Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
The Internet

Overture To Buy AltaVista 186

Nate writes "Overture announced that they bought AltaVista today for $140M in cash and stock. This follows closely on the heels of Yahoo's purchase of Inktomi. Considering the significant financial muscle of Yahoo and Overture, I hope that Google can continue to maintain their lead. For those of you who aren't familiar with Overture, they are the 800-pound gorilla in the pay-for-placement listing market. When you search in Yahoo, those Sponsor Matches at the top are provided by Overture."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Overture To Buy AltaVista

Comments Filter:
  • by EvilCabbage ( 589836 ) on Tuesday February 18, 2003 @10:39PM (#5331770) Homepage
    ... is the day I stop using them.

    Not really a constructive comment, but I'm slightly frazzled at the moment.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 18, 2003 @10:41PM (#5331796)
    But after google, the only redeeming feature it had was babelfish -- and now google translates webpages better, too.

    Altavista became way too bloated and way too commercial, and it will wither and die away within 5 years. Everything it does, google does, but without the sense of bloat or loading 200k webpages full of ads.
  • by tarquin_fim_bim ( 649994 ) on Tuesday February 18, 2003 @10:56PM (#5331891)
    The BBC [bbc.co.uk] states that Altavista once boasted 65M users per month. That doesn't seem very much to me when I use search engines 20-50 times a day, perhaps that may be above the norm but that must have been pre Google. Is there a list of search engine usage anywhere?
  • by kyletinsley ( 575229 ) on Tuesday February 18, 2003 @10:56PM (#5331894) Homepage

    The day a seach engine uses "pay for placement"... is the day I stop using them.

    Then I guess your search options are pretty limited, huh? Every major search engine now is either hooked up with Overture/Ah-ha/etc, or has their own fee for submitting. Except Google, but some of google's ads appear as lines that look very similar to their regular search results, and are directly above the search results (just like Overture's). The only major difference between how Google places theirs and how Overture et. al does theirs, is Google has a different background color for the ad text, making it a little more obvious that they are ads.

    But it's not a huge mental leap to go from "background color" to "no background color", especially under pressure from advertisers, with in an increasingly smaller number of search engines to advertise with.

    ----

    Yeah, I know there are more search engines popping up every day. And _you_ know that nobody ever goes to them either. When was the last time you used one of those other 15,000 search engines that all those spammers tell you they'll submit your site to for 50 bucks??

  • by seldolivaw ( 179178 ) <me&seldo,com> on Tuesday February 18, 2003 @10:57PM (#5331898) Homepage
    AltaVista is clearly a dying brand as far as web-search goes; is overture just buying it for the traffic?
  • by rillopy ( 650792 ) on Tuesday February 18, 2003 @11:32PM (#5332128)
    What's really funny is that http://www.searchenginewatch.com is sponsored by none other than Overture! rillopy
  • What's Yahoo!? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Random BedHead Ed ( 602081 ) on Tuesday February 18, 2003 @11:36PM (#5332152) Homepage Journal
    What's Yahoo!? Is it anytyhing like Google? Just kidding. But seriously, even thought AltaVista was once a great search engine (remember when Digital ran it?), you'd pretty much have to clone Google to compete with Google. Pay for placement just isn't in the cards these days.
  • by ScriptGuru ( 574838 ) on Wednesday February 19, 2003 @12:03AM (#5332308)
    Since I've seen a lot of posts addressing Google (usually along the lines of Best browser in the universe), I'll post a few interesting Google links:
    http://www.google.com/options/ (googlize every aspect of your life) [google.com]
    http://labs.google.com/gviewer.html (for us lazy people) [google.com]
    http://labs.google.com/keys/index.html (who needs a mouse?) [google.com]
    http://catalogs.google.com/ ( Shopping at stores -> Shopping with catalogs -> Shopping online -> Shopping with catalogs online (What is this world coming to?!?!)) [google.com]
    Google is the best (It seems to be the general concensus) not only in speed/results, but also in development and creativity.
  • by dmeranda ( 120061 ) on Wednesday February 19, 2003 @12:19AM (#5332387) Homepage

    AltaVista used to be the best search engine; it's strength lies in basic text searching and it's incredible speed and scalability. Unfortunately it did not account much for the interlinked nature of the web and was easily subverted by web author tricks. These faults were mostly solved by Google.

    However, just as Google offers a stand-alone embedded box, the Google Appliance [google.com], for use within corporate intranets, I suspect that is an area where AltaVista's technology could thrive much better.

    Intranet searching and indexing is still a rather underexploited market. There's basically Microsoft's Index Server, flaws and all, the Google Appliance, and several good but not great minor choices such as ht://Dig [htdig.org]. If we could get an AltaVista appliance that ran under Unix (or at least not bound to Microsoft) and underpriced the Google Appliance I would have to believe that a lot of companies would take notice.

  • by Doomdark ( 136619 ) on Wednesday February 19, 2003 @12:33AM (#5332458) Homepage Journal
    Well, unfortunately coverage size doesn't make up for poor ranking. Google is bit slow in getting to new pages (took almost a month to index my home pages when I moved to a new ISP), but its ranking accuracy is top-notch. So, as long as coverage is not an order-of-magniture worse with Google than with alternatives, I don't see that as being the determining factor.

    Of course, I'm Yet Another of those "used Altavista for years, then switched to Google never looked back" users... so what do I know about AV's current usefulness. :-)

  • by faust2097 ( 137829 ) on Wednesday February 19, 2003 @12:47AM (#5332547)
    AltaVista was a weird alagam of old-school DEC engineers [like in their late 50s old-school], Bay Area tech folks and East Coast MBA frat weenies. It was a deadly combination.

    Rod Schrock and his Harvard b-school buds [his old roommate was one of our VPs], fresh from creating the Presario group at Compaq fled the sinking Compaq ship and headed for high ground in the Bay Area with dollar signs in their eyes. Knowing nothing about the Internet and what it meant or the realities of media business they decided to go after Yahoo instead of continuing their dominance of the search arena. They bought two absolute dogs [Zip2.com and shopping.com which was about 10 days from bankruptcy], then lost most of their product development team to another startup [where Louis Monyeaux (misspelled)] had just gone to. Undaunted, Schrock and friends dumped close to 100 million dollars total into the ill-fated "smart is beautiful" version of AV. A lot of that money went to USWEB CKS and Weidman Kennedy, $6 million for the overblown "launch event" in New York and the rest went to unqualified employees.

    A few months later [spring 2000], the market really starts tanking. CMGI pulls AV's IPO for the third time and things get really stupid. The smart employees start leaving and the idiots take full command. Several months later, Schrock is finally booted by CMGI but the damage is already done.

    I'd like to adknowledge the people who actually did their jobs and did them well during that period, namely the Search Engineering and Search Product Management groups [well, most of them but I won't name names here]. They were the ones who made AV great and fought futiley to keep it good. Fortunately, many of them landed at good places [like Barry at Google] but it was a long, unpleasant journey.
  • by skillet-thief ( 622320 ) on Wednesday February 19, 2003 @06:30AM (#5333621) Homepage Journal
    Really, why should you, or anyone else care if Google maintains their lead unless you happen to be employed by them?

    I hate brand loyalty myself. It is generally a negative reflex that gets you in trouble. That said, here is why I might still root for Google:

    Google happens to be one of those successful anomalies where what is truly the best product from a technical point of view, or from a specialists point of view, or whatever, also happens to be a huge public success and occupy a near monopolistic role. It's kinda refreshing!

    Here is what would be "bad", IMHO: some other search engine becomes successful for the wrong reasons that appeal to Joe Sixpack but end up having a negative impact on the web. (I can't really see what that impact could be, but I trust the MBA's to come up with something that would really piss everybody off.)

    So while I don't particularly care about the Google corporation, I'm just glad that what seems to be a decent outfit is king of the hill. Capitalism, or even Web Capitalism, doesn't always promote the highest quality product (cf. Micorsoft), so we should be glad when it does.

  • by alexo ( 9335 ) on Wednesday February 19, 2003 @12:58PM (#5335728) Journal
    Google limits your queries to 10 words or less, does not have wildcards (letter, not word) or stemming and its boolean options are limited to phrase, OR and "word wildcards".

    When I (admittedly rarely) hit those limits, I turn to AltaVista.

"Experience has proved that some people indeed know everything." -- Russell Baker

Working...