From the category archives:

Google

Remember Cuil, The “Google-Killing” Search Engine? They Are Out of Business. Google Reportedly Doing Fine.

January 19, 2011

in Google,Search

When Cuil (pronounced “cool”) was launched on July 28, 2008, there was a lot of optimism for what this new up-start search engine could do. In fact, the optimism was so grandiose that some labeled Cuil a “Google-killing” search engine.

I wrote about the engine and the “Google-killing” moniker here and here, for example. And poking back in time, the article from MSNBC.

With that much fanfare around the company, I thought it would be interesting to see what they are up to now. They went out of business on September 17, 2010. Gone. Done. Google, reportedly, is doing fine.

PowerSet, another engine that was labeled as a “Google killer,” and had hoped to out-smart Google? Purchased by Microsoft on July 1, 2008.

The reason why they failed is that both engines tried to solve problems that were not really problems. PowerSet claimed to be a “natural language” search engine — meaning you could type in questions instead keywords. But from my testing in the past noted, Google had no issues with natural language searches and handled them as easily as keyword-based searches.

Culi offered long descriptions about web pages in their search results. Looking at the masses of people that use Google, no one must have issues with the two sentence descriptions they offer.

The dilemma faced here were the layers of hyperbole on top of hype over a new product that didn’t solve anything or create a better experience. A valuable lesson for any brand.

{ 0 comments }

Google Updates Search with Caffeine

June 10, 2010

in bing,Google,Search,SEO,Yahoo

Today is the official launch of Caffeine, a new method Google is using to index the web. Google is a little bit mum on if this is effecting the actual search ranking algorithms or if this update is designed more purely to increase the speed of updating the index.

Google’s description of Caffeine:

Our old index had several layers, some of which were refreshed at a faster rate than others; the main layer would update every couple of weeks. To refresh a layer of the old index, we would analyze the entire web, which meant there was a significant delay between when we found a page and made it available to you.

With Caffeine, we analyze the web in small portions and update our search index on a continuous basis, globally. As we find new pages, or new information on existing pages, we can add these straight to the index. That means you can find fresher information than ever before—no matter when or where it was published.

I applaud their efforts to keep content fresh and relevant. Speed of index, however, is not always useful. As a consumer, I am not concerned with Google’s ability to quickly index, say, Twitter, especially when a good portion of Twitter is simply noise. What I rely on Google for — and should be the crux of any search engine — is matching my query to relevant information.

A few years ago, search engines used to publish the size of their index. There was a race among the search engines to say they had indexed larger portions of the Web than any other search engine. There was a sub-text that a larger index was inherently better, as if they were comparing the size of their manhood. But again, the measure of a search engine is about how relevant the search results are for the consumer.

This is how Google rose to power. Back in Google’s infancy (2001), they were providing more relevant results to consumers despite the fact that their index was significantly smaller than Yahoo’s and Excite’s.

Back in October of last year, Bing announced it was indexing Twitter in real time. Again, with the sub-text that speed makes Bing better. Now Google launches Caffeine geared at indexing the web faster. I applaud these efforts, as long as they do not forget that relevancy is king.

{ 0 comments }

Google’s Competing Products Opens Door for Microsoft

February 12, 2010

in Google,Search,SEM,SEO,Yahoo

In February 2006, I stipulated that Google was on the verge of becoming the next Yahoo. I did not mean it as a complement. This analysis came about as I was (again) watching Yahoo’s product line fracture.

Yahoo had a strange history of creating competing products. It was either a case of one part of a large company not aware of what another part of a large company was doing, or there was no cohesive strategy from leadership. (Maybe both?) At one point Yahoo had it’s own image sharing service, only later to acquire Flickr. The services were never merged into one, single useful product. Yahoo Images (which is now a image searching engine)  limped along for awhile, then was eventually shut down. Similarly, Yahoo had MyWeb which was different than Yahoo Bookmarks, despite the fact they apparently did the same thing. Both of which were identical to Delicious, which Yahoo purchased and… you get the idea.

Along the way, Yahoo experienced lots of product drift and were usurped by Google. That we all know.  We also know that Google is a very, very smart company. So why are they repeating Yahoo’s mistakes?

Farhad Manjoo has a fantastic article on Slate.com (link: Déjà Google) pointing out that Google seems to be repeating the same folly of Yahoo. Google is spinning out products that directly compete with other products they have already created. A few highlights:

  • Newly launched Google Buzz will tell your friends where you are… duplicating Google Latitude which was launched last year
  • Orkut already offered social media online profiles, but that didn’t stop Google from launching Google Profiles
  • Google offers to save your bookmarks so they are available on any computer, but it is not-compatible with Chrome’s bookmarking feature that allows you to save your bookmarks so they are available on any computer.

Which brings me back to my original post from February 2006, Google is the Next Yahoo!, that points out that Microsoft could beat Google if Google accidentally becomes too much like Yahoo.

Looks like that is happening. OK, Microsoft it’s your move.

{ 0 comments }

Google Hasn’t Killed Anyone

December 17, 2007

in General,Google

Last week, Google announced Knol, a site that allows trusted authors to create content around specific subjects. As with anything Google does, the media leapt to crown Knol as the next big thing since the domestication of fire.

Hell, just look at what Steve Rubel said: Wikipedia and Wikia are Dead. Google Just Killed Them

I have posted before about my ire over any article that uses the words "Google" and "Killer" in the same sentence. (Start here, for an overview.) Usually, it’s the media trying to crown some new search engine as a "Google killer," but in this case it’s in Google’s favor. It doesn’t matter though, because it’s still crap.

Anyone saying Knol will be a Wiki-killer must not know much about Knol or Wikipedia. Knol isn’t and won’t be a Wikipedia killer. Saying Knol is a Wikipedia killer is like saying the Segway is a Ford killer. Sure, they both have wheels, but that’s about it.

Knol and Wikipedia are not the same thing. If anything, Knol is more like Squidoo, About.com, or even iVillage. But the media will try to tie Knol-Pedia together in a knot because it makes for a better article.

Let’s also be clear about one thing. Google has only created one application that ever "killed" anything — the search algorithm. There were plenty of search engines before Google, now there are only three others of mention – Yahoo, MSN, and Ask. Other than that, no other Google product has ever put fear into anyone.

Let’s review:

  • Orkut didn’t hurt MySpace or Friendster (Friendster killed itself). When Facebook launched, Orkut wasn’t worth a second thought. But hey, Orkut is the most popular site in Brazil, so maybe they are onto something.
  • People continue to flock to Yahoo Answers, while Google Answers died a slow death and was eventually shut down.
  • GMail didn’t harm Hotmail, Yahoo Mail, or any other free email application. In fact the other free email applications didn’t even bother to copy anything from Gmail. It seems to be the other way around. Yahoo added in an IM/Chat function into their mail application months ago. But when Google (copied) did it a few weeks ago, it received much press.
  • Google Talk was launched with lots of press coverage and fan fair. But it’s usage is tiny and has never budged. It hasn’t come close to "killing" Yahoo IM, AOL IM, or for that fact MSN Messenger.
  • Google Docs was touted as an "Office Killer". (See here and here, for two of many examples.) All these months later, where are all the stories about Microsoft’s falling market share for Office? Even after the addition of a presentation portion of Google Docs, it is still a poor version of StarOffice, not Microsoft Office. (I wonder if anyone referred to Google’s Presentation addition as a PowerPoint Killer? … oh, dear lord!)
  • Google Checkout has not slowed down PayPal.
  • Google purchased Blogger.com a long time ago, and is still the "not Typepad or WordPress" application for blogging.
  • Google’s Universal Search gets lots of press. But Ask.com did it months beforehand, and did it much, much better.

I could go on, but I don’t need to.

I will, however, agree with one thing Steve Rubel said.

The search engine will prioritize content from its own system and rank the most credible articles more highly than anything in the open source encyclopedia.

He is correct about that. When Google acquired YouTube, suddenly YouTube videos were elevated in the rankings much higher than ever before, whereas videos from any other source are rarely, if ever, shown. To me, that sounds like something Microsoft would do.

Tagged as: General

{ 2 comments }

Google Killers are Boring and Generally Flawed

September 17, 2007

in General,Google,SEO

Google Killers. I’ve mentioned them before (here, for example). Many of these so-called Google killers are akin to child stars from the 1980s: Where are they now?

Now we have another “Google killer.” This one is called PowerSet and they have very clearly set their sites on Google. In an article on MSNBC, PowerSet claims to have developed the most power natural language search engine.

From the MSNBC article: The distinction means Web surfers will theoretically be able to get more meaningful results by typing more precise search requests in the form of straightforward questions like “What did Steve Jobs say about Apple?” instead of entering an ungrammatical mishmash like “Apple Steve Jobs said.”

While it is true that keyword searches are not always a shining example of the Old Kings English, the fact remains that people are now accustomed to searching in a specific way. Search is now an established  industry, more than a decade old, and the single or double keyword based search habit is well established by searchers all over the world.

Assuming PowerSet is correct – that they have indeed built the most amazing natural search algorithm – they still have to pretty much retrain the already instilled habit of a searcher.

Lest we forget, Ask.com has gone down this path and stepped away from it. Ask.com started as AskJeeves.com and was marketed as the natural language search engine. The idea behind the experience was a searcher would type in a fully formed question to Jeeves. But a few years ago, the butler went away and the Teoma backbone took over to better serve the searcher.

But let’s also ask the question: is the assumed lack of natural language searches a problem? I decided to conduct a small test to see. I conducted a variety of searches, all in natural language and all on Google.

“What do tadpoles eat?”
That came to mind because my son asked me that question a few weeks ago. I found my answer very quickly, in the first few results. (See the results to the search here.)

“How many mammals are there?”
(Again, a question my son asked me. See where I’m getting my inspiration?) Again, the answer to the question is found in the first few results on the first page. (See the results to the search here.)

“How big is the universe?”
(Guess on how I came up with this one??) Again, there is no lack of directly relational
results on the very first search results page. (See the results to the search here.)

“When did Steve Jobs announce the new Ipod?”
(OK, I thought of that one on my own.) But again, the results on the first page of
Google clearly lead me to a direct answer. (See the results to the search here.)

Clearly, in my small test, Google has no trouble with natural language searches at all. This indicates to me that overall, Google’s ability to handle natural language searches is not a problem if someone should happen to search that way.

I also generally have issues with anyone that calls themselves a Google killer. Maybe they do it
for the press or maybe they do it to get Google’s attention. But if a lofty claim requires lofty results. It starts to sound a lot like the guy in the neighborhood that is good at basketball and claims he could play in the NBA if he wanted to. Sure you can, buddy.

After all, there are plenty of companies that have made that very claim that never came close to delivering.

Bonus: In order to find the picture of Gary Coleman, again, I used a natural language search on Google. “Where can I find a picture of Gary Coleman?” Obviously, I had no trouble.

Tagged as: General

{ 1 comment }