Yahoo! Switches Search Engines

Giorgio Baresi writes "As several sources are reporting, Yahoo! in the last hours dumped Google and rolled out a brand new search engine mainly based on Inktomi search technology and Overture sponsored results. On Monday Yahoo! also launched its own crawler, called "Yahoo! Slurp", which replaced former "Inktomi Slurp". Hey, it seems the search engine war has begun!"

The search engine war has begun?

I think you mean, "Begun, the search engine war has.".

Re:The search engine war has begun?

That would be nice. Maybe now they can pull up something relevant to what I searched for in the first place.

How can you speak if you haven't got a brain?

Re:The search engine war has begun?

That would be nice. Maybe now they can pull up something relevant to what I searched for in the first place.

Not likely, Overture (I love these guys, they are making me rich) lets you BUY the top spots without letting the user know it. Google, on the other hand only sells side bar positions. Darn those google people and their ethics (no wonder MS couldn't buy them...)

Relevance?

Just searched Google [google.com] and Yahoo [yahoo.com] about "yahoo slurp". Guess which one's more accurate? (also, it's plainly obvious that Google can withstand /., but can Yahoo?)

Re:Relevance?

"(also, it's plainly obvious that Google can withstand /., but can Yahoo?)"

Well yes, because after all, yahoo is only one of the biggest sites on the internet, with a mere 105 million hits per day

Re:Relevance?

the real test?

more evil than satan [yahoo.com]

miserable failure [yahoo.com]

and of course...
litigious bastards [yahoo.com]

seems to work just fine!

Re:The search engine war has begun?

And not Christopher Lee???

I can just see the Yahoo CEO addressing his legions of web crawlers, proclaiming, "A New Power is rising! It's victory is at hand."

There will be no IPO for Google...

Re:Actually...

Google pulls up a little more for the "the"-variant.

So what does a Yahoo search turn up? :)

Re:Actually...

Come on... size doesn't matter...

it is all about how you index it.

Re:The search engine war has begun?

Does a Star Wars pun really rate that high of a mod?

Star Wars leads to quotes.. quotes lead to puns...

Puns lead to funny mods.

Much to learn, have you.

is it just me...

or does a webcrawler named "slurp" sound like something more appropriate for booble.com?

I doubt this is a major problem for Google

Yahoo has been talking about dumping Google for a real long time now, so I doubt Google is really surprised. Besides, with the recent update [slashdot.org] to their index that they just made, I have a feeling that Google is not going to succumb just yet.

Re:I doubt this is a major problem for Google

Of course it's not a major problem. I know very few people that still use Yahoo as their first choice in search engines (and I am not talking about computer saavy people either).

My mother uses the Google toolbar and knew about it w/o me telling her. My father refuses to use anything other than Google as his homepage.

My number one reason for believing that Google is the all important, #1 search engine: My girlfriend's parents said, "I'll just google for it." at dinner one night (and this is a family where they have a shortcut to every file on the desktop and they use AOL 6.0).

Re:I doubt this is a major problem for Google

On a related note, I was at my parents home this weekend. They like to use Yahoo for their searching. No problem, but they were complaining of popups. I decided to install the Google toolbar for them. The thought crossed my mind to install the Yahoo toolbar, since they prefer Yahoo, however, it came down to a matter of trust. When Google says they're not going to resell my information or track my moves, they've given me no reason to disbelieve them. But seeing some of the ads on Yahoo makes me feel they're willing to do anything for an extra click. I appreciate that they're in the business to make money, just as Google is, but Google just makes me feel more comfortable about it.

Not a big deal either, since there's a goof chance my parents won't take notice the new bar anyway ;)

It is sad that you have to question every motive and move you make on the Internet thanks to all the toxic waste that is present. One wrong subscription and your inbox is hosed. I made that mistake the other day. Fortunately, I used a throw-away [spamgourmet.com] e-mail address so the damage was minimal.

Re:I doubt this is a major problem for Google

No need to be so warm & fuzzy with Google. That toolbar they distribute, that 'sends information back to google' -- well, SEOs have realized that you can view a web-page that google does not have indexed, with their toolbar installed, and a few minutes later the googlebot will come along.

Google claims they do not do this, and that sites are only indexed via incoming links. Privacy issues worthy of note. webmasterworld thread on the topic [webmasterworld.com]

Somebody isn't telling the truth, and I doubt it's the log files. Point is, left hand and right hand are not familiar with eachother, even in the land of making order from chaos, ye ole googleplex.

Re:I doubt this is a major problem for Google

You made a good decision not installing the Yahoo search bar. I haven't bothered to read why exactly, but the Spybot -- Search & Destroy software labels it and/or its components as spyware.

For some reason, whenever I run across machines that have the Yahoo Search bar, this lovely "Search Assistant" thing that gives extra pop up windows when searching is on the machines as well..

Re:I doubt this is a major problem for Google

Yahoo has far more traffic than Google: Alexa says so [alexa.com].

But under 10% of Yahoo's traffic goes to their search sections: Again, Alexa [alexa.com].

Re:I doubt this is a major problem for Google

But doesn't google (v.) mean to search with Google (n.)? It's a testament to the vast popularity of Google, not the loss of their trademark. There's a difference here: most kleenex you use isn't Kleenex-brand kleenex, but who would say they're going to google with Yahoo?

Yahoo's Google results were always a mess...

...hidden as they were among the enormous amount of other crap, it was difficult to tell which were the real results. As it was, I found Yahoo search to be so bad as to dilute Google's reputation if anything.

This new search so far seems better than the previous Yahoo search if anything, as they are putting the 'web' results up front, reasonably uncluttered, with everything else as seperate tabs. They could have done this with the Google ones before, but I presume they wanted to promote their own content.

Re:I doubt this is a major problem for Google

My (limited) observation is that Googles dominance is limited to the area they are playing in.

My European websites obtain 90% of their hits from Google.

My Chinese/Japanese language sites obtain 90% of their hits from the local Yahoo.

The browser wars are far from over outside of the ASCII 1-128 area.

Re:..its own crawler, called "Yahoo! Slurp"..

I take it you haven't been reading at -1...

Result relevance

Google prides itself on having not just the largest number of indexed pages, but more importantly, the relevance of the returned results. In general, I've found them to be ahead of the pack for this, which is one of the reasons I switched to them in the first place (the other being the uncluttered interface). I was quite surprised, then, when a couple of test searches with the new Yahoo engine returned more relevant searches than Google. I'm not going to switch just yet, but it's certainly something I'll be keeping an eye on...

Re:Result relevance

Well, the good news is that Yahoo is trying to innovate, which in turn should push Google even further. For example, Yahoo is now linking directly to RSS feeds if you are using RSS-autodiscovery within your page's HTML. That's pretty cool.

Re:Result relevance

Also I think its a good thing if there are a number of search engines with results on the same order of relevance as google returns but using different algos to get there.

The more there are the harder it is for the people trying to distort the results to succeed in distorting all of the various methods.

Google for Vicki Phillips

She was the stunt double for Gena Lee Nolin and plays the Darak'na in most of the Sheena episodes. See if you can get a photograph of her sans makeup.

I wanted to see what she looked like under the makeup once, happened to have the laptop running at the time and fully expected to find a picture in seconds through Google. Nope. Eventually using other search engines turned up her photo and stunt information.

I've said this before but it's good that there's competition, Google isn't the be all and end all of search engines. It looks fairly wide but shallow.

Somewhere, on the deck of the USS Yahoo!

Gentlemen! Start your slurping!

You goal is to slurp more than 6,000,000,000 elements of the World Wide Web! It's a fight we cannot afford to lose! Now, go, and may Bob be with you!

Not quite rid of Google

> When will there be anything new from Yahoo!?

True. The front page still has that bloated good ol' Yahoo look-and-feel that caused the exodus to Google in the first place. It does not seem to be more responsive or more accurate either.
On top of that, did anyone notice they still seem to be using Google to retrieve images? At least, the result to searching for "$#@%" looks *very* familiar:

We didn't find any Web pages containing $#@%.

Suggestions:

- Check your spelling.
- Try more general words.
- Try different words that mean the same thing.

Also, you can visit the Yahoo! Search Help Center for more suggestions.

(I bet Google has those phrases trademarked, so they could sue Yahoo for providing useful clues... ;-)

Yahoo has been planning this for ages

It's been live for about 6 months in some parts of the world.

I still have google results, but can see the new ink results by appending &tmpl=E088 on the end of the SERP url.

I can picture the board meeting

CEO: We want a search engine that evokes pride and confidence. Disgruntled Employee: *aside*Let's face it, compared to google it's gonna suck. */aside* How about "Slurp"? CEO: Slurp! I like it!

Wonder if it's Linux boxen?

What hardware are they running it on?

Did they replace the hardware or just the software?

Does anyone know?

Also, what is the basis of a search engine? Sparse-matrix navigation? How does this stuff really work? Any links to summaries of this stuff? It happened after I graduated (1992, BSCS)...

-- Kevin

Re:Wonder if it's Linux boxen?

Warning: OS detection will be MUCH less reliable because we did not find at least 1 open and 1 closed TCP port
Interesting ports on m1.search.vip.dcn.yahoo.com (216.109.117.133):
(The 1656 ports scanned but not shown below are in state: filtered)
PORT STATE SERVICE
80/tcp open http
Device type: general purpose
Running: Apple Mac OS X 10.1.X
OS details: Apple Mac OS X 10.1.5

Re:Wonder if it's Linux boxen?

Also, what is the basis of a search engine?

Well, the paper from 98 that describes the PageRank algorithm (as used by Google) can be found here [nec.com]

Theres a simple explanation of various indexing/ranking schemes here [searchenginewatch.com], but if you really want to get up to speed on research into searching the web, try looking at some of the papers from the TREC Web Track [csiro.au]

Happy reading,

Dave

Re:Wonder if it's Linux boxen?

To answer one of your questions:

Does anyone know?
I would imagine someone does, yes.

Didn't....

This happen before. I had thought that Yahoo! had been using google up until about a year ago. They dumped them, and started using their own search. I stopped using the Yahoo search becuase the results were not as good as google's, or so it seemed. Am I completely off here? I couldn't find anything about it on the web.

Re:Didn't....

I couldn't find anything about it on the web

Did you try googling [google.co.uk] for it?

I love Google.

I love Google (the new deskbar rocks) and I also frequent Yahoo! for chess and Fantasy Hockey. What I want to know is this: why is being the number search engine worth fighting over? Other than selling services to corporations and little text ads, how does Google make money? Or more importantly, why does Google need to be the number one search engine to make money? This reminds me of the browser wars. The logic was, you owned the browser, you owned the 'net. And although you could make the case that IE won the war, how does IE being the most popular browser translate into money for MS when they give it away for free? I didn't understand it then, and I don't understand it now.

Re:I love Google.

Google to a lot of people is the ONLY search engine. Its become a brand much more so than IE, or even (arguably) Windows. The phrases 'to google' and 'googling' are fast becoming part of the english language on both sides of the pond. In order to google to keep getting the fat ad subs they live off it still needs to be number one. With IE it was just to eliminate the competition.

Re:I love Google.

>Other than selling services to corporations and little text >ads, how does Google make money?

Ummm by selling services to corporations and little text ads. Googles advertising model is a very good way to make money on the internet by servicing both types of customers well, the normal google user and the advertisers.

Why, well the text ads are unobtrusive and obvious as advertisement links, and often welcome by the searcher. Why are they welcome, because they relate directly to the search term used. So you search for widgets, and widget inc. pays to put themselves on the first search page. The company gets trade, and the customer gets what they are looking for. In the real world this is the equivalent to the yellowpages directory where companies pay money to be listed with a small advert under a relevant indexed title like plumber or something.

So why does google have to be number one, because the more eyeballs they have the more money they can charge for an ad and the more companies that will be clamouring to get their little ad link under the "widgets" search term. Again for the yellowpages, in the US ever seen those ads from one or the other yellowpages directory saying that they are the preferred yellowpages by consumers, they are advertsising to potential advertisers in their directory implying that you will get the most value if you advertise in our directory and not the competitions. Same reasons google needs to be number one to maximise their profit.

Flawed idea

From the CNET article: [com.com]
One of the key ways Yahoo plans to make money from its search platform is to charge companies for more rapid and frequent inclusion into its index--a program called paid inclusion.

Read: "Google is still king". I want an objective search engine, not one where companies can pay for placement. It seems very stupid of Yahoo! to introduce a product that is flawed this way, if they really want to take on Google. Google has the advantage of currently being considered the best search engine by almost everyone, so Yahoo! needs a superior product if they are serious about getting more popular.

Re:Flawed idea

I want an objective search engine, not one where companies can pay for placement

I agree with you, but that doesn't happen with google?

Not overtly, at least. Google doesn't let people pay for higher placement in their regular search. Paying Google advert money just gets you better placement next to the search results. Google searches do come up with a lot of junk, but you know at least they're trying to minimize it. To create a bizarre, tortured analogy:

Google: "We promise not to crap on your lawn. Others might be following us, and they might crap on your lawn, but we'll try to get rid of them if we can. Any crap we're paid to show you, we'll display it on the sidewalk for you and you can decide whether you want it or not."

Yahoo: "We're gonna crap on your lawn. Good luck trying not to step in it."

How does this improve Yahoo!?

Most people use Google as their default search tool, even a lot of those unsophisticated Windows users whose IE still comes up with the default MSN page. It's entered the vernacular as a common verb.

How does Yahoo! improve its service by switching away from Google? Unless they have developed an equivalent if not better search engine, which up until now no one has done, all they are doing is downgrading the quality of their service.

Thumbs down, Yahoo. Use the best tool for the job.

Re:How does this improve Yahoo!?

Yahoo's objective isn't to improve their service, their objective is to improve company revenues. Since Yahoo has owned Inktomi for over a year, it's ridiculous for them to continue to license results from Google.

As for what is the "best tool for the job", you might want to actually take a look at the new Yahoo results instead of blindly pimping Google. It looks entirely possible that the current Yahoo/Inktomi algorithm returns results that are more relevant than Google's current algorithm.

Re:Tried Both, Google Wins

""Paid Inclusion" just means they spider your site every day. It doesn't affect the site ranking."

Are you sure about that? As part of the paid inclusion package [yahoo.com], the publisher will:

"Receive detailed click-through reports with rank, query volume, and keyword capture"

I'd be very surprised if Yahoo doesn't give these sites a ranking boost, because a site that pays $10,000 a year to have 400 pages included in the index won't renew if they find that most of their pages are on the 3rd or later page of search results, and Yahoo won't want to lose that revenue.

There's nothing on Yahoo's site that says they don't bias results for those who pay, and you can bet if the search results were unbiased, they'd be shouting it from the rooftops, like Google does [google.com]:

"Google does not sell placement within the results themselves (i.e., no one can buy a higher PageRank)."

Finally, if said publisher, after using paid inclusion, decides to not renew after a year's inclusion, their rank would go down. It would have to, or else why would they continue to pay Yahoo in the first place? Most product pages aren't updated every day or even every week, so paying tens of thousands of dollars for 48-hour updates isn't realistic.

If not paying for your link causes your rank to drop, then you're paying for placement.

Re:How does this improve Yahoo!?

How does Yahoo! improve its service by switching away from Google?

I don't believe that improving their service is a necessity here. Simply providing something roughly equivalent is probably OK. Most users never knew that Yahoo search and Google were the same thing, despite the "powered by Google" logo next to it. A very talented network guy commented to me the other day that he preferred using Yahoo search to Google since he got similar results without Google's advertizing. He was stunned when I pointed out the obvious reason for this.

But the real reason for the switch has nothing to do with providing an improved service: they are either making more of a profit with their own engine than by licensing Google, or believe that they will in the near future.

Re:How does this improve Yahoo!?

Thumbs down, Yahoo. Use the best tool for the job.

Unfortunately, the job in this case is "Make money." Google has all these ethics things that get in the way of that. Things like not resorting their main search results order to include paid results, always putting advertisements in color. Advertisers don't like that.

It's kind of weird.. The way I look at it is this: Guys always want the virginal girl.. but they don't want her to stay a virgin around them. Advertisers want a search engine just like that. They want a search engine that everyone respects, except they want to underhandedly move their results up to the top.. which loses respect. Google does everything it can to keep the respect. Sure, for a few dollars, it might let you feel it up, but if you go around claiming that you shagged it, it goes and changes its entire rating system and drops your pages to the bottom of its list.

Google frickin' rules.

Re:How does this improve Yahoo!?

Yeah, google is real pure and kicks total ass. Ever notice how many spammy search results redirect to ebay and amazon? Why can't they fix that? Oh wait, notice how many of the adwords displayed on the side are for ebay or amazon?

Not really Google's fault there. That just shows how ebay and amazon are agressive marketers. In addition to paying for google ads, amazon has a bizarre affiliate-type program that basically replicates their pages on other people's sites, essentially spamming ALL search engines. How many times have you popped up results for a word combo or phrase that happened to appear in someone's amazon review and gotten the same damn thing, on different sites, over and over? This [google.com], for example, is what I got when I was looking for hacks to the REB1200 ebook reader. I'm sure google would kill that crap if there was an easy way. For the time being I suggest just picking an unusual word from the offending amazon review and exclude it, like this. [google.com]

Re:How does this improve Yahoo!?

Why give Yahoo! thumbs down for using their own technology? If you're an average Slashdot user, shouldn't you be an advocate of choice?

To simplify: We have Gnome and we have KDE, we have Windows, Linux and Mac OS X, we have Perl and Python. Would you like a world where everbody used Windows, or everybody said that Perl was mandatory? Or to live in a one party state?

Maybe Yahoo! and MSN's new search engines won't be of Google quality in the beginning, but I guess they'll catch up. We should cheer them on. Google's starting to get a position where they actually can (if they want, I'm not saying they are) control the flow of information. So my position on this is that the more search engines, and the more equal they are both in capabilities and market share, the better.

Hey, it seems the search engine war has begun!

Or not.

I mean this is just another stop along the way which has brought us the original Yahoo! directory, Altavista, Inktomi, Hotbot, Metacrawler, MSN Search, ..., Google, etc.

It's hardly worth thinking about. So Yahoo! dropped Google: good for them. The best thing we can have is competition between different vendors, then we'll get some innovation. After all, Google innovated like hell to be better than the other engines, now let's see what Yahoo! (or others) can do to be better than Google.

This doesn't have to be portrayed as some kind of war: that assumes that you take sides, and I'm not willing to be on Google's side. If something better comes along I'll switch.

John.

Marketing dept.

Imagine the cash shelled out to develop their new name - and they come up with Slurp. Some marketing jackass is sitting in his yacht, drinking - no, *slurping* - a pina colada, and thinking to himself, "I can't believe they paid my for that."

search results design

Yahoo has gone so far as to imitate Google's search results design:

title: blue, size +1
excerpts: two lines
date: green, size: green, "cached" link: gray, etc.

Yahoo does not have a time stamp for pages, but everything else looks very similar!

Yahoo is Inktomi

Yahoo! has owned Inktomi since March of 2003 so the name change is cosmetic issue. As to dropping Google, it was only a matter of time. I'm thinking Yahoo!'s Paid Inclusion Services to their search engine technology is making a tidy profit. The problem? Their search technology still doesn't appear to be as reliable, accurate or quick as Google.

Yahoo's Own Search

Overall, I'm pretty impressed with Yahoo's new search. It returned relavent results, and a little to my surprise that were different that what Google offered.

In the long run competition is good, and I hope that we yield the benefits from having two good search engines. Although, I'm still apprehensive about Yahoo's "paid inclusion." Which seems to offer misleading results to the Internet novice.

Check out what I'm trading [cdgoround.com]

Didn't Yahoo use Inktomi in the past?

Hmm... I just have a feeling they did and that it sucked. :-) But it seems Inktomi recently released Web Search 9 [inktomi.com] of their search engine (version 9?) and this change by Yahoo! seems to coincide with that one well enough that they might use some brand new engine, and not just rolling back to some old pre-Google quality crap.

Here's by the way the press release, which I think should have been linked to from the /. article at least:
Yahoo Press Release [yahoo.com]

Thank you..

Microsoft, for once your black touch came near something as simple and useful as Internet searches, everyone smelled blood and money in the water. Yahoo and anyone with a little cash will now try to turn searching into huge profits and advertising tie ins, it will become more difficult to do legitimate research, then we can have another round of dot.com funding, create another tech bubble and screw the industry up some more. With both Linux and Mac OS X having proven themselves as outstanding alternatives to Windows I do wish more people would wake up to switching and start depleting Microsft's cash coffers a little, that way they coudn't move in and screw up other industries like smart phones, gaming and now search engines. And if you don't see the tie-in between Yahoo's actions and Microsft overtures toward search you are not paying attention.

searches

Lately the quality of Google's search has declined significantly, especially for less common phrases. Seems a lot of what comes up is spam/redirect pages that are just packed with keywords to get you to visit a porn site.

Results

Searching for Yahoo on Yahoo [yahoo.com] comes up with about 102 million hits.

Searching for Yahoo on Google [google.com] comes up with 119 million hits.

Google got depth :)
Yahoo can't even search its own kind!

nice page

i like the new lean yahoo page: http://search.yahoo.com/ also the results are comparable to google. Searching for my name turned out a few things i had never seen on Yahoo. Quite nice. I think i have another search engine to use. Gotta love capitalism!

Yahoo had a search engine??

Pardon my sarcasm, but their officially "approved" "directory listings" were never all that easy to break into if someone wanted their own site listed and I've always been very skeptical that sites paid for their placement as Yahoo supplanted their "free" services with more and more paid and subscription-based services. I'm not suggesting that they should not run as a "profitable" business, but what is advertising and what are legitimate search results? It is not unlike deciphering Fox News' editorial content from their 'journalism.' I'm sure this will all quickly devolve into a paid product placement scheme.

It's still google for me

I just entered 'www.yahoo.com' into my browser to see what it looked liked nowadays. Yahoo is still positioning itself as a portal, and rams a bunch of ads down my throat before I had a chance to hit the back button.

Their search engine seems to be working fine (but slow, compared to google), and no image-based ads between the results.

War/Competition usually means improvement of usability of their respective products. I'm all for that...

Competition is good ... and there will be more

Technology Review [technologyreview.com] has a discussion of the coming rivals to Googol in this month's issue. One of them is an Australian outfit called Mooter [mooter.com] which does some nifty clustering of results (somewhat familiar to those who remember Northern Light [northernlight.com], once a web search engine, now a provider of enterprise search engines). They discuss several others, including efforts by Microsoft, but the general point is that Googol (and Yahoo and Alta Vista etc. before it) have shown the search business to be a very profitable area if you are the leader, so there are a lot of eager pretenders to the throne. Competition is good, web users will end up with better searching, whether from Googol or another provider.

Ya-who?

While I know many people who use Yahoo for their tools (email, domain services, website hosting, calendar, address book, groups, etc), I don't know many who turn to Yahoo for their search results anymore. Google (and to a lesser extent, MSN - due to their tight Windows/IE integration for the uninitiated who haven't changed their preferences) IS becoming the defacto search engine on the web for the masses.

I think website referral logs reflect this as well. Using the y2003 visitor report from one of the websites that I manage, over 50% of search engine referrals came from Google; a little over 10% came from Yahoo. Other reports that I've reviewed offer similar findings.

As for the "slurp" name, since its been a familiar crawler for years (Inktomi), Yahoo would risk alienating some websites/website managers who would have to go adjust their Robots files just for the new name. (And let's not mention those folks who don't know how to update the Webtrends crawler ini file or their browsercap.ini files...)

On a related note: at some point, those spam-artist "Submit Your Site to 300 Search Engines" folks will be put out of business. Other than the top 7 or so, what other search engines/portals would be considered "major"? Yahoo, Google, MSN, Altavista/Teoma, All The Web, Ask Jeeves, About (out-of-date half the time), Looksmart, DMOZ. (Heck, even Lycos pulled out of search [searchenginejournal.com] the other day)

Re:Ya-who?

I wouldn't call Lycos completely out of search, they own Hotbot.com, which at this point is the smoothest way to jump between the four out of the five major search engines left standing with AltaVista being the only holdout.

misinformation on paid inclusion

There seems to be some confusion as to what is meant by "paid inclusion". It doesn't mean that you pay to get your site listed higher. It means that you pay to get a specific page spidered more often. That's all. If you don't pay, your site still gets listed - and PFI sites don't rank any higher than non-PFI sites.

Yahoo+Inktomi+Fast+Altavista+Overture vs Google

Before Yahoo got to the point where they could "dump" Google, they bought up Inktomi, their old search engine results provider before Google and Overture, the biggest pay per click ad distributor next to Google in order get to the point that they could even compete with Google.

As far as relevancy is concerned, think about how relevant MSN's search results were and you've got an understanding for Inktomi's results-- MSN relied on them for their base result set (after the overture/looksmart advertisements).

But here's the key-- Yahoo picked up Overture, who had just purchased both Altavista AND AllTheWeb-- Altavista used to be a killer search engine, and AllTheWeb is the best, most relevant search engine next to Google.. so Yahoo has really got a fighting chance here. Good news for competition. But the fact that Yahoo had to purchase up so many assets is just a sign to how strong Google is.

Now, keep your eye on Microsoft.

Gentlemen, start your search engines...

With Yahoo owning Inktomi and Overture, and Overture in turn owning both Alta Vista and AllTheWeb, this was a move that everybody could see coming. I even wrote about it about a month ago in my little blog [studioqb.com].

In short, Yahoo's been on a quiet buying spree. Without attracting too much attention, they've aquired enough resources so that they no longer have any need to buy anything from Google, it's all available in-house.

So, Yahoo's out to take back its role as the #1 search site that Google took from it. Google for the first time in a while has a serious threat that's going to force it to improve just at at time where the result quality is starting to slip... this should be fun to watch.

An in-depth comparison

I have written up an in-depth comparison of Google and Yahoo that compares the number of results that each provides as well as user experience. The link to it is: http://www.scifience.net/ [scifience.net]. I would have posted it directly here, except there are screenshots and other such things that can't be posted as a Slashdot comment.

Logging is fun

66.196.65.34 - - [17/Feb/2004:01:44:11 +0100] "GET /robots.txt HTTP/1.0" 404 284 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Slurp/si; [e-mail]; http://www.inktomi.com/slurp.html)"

66.196.72.42 - - [17/Feb/2004:01:44:14 +0100] "GET /psicop HTTP/1.0" 301 316 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Slurp/cat; [e-mail]; http://www.inktomi.com/slurp.html)"

66.196.72.42 - - [17/Feb/2004:01:45:25 +0100] "GET /psicop/ HTTP/1.0" 200 5476 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Slurp/cat; [e-mail]; http://www.inktomi.com/slurp.html)"

Sure enough, my site! is! now! on! Yahoo! including some pages that don't show up in Google (like the Psi Cop page mentioned up there). Interesting.

Re:Logging is fun

Eh, Slurp has been out for years, it's the been the crawler for Inktomi all along. What changed today was that Yahoo replaced Google results with Inktomi results, therefore drawing a lot more attention to what up until now had been an also-ran compared to Google.

Why YOU will use Yahoo

Once we have viable competitors to Google, savvy people will prefer the viable competitors. Why? Although Google has done a good job keeping ahead of the optimizers, the best way to avoid optimizers will be to use the competition. So unless you like your first 20 results to be filled with the commercial, optimized, sites, you may be better off using Google competition than using Google.

Bryan

Need info?

If you need more information about yahoo, go here [google.com].

My favorite search engine

Was altavista. Altavista was cool, it'd give 200 good results (okay, 100 good results, 100 junk). Unfortunately it rolled out with a *new* look that made it little more than a copy of yahoo - even looked like yahoo. Go there now and it looks like google. I don't know why but it seems altavsita has become the clone of whatever the top search engine for this month is. Yahoo on the other hand just decided to use the same search engine as google so why go to yahoo and not just google in the first place? Its good that we finally now have soem variety again in search engines on the net.

Looks like Google to me....

Other than the URLs being different, lets see what's the same....

'cached' link - check

text ads on right - check

same color scheme - check

bold search terms in results list - check

highlight search terms in cached view - check

sponsored links on top - check (with more than the one or two that are given on google)

top menu bar for directory, news, etc - check

misspelling suggestions - check

Hmm..... looks like a carbon copy so far. New features?

add to my yahoo

view as xml (to suck down rss feeds)

The 'view as xml' is probably the most interesting to me, but other than that.... well, they've done a good job emulating/copying googles feature set, which is no small task I'll gather. But still....

Meh.

Google is Fuxor'd.. oh wait.. i'm not a troll!

Google should IPO NOW, because if they don't, they are in serious deep doo-doo.

Why?

Because when you a value a company, you value them on what they actually have that's valuable.

What google has that is valueable is 1) a great indexing technology 2) lotsa eyeballs 3) lotsa community goodwill.

1) is imitable. sure, it will take some money, but if you paid the world's dozen top guys in this sort of thing 5m each to come up with an equivalent system, they would. add another say 20m for hardware and bandwidth and you have the beginnings of a reasonable google clone.. for FAR less than what google's current pie-in-the-sky valuation is.

2) is malleable. people WILL change their surfing habits when the next best thing comes along. this has been demonstrated many times over the years.

3) is slipping. at the risk of being labeled a troll, i don't like google very much any more. for one, while still better than everything out there, the searches are now heavily influenced by all sorts of nonsense. for example, since I live in the UK but do business in the USA, I often look for suppliers of things in the USA. I havent found a good way to get around google's georgraphic targeting of search results (linked to IP) and thus google results are incredibly useless. worse, it seems that half of google results these days are for sites that are themselves auto-generated stupid link pages of indeteterminate purpose (some guy making some money somewhere out there by 'beating' google).

I am also a google advertiser--I spend i think $50/day on google ads. While my site has always been the most popular in its field with enthusiasts, I noticed that it didn't show up highly in the regular search results until I started paying for paid ads. I found this disconcerting, to say the least, since my understanding is that such a link is denied.

I can't complain about the actual ad servcie, except that, again, its inimitable. if we had 4 or 5 good googles, which is technologically and economically plausible, we'd have price competition on ads and "bs" competition in terms of people going to less cluttered and more honest-ranking engines more.

So go google, IPO now.. before somebody else understands that it would really not take much more than USD $50M to pretty effectively replicate your "3 billion" dollar company.

Compare the search results

Hi,

here's a small tool to compare the search results of Google and Yahoo [googleguy.de].

Have fun.

Google Bombs

I thought it'd be interesting to see how Yahoo handled 2 classic google bombs. "Miserable Failure" and "French Military Victories".

Miserable Failure:
History (as I understand it): There was an effort to link "miserable failure" to the white house biography of W. This happened after Gephardt declared Bush a miserable failure of a President. If the sites were bomb proof, we'd see articles relating to that major declaration high. If not we'd see the bomb's target high followed by the numerous right wing counter attacks against Michael Moore and others.
Google: Google's results are dominated by the bomb, but its fifth place mark gets a relevant article.
Yahoo: Also bombed, but has the article as its 1st link.

Winner: Yahoo

French military victories:
History:
The French military has had some victories, but not a ton. To mock them for not jumping on board on the whole blow up Iraq gig, somebody spoofed a google result to make it appear that there were no results but did you mean "defeats"? It got big.
Google: Totally overwhelmed by the bomb. It's top choice is the bomb target and everything else is people linking to the bomb, talking about it, or reporting on it. No non-bomb related historical pages for 100 hits as far as i could see.
Yahoo: Pretty much the same results. Although results 21 and 35 suggests Yahoo selling your search results. However, hit number 80 scored a paper on Napolean.

Winner: Yahoo by a hair.

Overall: Yahoo shows itself to be vulnerable to attacks targetting Google albiet slightly less so. It also appears to intentionally seed its results with crap you don't want. I'll stick to google for now.

"Futurama Samples"

Try searching for that in google and then do it in yahoo. Looks like Yahoo has pulled ahead until the bastards figure out how to trick the crawler again.

wrap-up

Well the thread is wrapping up and again the discussion was pretty boring. We can do better, people. We can do better.

A couple of big points that were unspoken AFAICT:

• Yahoo competing again in the search engine market is good. Yahoo has the financial resources to play ball with Google and MSN. With three real competitors, none of them can get away with mediocrity anymore. (Yahoo now owns Inktomi, Teoma, Ask Jeeves and lots of other name brands.)
• Yahoo will be building back its index over the next couple of months. They will also continue to tweak their algorithm. To help Yahoo get back on its feet, we should run lots of searches through Yahoo for a while. The search examples will give Yahoo the data it needs to improve.
• No one mentioned that lots of people login at Yahoo, and nobody logs in at Google. Presumably, Yahoo could use their already-existing cookies to target search results more effectively. OTOH, this could result in privacy invasions. Google does have its own infamous cookie, but it does not necessarily carry personal ID information on it.
• Somebody said Google screwed up by not issuing their IPO already. Good point.
• Somebody else said Google (via Blogger) is adopting Atom while Yahoo is sticking with RSS. I wonder what MSN will go with.
• Lots of small search engines, like Scrub the Web [scrubtheweb.com] still exist. Their indices tend to be small. It must take several tens of millions of dollars in capital to get in the search engine game in a major way.
• Why hasn't anyone tried a different search engine business plan? Instead of trying to trick users into coming to your site and clicking on ads, how about charging a subscription fee to search ad-free? It would be like Northern Light, except it would index the whole web.
• Why don't we have semantic searching yet? I want to search web pages with "location:belgium" or "year:1999."
• The search engines are missing out on a big market: blogs. The blog search engines like Bloogz [bloogz.com] have an interesting niche to develop all by themselves.
• Perhaps Google's Page Rank feature is overrated. Why not index words immediately before and after those that are linked, not just the link words? Wouldn't that increase search result relevancy?

I'm looking forward to better results on all of the engines.

Re:Surely you mean

Reverse Polish Notation, he speaks in.

Re:Oh yeah

The sponsored links have a very odd system. Case in point: I tried a test search for (in quotes) in both Google and Yahoo!. Google gives no sponsored links for "cubital tunnel syndrome", one for "tunnel syndrome", and eight for "carpal tunnel syndrome" - all are relevant. Yahoo!, however, gives a sponsored link for carpal tunnel syndrome in a search for "cubital tunnel syndrome", three different links for a search of "tunnel syndrome", and eight for "carpal tunnel syndrome".

What's significant here? The search for "cubital tunnel syndrome" gives a sponsored link to a carpal tunnel syndrome site, despite the fact that it is not relevant, and the search terms were in quotes. More interestingly, that sponsored link does not appear in searches for "tunnel syndrome" or "carpal tunnel syndrome".

Something is wrong here.