Alta Vista Selling Top Matches 126
Kaa writes
Sent us
this wired story
about AltaVista wanting to serve advertisements as
search results. For words with more than 100,000 hits, they
will sell the number one result, indistinguishable from a normal
match. Here's a great quote "They will likely
implement this very quietly," the letter says. "One point
to remember is that AltaVista is still a popular search
engine among 'old time' Internet users who might react
vocally to this change once they know about it." "
I dunno how vocal I'll be. But AltaVista was my
primary search engine. Update: 04/15 01:21 by CT : Wired retracted the comment
that we posted here saying that it was unconfirmable.
Looks like their FAQ needs updating... (Score:1)
1. Why did my site became lower in the results?
When surfers search for broad topic areas using one or two
keywords, the search engine sometimes finds multiple pages
containing equal or similar amounts of content. The ranking of
these pages can change over time. Return to FAQs
Note: We do not sell result rankings to individuals or companies. You can contact
our advertisers if you wish to purchase advertising space in the ad banner above
specific results pages.
Yeah, so? (Score:1)
Yeah, so? (Score:1)
How is this any different that the local Bell Telco charging big bucks for a big ad in the Yellow pages?
God bless commissioned salespeople! (Score:1)
In all seriousness, tho, complaining about this is important. From later in the article:
"If they have few complaints about this, then expect them to include the full first page of results in the future. If there are massive user complaints then it's possible they may cancel it."
The only relavent contact address I could find is:
mailto:search-support@altavista.com
chris
This has been happening implicitly anyway... (Score:1)
The insidious part of this plan is that users will have no indication that the first search result item is not the best match for your search, but is instead an advertisement.
chris
Well.. (Score:1)
1.) Microsoft Windows NT Server 4.0 [microsoft.com]
2.) Linux NOW! [linuxnow.com]
3.) Trinux: A Linux Security Toolkit [trinux.org]
(etc.)
Search Engine Wish List (Score:1)
( brown NEAR bear ) AND ( NOT zoo )
I don't know of any other engine that has a NEAR capability
"Let the market decide" (Score:1)
A letter writing campaign is just a nice way of letting the company know beforehand what the market will do.
And this is completely different from selling banner ads linked to keywords. This is more like a newspaper not putting a "Paid Advertisement" disclaimer on an ad that looks just like regular content.
--
Not a big deal, or at least not worse than now (Score:1)
I'll stick with Altavista (Score:1)
One things I noticed was they intend on selling the keywords for high hit subjects. My typical query only gets a few hundred hits, and for speed of results AltaVista is still best.
Are we overreacting? (Score:1)
--
Re: (Score:1)
This has been happening implicitly anyway... (Score:1)
In fact, I have no problem with ads (or comments for that matter), but I want to be able to recognize them as what they are: Biased, not objective information.
Well, if it is a relavant link (Score:1)
I don't want to search for football, and come up with football bear, which is obviously not relavant. (yet you do get that now, and probably on top) If however the company buying the ads spends the time to make the first link relavant then I won't object, there is too much cruft to search through as it is.
By relavant I mean that a store wanting to sell me a football helmet should have helmets on the page, but also links where I can get stats on all players, links where I can see headlines and scores. Links to experts for advice. Links to ... football related. In other words someone who searches for just football probably isn't getting to the right place on the first hit, if the first ad will link them to the right place, I don't object to it coming up first.
Note that this puts a lot of burdon on the advertiser, to make a site that is probably relavant to the keyword. Football bear may in fact be good, but it isn't what I was searching for. When ads annoy me I will turn them off, when ads are helpful (hey, I gotta buy things, if you support something I do with ads I might buy from you just for that reason.
Hmmm... (Score:1)
Boycott time. (Score:1)
Someone make a 'I boycott alta vista' button and then pass it around, please.
-Shanoyu
No Big Deal (Score:1)
How about a /. search engine? (Score:1)
No Big Deal (Score:1)
As for this new thing, well, just click on entry number two on down as a matter of course. That'll fix their sellin-out, advertising asses.
Nothing New (Score:1)
Google the superior alternative (Score:1)
My number one choice is always Google, going to Altavista only if Google fails (like when I'm looking for an obscure IC chip).
The fact that Google runs on Linux is just icing on the cake.
I do not see a problem (Score:1)
to stop, say, Microsoft from getting the
top position for any hits on "sex", beyond
ethics?
Or, even better, Microsoft getting the
top position for any hits on "linux"...
(I would not have a problem if the hit was
marked as an ad, and such that I could still
search AV with an option to ignore ad hits.)
Search engines (Score:1)
This has been happening implicitly anyway... (Score:1)
This *is* different. Ads are currently recognizable as ads, not as search results. Notice that ads in newspapers that are crafted to look like articles have "ADVERTISEMENT" written on them. It would be unethical otherwise.
"No one seems to object at the yellow pages, which offer up ads for every search query!"
Ugh, good point. Aren't yellow pages nothing *but* ads? Every listing is paid for.
No Big Deal (Score:1)
I don't know about you, but I never search for just "linux" or just "Microsoft" or just "cartoon". When I want to search for any of those, I always search for "linux+dialdc" or "microsoft+anti-trust" or "cartoon+"Jonny Bravo""
Doug
A Letter I sent to altavista (Score:1)
Not to deter you from making money, I think that selling the first result could work. If you added an option, such as "-spam" that filtered out the bought ads.
Joseph Elwell.
This is what consumers do (my take) (Score:1)
They are not even that: I went to Altavista, searched for "football" and the first site up was www.snickers.com (a candy company) wanting me to sign up for an email list while I waited the 442 days until "Football 2000" - to be sponsored by Snickers, of course.
And of course I should eat lots of Snickers bars in the meantime..
It's pure-and-simple misrepresentation, and I say ta hell with 'em!
- t_t_b
--
This is a big deal (Score:1)
Right now doing a search for specific chains of words will reduce the number of hits below the 100,000 hit threshold where they sell placings. For instance I just did a search on 'linux'. It returned about 1.2 million matching pages. If I were a neophyte Linux user this would probably be my first search choice. It's pretty safe to say that there would be greater than 100,000 other neophyte linux users who would do the same thing. Now suppose I'm a company who has a vested interest in spreading disinformation about Linux. Say one with deep pockets such as Microsoft. It would be worth my while to either find a web site biased against Linux or create one and pay for its placement in the first hits. A lot of those > 100,000 hits will search through each site on the first few pages. By placing sites which fit into my agenda in the first hits I can influence peoples perceptions about linux. I can also do it to any other topic.
This is only the beginning though, if selling placement in the search engine is succesful it will quite likely be expanded. Advertising that reaches a target audience as opposed to broad band broadcasting is more effective. That's why there are more commercials for toys during the daytime hours on network television than during prime time. So eventually it gets to the point that your more narrow searches are compromised as well.
This plan is more insidious than banner adds that just happen to match what you are searching for. These 'ads' according to AltaVista will just appear in the rankings. These adds don't even have to be blatant either. Rather than Microsoft buying the top spot and adding in a hit for the corporate web page they add in a hit to an anti-linux site, or even more underhanded they add in links to the typical blind advocacy site "Linux RUL3Z!!!, Microsoft SUCKS!"
All of this can subtly influence people. Linux was just used as an example since its near and dear to most of the hearts of Slashdot readers. Insert just about anything else from presidential campaigning to your favourite brand of feminine hygiene product.
Only on large numbers of hits... (Score:1)
Two Cents (Score:1)
A minor bit of silliness (Score:1)
Search Engines (Score:1)
Slashdot user stealing (Score:1)
So you are a thief (stealing 2 to 5 cents worth of content for every page you visit), and you're complaining because you can't steal more, and will actually have to be part of the set of people that pay for the sites you visit.
Ooh, you have my sympathy. Poor you.
Eivind, who doesn't run any advertising-based sites, but understand how the revenue-model works.
lycos is just as bad (Score:1)
Another Vote for Google (and Stay Away from Lycos) (Score:1)
AltaVista used to be the first search engine I would visit. Up until recently, I was still entering the URL as http://altavista.digital.com/. None of the other search engines were detectably better, and so using AltaVista first became a matter of habit.
...Until someone pointed me at Google [google.com]. I did searches on some of my own stuff, and other stuff I was interested in. Relevant links came up very quickly. In fact, over the last couple of weeks, I found out how useful Google is. I went searching through AltaVista first, but couldn't find anything in that forest of links it handed back. Then I remembered Google, and the links I wanted showed up in the first three pages. Every time, Google beat out AltaVista for presenting useful information.
As a result, I have now successfully retrained myself; Google is now the first search engine I check.
As an aside, I've discovered that Lycos is a scam. I submitted my home page to Lycos some time ago to be indexed. Recently I tried searching for it. Lycos didn't find it. Thinking that they forgot to index it, I went to resubmit it, and found they have a "Check to see if your page is indexed" form. So I entered my URL, and it said, "Yeah, your page is indexed with us." So I went back to the main page and entered some search terms that are fairly unique to my page, and it returned nothing. So I conclude that Lycos is a scam. I recommend avoiding it.
Schwab
I do not see a problem (Score:1)
It seems to be a common misunderstanding about advertising that is somehow magically attracts you to the thing being advertised. In reality selling works best when the person you are selling to already wants the thing you are trying to sell them - they just may not know that yet !
Randomly sticking text or pictures in front of someone who has no interest in them is unlikely to make a sale.
"Quietly?" (Score:1)
(and slashdot!) constitute part of a "quiet rollout?"
Google the superior alternative (Score:1)
sellout (Score:1)
This is what consumers do… (Score:1)
Exactly! (Score:1)
Yes, this is the problem with what they are/will be doing, as I said. They will be lying. They will be deliberately misrepresenting the results of your searches.
Anyone that will do this (and not tell you about it) is implicitly dishonest. The next step is filtering results (as opposed to sorting them, which is what they're doing now) based upon commercial/political criteria.
They're free to do this, and people are free to use it -- but I won't. I want my searches unsorted (at least with respect to commercial concerns) and I certainly want them unfiltered.
Why it's different (Score:1)
The user of the Yellow Pages expects to find advertising. The user of Altavista up to now has *not* expected to find search results sorted by how much money Altavista has received from the owner of any given link. This is a significant difference.
But even this is not the problem. The problem exists if and only if Altavista does not clearly and unambiguously make clear that the results of a given search reflect an advertising bias. The effect of failure to do this is to deceive their users.
Altavista is surely free to do this -- but they shouldn't misrepresent what they will be providing to people. The results won't be equal. They are sorted, based upon payment received. Users have a right to know this, as far as I'm concerned -- to know what sort of information they are receiving.
This is what consumers do (my take) (Score:1)
This kind of thing is why consumers and the internet don't mix well. They want to get everything and give no money in return, but what they don't realize is that they are hurting the internet as a whole by refusing to pay up.
This is why we should support pay sites that offer lots of advertisements (like Altavista).
Okay, that was mildly silly. But the point is: both buyers and sellers try to get the most out of each other, while at the same time giving up as little as possible. It's called the free market, and it works.
This is not the problem with what Altavista is doing. Their site is free. The problem is that they are *lying*. They are presenting "search results" as though they actually are "search results". They aren't. They are advertisements related to what you were seeking. This is a deception, and that's the problem.
They could avoid the deceptiveness if they openly announced what they are doing everytime you search. Then the only question is: do you want search results that are sorted based upon how much money some people have paid to Altavista?
I personally don't. I prefer commercially unprejudiced search results.
And that is why I'm not going to use Altavista anymore.
This has been happening implicitly anyway... (Score:1)
Let the market decide. If people don't like this type of tool, there are numerous excellent search engines they can use instead.
No one seems to object at the yellow pages, which offer up ads for every search query!
They should put a disclaimer (Score:1)
They should put a disclaimer saying search results are wieghted by cash contributions. I loved Altavista... Why does money always ruin good things?
Asta La Vista Altavista
-Thomas
nothing new (Score:1)
sorry guys, but i want a search engine that searches the web, not it's own advertisements.
This is what businesses do… (Score:1)
Slashdot is as free as Altavista is.
For the time being you are correct.
I don't mind having to load an add banner ever now and then. What I don't like is replacing content with advertisements (ie changing the first match in a search engine to be an advert, indistinguishable from a normal match).
Right now I consider Altavista to be a free site. But if they try to trick people into following an advertisement link by making it indistinguishable from a match, that is where I have to draw the line.
But that is just me.
Although I am glad that someone took the time to let people know that this is the case.
True (Score:1)
But the point is: both buyers and sellers try to get the most out of each other, while at the same time giving up as little as possible.
Very true. I do not condemn business for what it does. I understand that this is the way things work.
But this fails to explain why people would spend time putting up content that makes them no money. That is the heart of what is good about the internet.
This is not the problem with what Altavista is doing. Their site is free.
I was unclear on this. I consider Altavista (as it is at the time of this posting) a free site. My problem is with replacing content with adverts and trying to trick people into viewing them.
This is what businesses do… (Score:1)
This kind of thing is why business and the internet don't mix well. They want to give you nothing and get money in return, but what they don't realize is that they are hurting the internet as a whole by watering down the content with advertisements.
This is why we should support free sites that offer free content (like
no more altavista if this is true (Score:1)
As a side note, isn't this kinda what lycos does? The banner ads are usually somewhat related to your search...
Where's the Slashdot poll... (Score:1)
I use Google [google.com] myself and then MegaCrawler [megacrawler.com] then InferenceFind [infind.com]. But I rarely need to go past Google.
So when will the poll be up?
~afniv
"Man könnte froh sein, wenn die Luft so rein wäre wie das Bier"
Not One Mention of MetaCrawler? (Score:1)
I use MetaCrawler [go2net.com]. I don't see how any search engine can compete with a parasitic approach like MetaCrawler. Maybe you loose the ability to construct nuanced expressions, but for basic searches its great. And MetaCrawler's ability to collate and merge duplicates makes it far better (and only marginally slower) than MegaCrawler.
Are they selling ads, or URL placement (Score:1)
This will relegate the whole notion of the internet as "the great equalizer" to a mere footnote in its ongoing evolution. That's too bad.
I'm feeling lucky... (Score:1)
amen (Score:1)
I think it is to late to do it quitely, no that Slashdot took the story.
It will be interesting to see how well they do.
Thank god for search engine choice.
All commercial search engines will succomb... (Score:1)
DOT COM = COMMERCIAL = PROFIT MOTIVE
You can't provide a service like this for long without skewwing the search results towards the people giving you money. We should learn to accept this.
The answer? A non-profit search engine. Govt. subsidies? Maybe. Does such an animal exist???
Is this legal (Score:1)
Search Engines (Score:1)
Compaq's Search Engine... (Score:1)
This is just another reason to support the Open Directory project!
http://dmoz.org
Google? Now? Please. (Score:1)
Nice concept and cute logo and all, but its database is woefully lacking. I did a couple of comparisions between it and Northern Light [nlsearch.com], AltaVista, HotBot, and Microsoft Search [msn.com], and Google just couldn't hang. Now, if you're saying once they crawl more pages that it'll be the best, that's one thing, but right now it seems like a glorified Yahoo!, in that it's more likely to find the most popular sites, but come up empty on some detailed searches that the others can handle. Plus, it doesn't even have an "OR" operator, and I might've missed it, but I didn't see how I could search single domains. I'm not sure that this is even second-rate searching -- it definitely isn't first.
Why do I get the feeling that if the Google operators were Amiga advocates instead of Linux advocates, they wouldn't be getting all these swell reviews here at Slashdot? It's like the hoopla that goes one whenever someone actually comes out with a game for Linux --- no matter how inferior it is, or just plain bad, people rally around it to tell us how it's actually really really awesome. Anybody got a good term for this "Linux programmer welfare" phenomenon?
For the record, I prefer Northern Light, but still head to AltaVista first out of habit quite a bit --- by the time I remember that I had meant to go to NL, AV's already loaded. MS Search seemed pretty damn good at the queries I threw at it today --- I hadn't tried it out since it was in beta --- so I might have to play around with it some more and really push it. Hotbot's not bad, Excite has some ability, but its interface is just horrible; those are pretty much the only ones I bother to use anymore (although I might add MS Search).
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Watch it! Wired is changing the story. (Score:1)
It appears that the Wired story has been revised since it was posted on slashdot: A Search for the Highest Bidder [wired.com]
So it could be that AltaVista is trying to backpeddle quickly, or it could be that Doubleclick was engaging in a little FUD. (And if Wired can't do an accuracy check *before* they post something, maybe it's time to boycott Wired).And yes, this is a big deal. Maintaining a separation between advertising and content is very important if you care at all about at least keeping up an appearence of integrity. It's always a worry that advertising supported media will be corrupted by their advertisers. If they were going to suddenly start selling placement in their rankings, without providing any visual cue about what was paid for, that would be clearly unethical. It might even be illegal (deceptive business practice?).
How would you feel if you found out that the headlines of your local newspaper could be bought?
Are they selling ads, or URL placement (Score:1)
Right now, you get page after page of useless sites. If the better sites paid for position, maybe I would find what I wanted quicker.
There are times when I want high quality commercial sites. Take for instance Star Wars. Do you want every page where someone is daydreaming about seeing the next episode, or do you want some sites with quality info?
Someone needs to come up with some way to rank the quality of sites returned in search engines. If someone was paying, they are also betting they have a better than average site.
It would be a form of survival of the fittest.
God forbid this happen outside the net... (Score:1)
Just the next step in the whoring out of the Internet... anything and everything for sale. Feh.
The site has been changed (Score:1)
It doesn't sound so sinister anymore...they're simply using the search terms to return ads which they hope are relevant to the user, as opposed to, say, slashdot which (I assume) just throws any old ad at any old user.
--joe
Search Engines (Score:1)
Google rocks.
Too bad it will never stay like that.
Search Engines (Score:1)
This is what businesses do… (Score:1)
This has got to be one of the most clueless statements about /. I've seen. Slashdot is as free as Altavista is. And they both have ads. (in fact I'm looking at a nice VA research ad as I type this in). So what the heck are you blabering about?
Here's a sample letter: (Score:1)
I am quite distressed to see that AltaVista is selling out search results to the highest bidder (see http://www.wired.com/news/news/technology/story/1
Sincerely,
Daniel Wislocki
Inference Find (Score:1)
Google and mamma (Score:1)
- My 2 cents...
Search Engines (Score:1)
do scheduled crawls, so give 'em some time to
build up a database. It still gives better
results than anything else out there.
Most popular/best SE poll? (Score:1)
--
- Sean
Wired retractions. (Score:1)
Looks to me like someone jumped the gun a bit there. Not so bad after all...
--
- Sean
All commercial search engines will succomb... (Score:1)
necessarily true. Altavista was originally
a showcase for Alpha and the Altavista technology.
So in a way, it's always been advertising... but
it was advertising for digital.
I'm not thrilled with this new development though.
Guess me moving my searches to google was well
timed.
Direct Hit (Score:1)
It was turning up consistently the best results on sherlock, and now they have there own site.
Search Engines (Score:1)
amen (Score:1)
If I don't find what I was looking for I try altavista or some meta search engine (metacrawler, dogpile)
same here (Score:1)
Search Engine Wish List (Score:1)
When I use a search engine, I try to use one that offers the following:
Altavista was my choice because it did most of that well. If they're even considering this I'm switching.
What do others consider important criteria in a search engine? What do others use? Any suggestions?
They already do! (Score:1)
No ads on Google - it will *not* stay that way (Score:1)
goto.com (Score:1)
When I'm searching for commercial enterprises, I use goto.com. They have been explicitly selling search engine 'hits' since day one. Seems to work pretty well.
This isn't being vocal? (Score:1)
In that one statement you have been more vocal than most people could be by yelling with a bull horn. . .
Searching as a skill. (Score:1)
Back in grade school it seems like the library staff never tired of teaching us how to use the card catalog. There are Subject, Author, and Title cards, and they look like this, and this is where information is, and here is the call number, etc.
I picked it up pretty quickly (being a naiscent computer geek back then even). But now I can reflect back on it and see that searching information is a skill that must be learned. Technology can help or hinder this (as countless proprietary one-cheecked computerized library card catalogs can attest to), but it still must be learned.
In a post above, a reader hypothesizes about doing a search for 'football' and wanting to get various results. I'd say that the correct way to go about finding things (helmets for sale, player stats) is not to do a generic search on 'football'. If you want to buy helmets then you want to look for sporting goods stores. If you want player stats, you want some sports site.
Granted, most users don't want to learn each engine's specific grammar for complex boolean searches. Most don't want to see something full of (),*?+. But people who really want to find information will be willing to learn ways to improve their search results.
For people who just look for 'cats', and ad to a site will probably bring up things that are just as relavent as all the porn-site hits that will come up.
All this said, I think that schools should be teaching information searching skills. The Web (or whatever eventually replaces it at some level) will only get more and more prevelant, and those who know how to look for things will have a big advantage.
So finally, about the ads, sneaking ads into search results really does bug me on a philosophical level. Doing it for broad terms alreay has its problems (ie, buy the Linux term and use it to sell whatever). Once it becomes accepted practice, ads will get worked into more and more complex searches just as an established practice.
On the bright side, as sites like Google show, there is still room for new players to attract users. We can always just jump ship to better sites and proxy out the ad banners.
Thanks for listening.
no more altavista if this is true (Score:1)
When you mix the ads in with the real data, you start truly deceiving the user. When you set up shop as a search engine, you imply that the result of a search is a list of the most relevant sites it can find (isn't that what "sort by relevance" means?). I know that this is wrong. I'd be surprised if it's legal.
OTOH, somebody like the Yellow Pages can get away with putting ads in. They're the Yellow Pages--they carry an implication that everything they have is a paid advertisement.
A minor bit of silliness (Score:1)
Maybe an omen of things to come? (Score:1)
Lycos faithful (Score:1)
my 2 cents
Last nail in the coffin (Score:1)
My question is, will AV mandate that the buyer of a "keyword" have a relevent site? I mean, will they let Hustler.com buy the rights to first placement when someone searches for "football"?
I think hiding advertising in with legitimate content is a bad trend
This all reminds me of listening to talk radio, when the person doing the show starts talking casually about something
Anyways, no more Altavista for me.
What about MAPQUEST?? (Score:1)
So we where driving round fer a couple a days, til one of my friends asks, why everytime we use Mapquest we get routed via the Fry's parking lot.
For example:
[from suicide-alley take a right into Fry's parking lot]
[go strait and look around to see that there's really ample parking space!]
[when you are back in the car, continue to the north exit]
[the best buys are always, at Frys!]
[take left onto El Camino]
etc.
Go figure!
Breace.
from the that's-not-really-true-right? dept.
Here's what I sent 'em (Score:1)
I used to have Altavista (Advanced Search) as the top link in my bookmarks file, but I just dropped it. I was *_VERY_* distressed to see that AltaVista is selling out search results to the highest bidder (see http://www.wired.com/news/news/technology/story/1
When I search the web through any search site, I want actual hits, not ads some company has paid you to return as hits. I find this to be disgusting. Altavista's value was its ability to return unbiased (or relatively so) lists of hits.
As a result of this, I will no longer use Altavista or recommend it to my clients and friends.
Altavista (Score:1)
revelant to search topic. But purposely disguising Ads and return results, that just plain wrong. Altavista can sell all the ADs they want, but they shouldn't sell search position. Guess I have to try Google or Northern Lights everyone is talking about. Hasta Lavista AltaVista!
Subvert the Ads (Score:1)
http://www.altavista.com/cgi-bin/query?text
This gets rid of the RealName stuff, banner ads, third party news sources, and all the other stuff on the front page. Won't help with the rigged search results, tho.
Open Text (Score:2)
Open Text did this--sold top ten results based on keywords. And where are they now? The search engine still exists, but is not exactly a household name.
BTW, there was a boycott movement when Open Text did this. Icons, linked to an information page. And Open Text did back down...
I have been a user of Alta Vista since the day they opened. But I will certainly dump them if they sell results.
How ironic considering their own words: (Score:2)
"AltaVista is an index, not a storing place for pages of low or misleading information value. Attempts to fill it with misleading or promotional pages lowers the value of the index for everyone. Left unchecked, this behavior would make Web indexes and our search experience worthless
Their words are so true...
I do not see a problem (Score:2)
Actually I do not think so. When I do a web search I want the results sorted by *relevancy*. The big deal in designing a search engine is working out just how relevant the results are, and bear in mind that most users are, as ever, clueless. They are going to do stupid searches for "sex", "football", etc. Search engine usage statistics bear this out. Keyword count is not a sufficient standard of relevancy for a search like this - how much people are prepared to pay may well be a better one. Yahoo and some of the other search engines have been producing adverts more-or-less mixed in with search results for some time now.
What disturbs me more than anything else is the proposal that this be done 'quietly' (though clearly now it will not be long until most of the world knows). People should know what they are getting.
Of course, I do not do searches for "sex" and "football", because its a waste of time, and I have better sources for such things. Google (which is now may favourite search engine) has a much better way of trying to find relevant links, which is much more appropriate for the kinds of searches I tend to do.
This has been happening implicitly anyway... (Score:2)
This isn't a case of commercialism vs. the web. It's a case of Alta Vista not understanding their customer base. If they change the product, they will change their customer. Alta Vista's best business practice is the one which will earn them the most money, not the one which will make the most
Many posters have recommended Google, both for its banner-free site and for the quality of hits. I try Google first, but Alta Vista was always my second choice. It's an excellent search engine. Google will have banner ads, or it will go away.
TANSTAAFL. But the lunch you pay for should be edible.
Google.com (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Search Engines (Score:3)