Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Microsoft The Almighty Buck The Internet

MSN Rolling Out New Search Engine In July 281

Posted by Hemos from the makin'-the-money dept.
X writes "Looks like Microsoft is going to release its new search technology soon. The online search world is about to get very interesting...." July launch; looks like they will continue to use Overture for a while, but the competition for dollars and users will definitely heat up.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

MSN Rolling Out New Search Engine In July More

MSN Rolling Out New Search Engine In July

Comments Filter:

  • And..... the Poll! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by LBArrettAnderson ( 655246 ) on Saturday March 20, 2004 @03:34PM (#8622137)
    Favorite Search Engine?

    Google [calcgames.org]
    Yahoo [calcgames.org]
    Lycos [calcgames.org]
    MICROSOFT [calcgames.org]
    Missing Option? [calcgames.org]

  • Everyone will just carry on using Google though. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by JoeBaldwin ( 727345 ) on Saturday March 20, 2004 @03:34PM (#8622138) Homepage Journal
    Google has been pushed into the common vocabulary, like Hoover has for vacuum cleaners and Coke has for soft drinks. It has mind share, and a lot of it.

    Google will always reign supreme, definitely.

    • Re:Everyone will just carry on using Google though (Score:4, Insightful)

      by BizidyDizidy ( 689383 ) on Saturday March 20, 2004 @03:36PM (#8622163)
      Just like the Roman and British Empires, IBM, Netscape, East India Company, and all the other things this exact idiotic comment was made about.
    • Just being dominant today is no promise of future domination. TiVo's thhe word people use for PVRs, but we just had an article proclaim that TiVo's going to die yesterday...

    • Re:Everyone will just carry on using Google though (Score:5, Interesting)

      by GoRK ( 10018 ) on Saturday March 20, 2004 @03:38PM (#8622172) Homepage Journal
      This kind of brings up some interesting questions --

      What happens when/if someone develops a search engine that really is better (gasp! horror!) than Google? Will people still continue to use Google because it's entrenched in their brains? Will people say Google and mean another search engine?

      • Re:Everyone will just carry on using Google though (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Chess_the_cat ( 653159 ) on Saturday March 20, 2004 @03:45PM (#8622234) Homepage
        Could happen. Just like people say Kleenex when they mean a tissue and Aspirin when they mean ASA? Both are brand names but they're not used that way anymore. I can see the same happening to Google.

      • No they won't! (Score:3, Interesting)

        by ggvaidya ( 747058 )

        No way! If a good competitor comes up, they're going to push their brandname as much as possible, and out-swamp google.

        Google became number one through a combination of good technology (very good search algorithm, large number of computer clusters) and brilliant marketing (simple, ad-free, no-clutter, to-the-point interface; getting their search algorithm and computer statistics into magazines like Reader's Digest, etc).

        Everybody's trying to embrace-and-extend this now, which means the push is towards a

      • This kind of brings up some interesting questions --

        What happens when/if someone develops a search engine that really is better (gasp! horror!) than Google? Will people still continue to use Google because it's entrenched in their brains? Will people say Google and mean another search engine?

        No. Used Hotbot for years because it was a much better search engine (to me at least.)

        Several people would search for the answer to a difficult question, I would find it easily faster than they did.

        When this start
      • Will people still continue to use Google because it's entrenched in their brains?

        Not me

        Will people say Google and mean another search engine?

        No

        But then again, maybe I belong to a minority.
    • The same way that everyone only uses Xerox photocopiers?

      Just because the brand name is in the popular lexicon, doesn't mean that the product will be forever dominant.

      • Re:Everyone will just carry on using Google though (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Nakito ( 702386 ) on Saturday March 20, 2004 @04:35PM (#8622524)
        Indeed, once a brand name enters the common parlance, it has a life independent of the company that it stands for, even if that company loses its leadership position.

        Boss (handing you a stack of paper as he points to the Canon copier next to your desk): "Please xerox these documents."

        Boss (handing you a stack of reference citations as he points to the Microsoft search engine on your desktop): "Please google these terms."

        You might think it can't happen, but it can. The fact that Google is so dominant today is no guarantee of anything except that its name will probably remain recognizable as a verb for awhile. Google will have to continue to compete, and compete well, if it wants to stay on top. It was not very long ago that AltaVista ruled the search engine world, and it did not take very long for its user base to erode when Digital/Compaq failed to give it the priority it deserved.
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Of course (Score:5, Interesting)

      by The Ancients ( 626689 ) on Saturday March 20, 2004 @03:43PM (#8622222) Homepage
      I think Google pulled themselves into mindshare, due to their efforts. They haven't stood still, and are always attempting to improve on what they do. Kind of unlike a lot of other companies/products that gain market dominance (Microsoft bashers have your say, but there are many companies guilty of this).

      My (very) simple take on Google - the main search page is small and light and loads incredibly quickly (even while I'm saturating wor...err, my connection with por...uhh, linux binaries). The page has never really changed that much and is very familiar, but the technology behind the page is constantly being tweaked. Of course, (fair) competition is almost always a good thing.

      Google will always reign supreme, definitely.

      I don't think anything is definite - Google has a clear head start, but I don't think even Google are invincible. This will be a very interesting space to watch, indeed...

      ..k

    • careful, you just proved yourself incorrect. Do Hoover and Coke have 100% market share?
    • You havent been around on the net for a very long time have you? I remember about 8 years ago or so when yahoo reigned supreme. It was huge portal second behing only AOL. Things were great. Everyone went to Yahoo to perform searches.. heck, "do you yahoo?" was something i heard all the time.
      Where is yahoo now?
    • Just because I need to xerox something doesn't mean I have to use that company. The world needed a verb that means `to look for something on the internet' and now it has one.


      -Colin [colingregorypalmer.net]
    • It seems pretty clear that Microsoft is bent on controlling every aspect of computing. This search engine technology marks their foothold in providing content (as does MSN). Yesterday's mention of AOL marks their foothold in providing access to content (as does MSN). They're also involved in everything from peripheral hardware to the BIOS to the operating system to the browser (and other web content software). Ok, this is all rather obvious.

      Looking at this body of involvement I see two areas of growth. Mic
    • Google has been pushed into the common vocabulary, like Hoover has for vacuum cleaners and Coke has for soft drinks. It has mind share, and a lot of it.

      Google will always reign supreme, definitely.

      Yes, most people will carry on using Google... The question is for how long. An eternity is a damn long time, and I think we'll see a very competing search engine in at least a decade or so. I think it's likely this one will be MSN because of Microsoft's dominance in the business.

      I'm already seeing the downfal

  • Oh really? (Score:5, Funny)

    by oGMo ( 379 ) on Saturday March 20, 2004 @03:35PM (#8622153)
    The online search world is about to get very interesting....

    So what new feature is Google planning this time, then?

    ;-) (Sorry, couldn't resist)

    • Re:Oh really? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by lortho ( 700090 ) on Saturday March 20, 2004 @03:38PM (#8622178)
      No, no, this time it's another Microsoft "innovation," check it out (from the article):

      Instead of including paid listings within search results, which critics say results in misleading search results, MSN said it will display paid listings separately at the top and to the right of search results generated by its search engine.

      Amazing, if only Google had thought of this fir... umm... wait... ;)
    • "So what new feature is Google planning this time, then?"

      A 48-hour St. Patrick's day, by the look of things...

  • That's fine and all, but... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Rellik66 ( 596729 ) on Saturday March 20, 2004 @03:36PM (#8622159)

    will anybody ever say, "Let me MSN search that"

  • What ticks me off about this is that microsoft will deffinately put this as the default search EVERYWHERE in Windows. How many people do you know use Internet Explorer? Sure there are many other better options out there, but nobody cares for these because the majority of web surfers just use what is on the OS. This is why IE is so big, and unfortunately, it will probably transend to search engines as well.
    • I know. Knowing them there will probably be a MSN search bar in IE. Plus a "Search the Web with MSN" icon on your desktop, in your quick launch, under Start, under Start --> Internet, under Start --> Search, under Start --> Internet --> Search, under Start --> Search --> Internet, under Start --> Accessories, under Start --> Accessories -- Internet, under Start --> Accessories --> Search, in "My Computer", and in the task manager.

    • I don't know, it's been ages since I've seen somebody search using IE's toolbar search. Most people I know use Google.

    • Re:Microsoft proprietary searches, great! (Score:5, Informative)

      by Richard_at_work ( 517087 ) * on Saturday March 20, 2004 @04:18PM (#8622438)
      Uhm, its already the default search in IE. Type search terms into the address bar and press enter if you dont beleive me, you get taken to MSN. So in what way will this change? People still use google, hell people even install the google tool bar, which has the option of changing the default search engine in IE.

  • Searching for Linux on MSN (Score:4, Informative)

    by Rellik66 ( 596729 ) on Saturday March 20, 2004 @03:40PM (#8622199)
    Wasn't there a time when searching for Linux [msn.com] gave really stupid Microsoft-related results?

  • nice.. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by psycho_tinman ( 313601 ) on Saturday March 20, 2004 @03:41PM (#8622204) Journal

    An interesting quote was:
    Instead of including paid listings within search results, which critics say results in misleading search results, MSN said it will display paid listings separately at the top and to the right of search results generated by its search engine.

    If Google sinks without a trace tomorrow, at least they've forced other competitors to follow suit and remove paid listings as a revenue option.

    Actually, I'd be very interested in how Microsoft decide to differentiate themselves in terms of a search product. Obviously, sinking this much money into a completely different search means they must have some sort of strategy for toppling Google off the throne, right ? That's what I want to see.

    The more competition, the better for everyone, as far as search is concerned and where the cost of switching is so low (just point your browser elsewhere)

    • Re:nice.. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by spicyjeff ( 6305 ) on Saturday March 20, 2004 @03:50PM (#8622273) Homepage
      If Google sinks without a trace tomorrow, at least they've forced other competitors to follow suit and remove paid listings as a revenue option.


      In classic Microsoft fashion however, as soon as Google sank to never come back, they would role out there next version with paid listings firmly in place.

    • If Google sinks without a trace tomorrow, at least they've forced other competitors to follow suit and remove paid listings as a revenue option.

      Although not proven as a winner yet, Yahoo is going back to mixing in paid listings.

      We used to pay for clicks but yahoo wants to *also* charge you every time your page is returned in the listings. fuck that.

    • Re:nice.. (Score:2, Insightful)

      by zcat_NZ ( 267672 )
      Actually, I'd be very interested in how Microsoft decide to differentiate themselves in terms of a search product. Obviously, sinking this much money into a completely different search means they must have some sort of strategy for toppling Google off the throne, right ? That's what I want to see.

      Microsoft's usual strategy; make <msfoo> the default <foo> in windows, and make it just good enough that most <foo> users won't go to the trouble of downloading <alterfoo>. When <alterf

    • Re:nice.. (Score:5, Informative)

      by Glamdrlng ( 654792 ) on Saturday March 20, 2004 @05:09PM (#8622709)
      Actually, I'd be very interested in how Microsoft decide to differentiate themselves in terms of a search product. Obviously, sinking this much money into a completely different search means they must have some sort of strategy for toppling Google off the throne, right ? That's what I want to see.

      Let's take a look at some of the primary factors that will come into play when running a server farm for web-spidering purposes:

      Operating System:

      Google runs a strpped-down linux kernel specifically tweaked to facilitate two tasks: crawling web pages and returning search engine results. Assuming that Microsoft eats their own dog food, they will either run their own bloated Server 2003, or they'll come up with a customized windows installation with a bunch of the extraneous crap excluded. Edge: Most likely Google.

      Hardware:

      Microsoft has the revenue stream to build server farms of mammoth porportions, and they have multiple sites across which they can distribute their spider farms at little to no additional cost. On the other hand, if Micorosft serves its searches off of an unmodified 2003 kernel, they'll need much more in the way of hardware resources than Google will. OTOH, Google has by and large rewritten the book on maximizing the efficiency of the systems that serve up searches. They also have incrementally more experience trending hardware utilization for a high-volume search engine than Microsoft. Edge: Most likely Google.

      System Administration:

      If google rewrote the book efficient utilization of resources on search engines, they wrote the book on system administration of a high volume search engine completely from scratch. With their incredibly low ratio of sysadmins to supported systems, Google has a head start on running a sustainable operation than Microsoft. OTOH, MS has the extra hands to throw at this endeavor, and it's possible that they could use tools like Windows Services for Unix and Windows Scripting host to automate sysadmin tasks on their servers much like google did. What will factor in the most here is the internal politics at Redmond. If the busness center responsible for SMS decides that this needs to be a case study on SMS deployment, than Microsoft will surely fail on this objective. If on the other hand they avoid SMS like the plague, then they'll be in better shape, but again they'll be trying to reinvent the wheel while google is already racing around on radials with phat 20" rims and neon lights. Edge: Most likely Google.

      System Security:

      It will be interesting to see how the new MSN will be impacted by the next blaster worm. This search engine will have one of the biggest sets of crosshairs in the world painted all over it, and it will be interesting to see how the next IIS vulnerability is handled. Look for a mysterious outage at about the same time as a new vulnerability is discovered, or look for a vulnerability that affects everyone running IIS, except for the servers running MSN. Edge: Google.

      Integrity of Searches:

      Here, google outshines Microsoft. While google has had its share of search engine results controversies, I don't see how Microsoft will be able to risk the temptation of tampering with search engine results. Both companies have very clear agendas. Microsoft's agenda is to push Microsoft products and line Microsoft pockets, while Google's agenda is to provide a low-overhead search engine while providing the best possible user experience. Edge: Most certainly Google.

      At the end of the day, there are two benefits we are likely to see. One of them is competition driving down the price of paid search engine advertisements. The other is whatever OS customization, system management, and automation techniques Microsoft cooks up in the process of building and maintaining the server farms. If Microsoft chooses to share this info, then Windows administrators can better secure their machines, and the Internet becomes a safer place. If not, then at least there's the chance that Microsoft's ludicrous claims about them having a shorter window from vulnerability discovery to patch availability than Linux can be shattered.

  • How am I supposed to react to this... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by noser ( 114367 ) on Saturday March 20, 2004 @03:43PM (#8622218)

    Users came to Google for the clean interface and stayed for the consistant results. I have known so many people who just use their search engine of choice through habit and never ever think to change. I'm sure we all can think of people who stubbornly cling to obscure legacy search engines like dogpile or even msn search (shiver)...

    These are the people who just use msn or aol default search tool, and then discover that it is not working for them. Sooner or later they eventually find their way to Google; what would ever make them leave?

    Casual internet users don't switch search engines out of curiosity. They have work to do and want answers fast. A new search offering would have to offer a simple, clean, easy to learn interface and consitantly great results to ever usurp Google. Or they could give away free money...

    • Excellent point. From my own personal experience, I became a habitual user of Alta Vista in the early days. Over time, Google became better in all respects except one: AltaVista still had the ability to search Usenet posts (which is very useful for troubleshooting tech issues!). But when AltaVista stopped allowing usenet searches, I became an immediate Google user. Eventually, Google Groups became available and "customer loyalty" set in. I can't imagine a scenario where that well-worn rut of hitting g
    • I would disagree with you in one instance that used to be fairly common- You are not satisfied with your results. It used to be a very common thing that I would go to lycos (then claiming the largest index), yahoo (then had the best results), and then altavista, hotbot, google, or whatever else came to mind. Eventually google rose to the top as its searches always produced what I was looking for. Now, you're right, I dont go elsewhere because google gets me the info I want.

      However, being at the top has i

  • online search world == interesting? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by bsDaemon ( 87307 ) on Saturday March 20, 2004 @03:47PM (#8622248)
    Excuse me, I am sure I must be mistaken, but interesting is hardly the word i would use to describe this. What would be interesting to me? A free, non-profit, search engine. Not funded by advertising. It would sort of be like the PBS of the of the WWW.
    If I search for anything, pretty much the first hits are going to include Amazon.com advertising books about the subject. Doesn't this defeat the purpose of the web? I would like to see only the online information which is A) free (as in dollar bills) to access and B) actually acurate (ie, not written by jr. highschool history classes which leave out all of the details and most of the actual facts).
    Honestly, if it would also search articles in magazines and scientific/trade journals, and give me access to the full text, i may even be willing to actually PAY for the service. Something like, $10-$15 per month, even. This would greatly enhance the productivity of unversity students and professors.
    • I actually did some work on a system likes this not to long ago.
      The problem is since most of the scientific journals,etc. are walled gardens (IE you have to pay to access or be a member of university XYZ) it can get very complicated to actually get something like that to work.
    • My technique for that is simple: use citeseer to get the names of the authors of a few relevant papers, and then use Google to find their home pages. A rather high proportion of academics have their papers for download, even if the journal which published them wants you to subscribe before you read more than the abstract.

    • What on earth is the "purpose of the web"???

      Also, you probably shouldn't use Google to do research searches. Have you tried PubMed [nih.gov]? It's one of the best, and free to search. Some non-free ones (which universities generally have subscription for) are BIOSIS Previews [biosis.org] and ISI Web of Knowledge [isinet.com].

      As a side point, I frequently use Google to look up stuff for reports at university, and am generally surprised at just how relevant the search results are, for a non-scientific web search engine. Google on!

    • Try these, they cost money, but they provide the access you want.

      Lexis Nexus [lexis-nexus.com]
      Factiva [factiva.com]
      Gartner [gartner.com]

      We get free access to these and a lot more at my university.

    • So in my opinion there are 3 good websites on the internet:
      E-Print Archives [lanl.gov]
      Mathworld [wolfram.com] and Scienceworld [wolfram.com]
      Federation of American Scientists [fas.org]

      Of the three, 2 are distinctly not for profit, but rather so that scientists can get some work done again and who know's why wolfram put mathworld and scienceworld online. As far as more liberal arts stuff, the only online thing I know of is jstor.org and I think that might require paying for, but my university pays for it if it does. I found all those sites very use

  • Will Microsoft try to take control in any existing domain related to computing ? They already have a monopoly on operating systems, messengers, and now they want to take control on search engines ? I know it's not new but, can't they really bear the idea that there is some company doing something better than them ?

    I don't know if they will succeed in replacing google as the leader search engine... but I wonder if it is not dangerous for a company to attempt extending its control on everything.

    • Re:What do they want ? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Dan Ost ( 415913 )
      They already have a monopoly on operating systems, messengers, and now they want to take control on search engines?

      When did they get a monopoly on messengers? When I look around, I see lots
      of AIM, Jabber, and ICQ users, but I've never seen anyone use Microsoft's
      messenger. Is my sample out of touch with the rest of reality?

    • Re:What do they want ? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by pe1chl ( 90186 )
      They have the money to control everything, and no way to spend it on improvement of their existing products.
      (they don't think that fixing bugs is improving the product)

      SO they start looking around and finding things to control.
      The top search engine uses their biggest competitor OS, so that needs to be gone.
      Also it provides a large knowledgebase about competing systems, that must be eradicated.
      Once MS controls the search engine business, they can influence the documents that the world is going to read. Les
  • So how long is it before we start seeing the headlines "Google is dead!"

    (Not that I want to see google go, but everything else is dead. Apple, Tivo, BSD, and etc.)

  • When is Google like BSD? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Eberlin ( 570874 ) on Saturday March 20, 2004 @03:55PM (#8622311) Homepage
    I mean we've heard it before and I'm starting to believe it -- Google is dying. When you're the top search engine out there, people start wanting to make a living spamming, scamming, and (google)bombing the algorithm just so they show up first.

    Continuing to improve is a must. That doesn't necessarily mean expanding to blogging and giving away free e-mails and stuff. Just give me the appropriate results to my searches, separate the ads from (informative) content, and keep things as simple as possible. It's tough when everyone's gunning for you, but you can't sit still -- the search engine war should be won by the engine that gives the best results.

    Google -- I'm pulling for you. I really am. Don't Netscape your way into oblivion, please. Yahoo will likely compete on merit. MS will play "default with OS" against you. I really hope you'll make it out ahead.
    • The MSN homepage has been the default IE homepage since IE4 and win98. This is hardly a new card MS will be playing, google has been beating their primary tactic for a very long time now.
    • I'd love Google to start "punishing" sites:

      Your page has text almost the same colour as the background? -1000 points for you! (or whatever's large enough to push them to the bottom).

      something to stop all this BS that's only there to fool people.

      plus, official sites should almost always be at the top, If it isn't then whoever's at the top is probably scamming.
      • The problem is that it is easy to find ways around the punishments.

        In your example, all a webpage author would have to do is use a small, solid colored background image to set the "background" color, instead of via html code.

  • They are catching up with Google! (Score:5, Funny)

    by FyRE666 ( 263011 ) * on Saturday March 20, 2004 @03:55PM (#8622312) Homepage
    As can be seen here, a search for litigious bastards [msn.com] brings Microsoft's pet puppets up at the top of the result list ;-)

  • This alone will sink it (Score:5, Insightful)

    by astrashe ( 7452 ) on Saturday March 20, 2004 @04:01PM (#8622348) Journal
    This alone will sink it:

    Redetzki said MSN will list three paid listings at the top of every search result, of which at least two will be advertisements sold directly by MSN.

    People don't want the search results to come in 4th on the list -- they want it at the top.

    Also, I found this quote to be sort of funny:

    "We're really close to finding out what really strikes consumers as the most relevant search results," said Karen Redetzki, an MSN product manager.

    They don't know, but they're really close to finding out what consumers want. Even the word "consumers" says a lot about their mindset. We're just there to buy stuff.

    99/100 of my google searches don't have anything to do with buying stuff. But when I do want to buy something, I use google because it's the engine I'm used to.

    MS will probably make a lot of money, because a lot of people don't know any better. I've been installing the google toolbar for people, because it blocks pop-ups, and about half of the people who have gotten it from me say that their searches have improved a lot because they've started to use google.

    I had assumed that everyone was already using google, but the comments I've gotten suggest that isn't the case.

    But google is the company that's driving the industry. They're the people who worked out the best way for an engine to work. MS isn't bringing anything new to the table, fundamentally, other than an ability to use their software to drive people to their site.

    They're saying, basically, let's copy google to a large extent, except for a small number of changes that will make the site worse (ie., putting paid links at the top of the page instead of just over on the side), and use our position as a software vendor to drive traffic to our search engine.

    • They don't know, but they're really close to finding out what consumers want. Even the word "consumers" says a lot about their mindset. We're just there to buy stuff.

      The word consumer implies nothing about "buying stuff." A consumer is a person who 'consumes' a product or service. A consumer in this context is someone who uses their search engine.

      • Re:This alone will sink it (Score:5, Interesting)

        by astrashe ( 7452 ) on Saturday March 20, 2004 @05:24PM (#8622777) Journal
        I understand your point, but I still stand by mine, for two reasons.

        First of all, words have nuances. "Prostitute" and "whore" mean the same thing, in a mechanical sense - the definition is the same. But one is derrogatory, and the other isn't.

        I believe that there are nuances in the word "consumer", that it comes out of a certain corporate mindset.

        And second of all, the entire article is about how MSN plans to sell ads on the search engine. People buy ads to sell people stuff. So I think they really are thinking of their users as consumers.

        The article talks about where the ads are going to appear on page, how many ads will show up before the first real hit is displayed, and how some ads will be on the top while others will be on the side. It talks about how at least two of the three top ads will be sold directly by MSN, but the third might, or might not be sold by the companies that are selling ads for MSN now. It talks about whether or not those companies will be able to continue to do that, and how their roles will change.

        This is a different sort of discussion than the one that surrounded google when it was launched. With google, it was all about PageRank, and about how to make searches more useful. When google talks about their service, the discussion tends to be user-centric. The article we have here is advertiser-centric.

        I think it's a real difference in perspective, and I think it's one of the bedrock reasons why Google is better, and will continue to be better, than any MSN search engine.

        And I think the MSN corporate wonk's use of the word "consumer" is indicative of that. It's a small thing, and it doesn't prove anything, but it's a sign.

  • Maybe they want to get their search engine out there, up and running before they lock Longhorn into it.
  • does m$ delete all references to themselves and big gates? hehe.

  • Heh (Score:4, Funny)

    by Tirinal ( 667204 ) on Saturday March 20, 2004 @04:10PM (#8622391)
    "We're really close to finding out what really strikes consumers as the most relevant search results," said Karen Redetzki, an MSN product manager.

    Tranalation: After several years of weekly strategy meetings with high-paid analysts and consultants we have discovered that people do not, in fact, want advertisements to be displayed with search results.
  • "Reasons to go on living."

  • Enough already! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by shaitand ( 626655 ) * on Saturday March 20, 2004 @04:19PM (#8622446) Journal
    I hate MS as much as the next guy. But they can't exactly just set this as the default in IE and win the war like the majority of posters seem to be saying.

    Why not? They've done it with media player, IE, etc etc. Well they can't because they've been doing it for over 6yrs already and google rose to the top with MSN search as the default homepage and search in IE already!

    Install IE, open the browser, up pops the MSN search page. You think just because they make a new search engine and start pointing to it as the default rather than MSN it's going to suddenly kill google?

    I might have agreed 6yrs ago, but now having seen that at no time since they made it the default page with IE 4 in win98 has MSN EVER been the top search engine.. I'm afraid history has already shown otherwise sorry guys.

    Lets talk about how they cleaned up the search results for Xfree86 and linux and such before making this announcement (check em) and how they will undoubtedly bring the scewed results back if they succeed and become top search dog.

  • MS Vaporware(TM) (Score:4, Insightful)

    by inkswamp ( 233692 ) on Saturday March 20, 2004 @05:03PM (#8622677)
    Yet another instance of "we've got something real cool coming real soon so don't get too wrapped up in the other guys and especially don't go investing your money in them... God forbid!" If MS would get rid of the people they have writing all these fantastic PR releases and hire more people to work on this stuff, maybe they could actually get some of this stuff out and in people's hands. I mean, c'mon... every time some other company has a great idea, MS is hot on their heels with "something just like it real soon but even better!" They have an iTunes Music Store and an "iPod killer" coming... real soon. They have Longhorn coming... real soon (just not as soon as we originally said!) They have a Google-killer... real soon.

    How many times can MS get away with crying wolf like this?

  • How it will work (Score:3, Interesting)

    by hng_rval ( 631871 ) on Saturday March 20, 2004 @05:06PM (#8622696)
    What I've heard through the grapevine about this new search is that it will be more interactive.

    When you type in a search for "apple" the search engine doesn't know if you mean Apple Computers or Apples the fruit. MSN search will ask you.

    This example is kind of obvious (just type Apple Computers into google), but there are less obvious searches where the interaction could really make a difference.

    Don't count MS out. If they do enable better searches they could win this battle.
  • MSN is not going to beat google anytime soon in my opinion. Not unless google makes some silly decision. And the reason why I think this may sound a bit stupid to some:

    When I want to do online searches, I just open the browser and type www.google.com. I never click on the search button (that some browsers have). And it's not just me. Most of the people I know do exactly the same thing. It's a sort of automatic behaviour.

    Now one could argue that MS can try to put search buttons all over the place tha

  • Is it just all bullshit? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by blueworm ( 425290 ) on Saturday March 20, 2004 @07:22PM (#8623444) Homepage
    Who else thinks this is bullshit?

    I know when I started googling more it had nothing to do with "search technology" but with the relative nakedness of google's page compared with Yahoo's. The less you put on the search page besides the search itself, the more I'll love it!

  • Spider Agent Tag? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by T-Ranger ( 10520 ) <jeffw@NoSPAm.chebucto.ns.ca> on Saturday March 20, 2004 @11:32PM (#8624895) Homepage
    Boycot Microsoft search engine. Set your web server to refuse to talk to their spider.

Slashdot Top Deals

The hardest part of climbing the ladder of success is getting through the crowd at the bottom.

Close