • Black Bear Review - international literary magazine for the concerned poet and artist.
    • Black Bear Camp & Lodge - clothing optional private campground and bunkhouse for adult men.
    • Black Bear Diner - offers a sample menu and locations.
    • Black Bear Diner - offers a sample menu and locations.
    Yahoo seems to duplicate the same couple resources over and over again, not so good compared to their competition.

    Lycos did pretty well also, here's the lycos results [lycos.com]:

    • The American Bear Association (ABA) home page - The home page of The American Bear Association, a non-profit organization dedicated to promoting the well-being of bears and all wildlife through a better understanding.
    • Black Bear...American Black Bear...Michigan Black Bear - GarLyn Farm ZOOlogical Park now features american black bear. Photo's, information, and links to more sites about black bear and other animals.
    • NEW NABC INDEX - The mission of the North American Bear Center is to enhance the understanding of the general public of the habits, needs and environment of bears in North America.
    • Wildlife Endangered Species - Black Bear - they are a rare sight in Texas, the black bear is the most common kind of bear in the United States. Black bears are considered to be endangered in the state of Texas. Black bears
    • An American Black Bear - Fuzzy, weighing in at more than 400 pounds, lives at GarLyn Farm ZOOlogical Park. Also links to more bear information.
    • Black Bear Conservation Committee - Promoting the restoration of the Louisiana black bear in its historic range, through education, research, and habitat management.
    • Working With Wildlife - Black Bear - NC State University - Notes about wildlife management of the Black Bear.
    • American Black Bear - (Encarta® Concise Encyclopedia Article)
    • American Black Bear - Fact sheet from "About the Animals" where information on a large variety of animals can be obtained, from present day habitat to estimated populations.
    • Black Bear Paging Service - Providing local paging service, products and accessories for West Virginia and southern Ohio. A member of SoutherNet Association of paging.
    • Black Bear Lodge - Located on Little St. Germaine Lake out of St. Germaine WI. A four season resort. They have fishing, golfing, hunting, skiing, and snowmobiling nearby.
    • Black Bear Inn, South Lake Tahoe - The Inn is nestled on a wooded acre, offering luxury accommodations in a rustic, mountain setting. Black Bear Inn's main lodge has five generous guest rooms, and there are three cabins on the grounds
    • Black Bear B&B - Located in the scenic Sunday River Valley, on Sunday River Road, the Black Bear offers an alternative to guests who appreciate being within two miles of one of the East's outstanding ski areas, Sunday
    • Black Bear Design - Design professional web sites for affordable rates. All artwork is custom artwork; no clip art is used.
    Looks like Lycos is doing pretty well...

    I also tried google, and their results [google.com] are pretty good also.

    What's amazing is that someone would post such a comment and not even bother trying the search. Come on, it's pretty damn simple.

  • Punch code?!?!? What does this guy think we do, put holes in cards?!!??

    Perhaps he means that programmers punch code the same way that cowboys punch cattle. Hmm... I kinda dig that imagery. "Sherrif! Black Bart's causing memory leaks up and down Main Street!" "Hand me my smart pointers, boy."

    Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go wrangle some ADO objects.

  • Google Plug-in (Score:4)

    by big_groo ( 237634 ) <groovis AT gmail DOT com> on Tuesday December 12, 2000 @07:58AM (#564874) Homepage
    OK. They're not collecting personal information here folks. Frankly, if it helps refine the search(es) that I perform, I'm all for it.

    Example:
    A friend of mine was working at a provincial park last summer. He was working on the park's web site and decided he needed a picture of a Black Bear. On to Yahoo! and Lycos he goes, enters the search "black bear". Guess how many porn sites he got back? Try this search now on google, and you actually get "Black Bear" information. NOT porn. Anything to refine the database is fine with me.
  • Why make it governmental? Why force every one of us to pay for it? Why make the poor as well as the rich fund it? Why not let private parties fund it, through the medium of ads? It sure seems to be working so far--Google's great.

  • Privacy shmivacy (Score:5)

    by seanmeister ( 156224 ) on Tuesday December 12, 2000 @07:59AM (#564879)
    You can install the Google toolbar without the PageRank features that transmit URL's back to Google. Those sneaky bastards hid this option behind a huge freaking button that clearly states this.
    Sean
  • Default [dictionary.com]
    Sean
  • If one in a 100 click on your link (and it'd have to be a great or deceptive ad to get that), that's $1.50 a surfer.

    You all are missing the point. AdWords is not about getting massive exposures, its about targeting your ads with laser precision.

    I have a few Adwords myself, and some of them get as high as 20-30% click through, because they are very targeted phrases, I won't type them here, because then you all will go search for them and kill my CTRs. Sure I am not pulling in millions of hits per day, but I get a LOT of bang for my buck.

    On top of that, Google is very generous with ad credits, I have run my campaigns on mostly comp credits. (You "gambler"s know what a comp is.) :)

    Maybe their prices are a little high, but you have to look at the audience you reach through Google also. Its not just people that are too stupid to change their default home page, like MSN.

    I had an account on MSN's keywords, while that still existed. I never spent much money on it until they cut their so called "auctions" minimum bids down by over 100% and gave me some free credits. They had this sort of fake auction system, where the starting bids for keywords were already too outrageously high to ever want to bid on. I wound up getting a refund for almost all of my money when Keywords was officially sacked a few months ago.


    -

  • As a user, I find Google's AdWords much less heinous than DoubleClick advertising.

    Speaking of which, DoubleClick made the news today: in this article [cnetinvestor.com], DoubleClick is cutting their workforce by 10% and this article [cnetinvestor.com] mentions their stock being downgraded from "buy" to "hold".

    DISCLAIMER: This is not investment advice, blah blah blah, it's just gloating over watching web-spam.com fail.

    John

  • ARGGH! (Score:3)

    by Adam Wiggins ( 349 ) on Tuesday December 12, 2000 @12:46PM (#564889) Homepage
    System Requirements

    Microsoft Windows OS
    Microsoft Internet Explorer version 5.0 or greater

    Your operating system does not appear to meet these requirements.

    Your system infomation was reported as:

    Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Konqueror/2.0; X11); Supports MD5-Digest; Supports gzip encoding

    Install the Google Toolbar

    Because your system does not appear to meet the system requirements for the Google Toolbar, installation has been cancelled.
  • try altavista text mode, it loads a little faster for me actually.
    http://www.altavista.com/query?text=on [altavista.com]

  • Interesting quote (Score:5)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 12, 2000 @08:00AM (#564900)
    The patent-pending technology, PageRank, is Google's method of rating the importance of Web pages by counting the number of other Web pages that link to them.

    So, will Slashdotters (and, more specifically, the editors) jump all over Google once this patent is granted? Or do Slashdot favorites win a "get out of flamage free" card?

  • Yep (Score:3)

    by Icebox ( 153775 ) on Tuesday December 12, 2000 @08:02AM (#564901)
    Google is better than engines like Yahoo, Excite, NorthernLight, blah blah, because it is faster. No banners, no news, no stock tips, just search results.

    They also have to be given credit for being up front about what they are doing, I haven't seen anything change on their site without soem sort of an explanation.

    Also, the toolbar shouldn't be a concern for most Slashdotters because it is only available for Windows...or maybe it should, who knows. We rabid computer geeks wouldn't worry about Windows would we?

  • Enjoy it while it lasts Google (Score:3)

    by Ars-Fartsica ( 166957 ) on Tuesday December 12, 2000 @08:04AM (#564902)
    Search is a fickle mistress. I don't know of any search engine that has retained its cool factor for more than a year, and people I have spoken to at Google seem to have an understanding how tenuous their position is.

    Lycos, Alta Vista, Inktomi, etc. all have had the cool factor and then lost it just as quickly. Whats next - Infrasearch? FAST?

Slashdot Top Deals

Always draw your curves, then plot your reading.

Close