How Google Grows...and Grows...and Grows 278
orangerobot writes "The latest issue of Fast Company has an article about how Google has managed to survive beyond its peers and develop a culture of openness and innovation. The article also mentions Google memes and spin-offs such as: Googlewhack, Googlebombing, Googleshare, Googlism and Google Smackdown."
Re:Googlewhack? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:That's because it works (Score:2, Informative)
What I find odd is that I am the only person I know who does use google, and has for some time. My family uses whatever comes with aol, and my ex-gf used to use altavista.
Re:That's because it works (Score:5, Informative)
Re:That's because it works (Score:5, Informative)
and
the fact that google does maps [google.com]?
niche search engines (Score:4, Informative)
Yeah, it takes a bit more work to find these niche search engines/resources, but they are out there, and the noise is much much lower.
Just my $.02
Re:didn't mention google's legal goons, though (Score:5, Informative)
> asked [linguistlist.org] Paul McFedries to remove the word 'google' from his
> excellent wordspy [wordspy.com] lexicon. A company that 'gets it' indeed.
Erm, thats odd, because that never happened. Did you just make that up on the spot or did it take you a while to prepare?
Google asked them to change their definition of 'google' from "To search for something" to "To search for something using the google search engine"
But they never once _DEMANDED_ that they remove the word google.
The wordspy.com listing was clearly incorrect.
Google simply corrected them.
So no its not too funny that the article didnt mention lies and FUD. Its a refreshing change actually.
What I _do_ find funny is you even link right to the article that proves me right and your own statements wrong! Did you even read it?
Direct quote from the article you linked:
> we want to make sure that when people use "Google," they are referring
> to the services our company provides and not to Internet searching
> in general.
The email then ends with:
> We ask that you help us to protect our brand by deleting the definition of
> "google" found at wordspy.com or revising it to take into account the
> trademark status of Google.
Hell, even keeping the clearly wrong and incorrect definition would be OK with google if they simply added a (TM) mark after the word Google from how their email reads!
Re:That's because it works (Score:4, Informative)
One Thumb Up, One Thumb Down (Score:3, Informative)
Vivisimo [vivisimo.com] Light google-ish interface. "Clustered Results" is neat idea and may be quite useful. Seems a little light in the hits department, but so is every new search engine. Time will tell.
Kartoo [kartoo.com] Ugly. Requires Flash - bad move - game over.
Re:That's because it works (Score:3, Informative)
my old address and phone number [slashdot.org], and the address is wrong, but that was the phone companies fault
Re:That's because it works (Score:3, Informative)
Here's the corrected URL [google.com]
Re:That's because it works (Score:2, Informative)
Likewise, Google News is a disjointed mess. Many news searches turn up page after page of 404 errors because most external news sites delete their pages after 2-3 weeks.
Re:That's because it works (Score:3, Informative)
No. It's a monopoly (I think) and it's a good product.
There's nothing inherently illegal or immoral about monopolies.
On the other hand, certain things that some monopolistic companies try to do are illegal, only because they are monopolies; if a non monopolistic company had done it, they'd be fine.
Re:That's because it works (Score:1, Informative)
Re:didn't mention google's legal goons, though (Score:2, Informative)
That still makes perfect sense since common usage of the term spam to describe unsolicited bulk e-mail only would dilute Hormel's Spam trademark if their product involved any form of e-mail. Since their business is processed pork and thus has no connection with e-mail whatsoever it is quite easy for them not to object to the usage of the term 'spam' for unwanted e-mail.
Sometimes I wonder what's so bloody hard about trademark law that the slashdot geeks almost always get it wrong. Of all areas in law it has the most straightforward logic and one would suppose that it would be relatively easy for geeks to grok it.
Remember this: from a legal perspective trademarks are about the ease of laying a connection between the product and it's producer in the consumer's mind. As long as consumer's won't be confused or won't be likely to make such a connection anymore, there is nothing the owner of the trademark can do about it (apart from intimidation through threatening with lawsuits).
So Hormel's 'liberal' approach to spam and Google sending in the 'goons' are equally sensible approaches to completely different problems.
But I am afraid I have spent too much time on the soapbox already, the slashbots are as likely to get it as the average pointy haired boss is likely to really grasp an technological issue.
Re:A triumph for google is a triumph for ethics. (Score:3, Informative)
"By using the Advanced Features version of the Google Toolbar, you may be sending information about the sites you visit to Google."
"Google will not sell or provide personally identifiable information to any third parties."
"We understand and respect your privacy concerns. By selecting this option, you will not have access to advanced functionality. However, no information about the sites you visit will be communicated to Google."
Hell, you can even install it without the monitoring - no need to block it with a firewall.
Re:That's because it works (Score:1, Informative)