|What's in a name?|
| 2:59 pm on May 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
As I see it, apart from a lack of intent on the part of FAST, the main stumbling block to AllTheWeb becoming established as a real competitor to Google is the name.
Back in the 1970s, ABBA became a worldwide sensation. Part of their success lay in a name that was easily pronounced (and remembered) in any language.
As a name, 'AllTheWeb' just doesn't cut it. 'Overture' (whom I believe now own Fast) as a name is ok, but it just isn't as good as 'Google'.
If the webmaster community really want to see FAST make it as a competitor to Google, then a better name (that is still available) must be found. So perhaps people would like to add suggestions to this thread. Who knows, maybe someone at FAST will read it.
| 3:03 pm on May 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I think that is one of the main reasons yahoo cut it big world wide. Means the same in every language, but is hardly used in any.
I think from an international point of view non generic short and easy to remember names are the key.
| 7:12 pm on May 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I think Fast is an excellent name if they only were as fast as Google. Perhaps Alltheweb could swap names with Fast Search? :)
| 8:10 pm on May 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|I think Fast is an excellent name if they only were as fast as Google. Perhaps Alltheweb could swap names with Fast Search? :) |
Yes, FAST is a good name, unfortunately, if you type in the url [fast.com...] or .net you arrive at the website of another organisation entirely.
| 8:23 pm on May 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Kaled, as you pointed out correctly Fast has sold their complete websearch division, including the knowledge, people, and their showcase, ATW, to Overture.
Fast is out of the websearch business.
It's not really clear at this point what Overture is going to do with ATW.
I think it's quite likely they will use ATW in much the same way as Fast before: a showcase and R & D sandbox for the portals worldwide to evaluate the product.
With Fast/AV technology and index and OV PPC listings they will have quite an attractive bundle, in direct competition to Google's PPC + index.
| 11:33 pm on May 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
From my own experiences, I don't really have a problem with Google (but I stand by my statement some weeks ago that it is flaky). However, it is clear from discussions in other threads that there are a lot of unhappy bunnies out there who would very much like to see some serious competition to Google.
My assessment could be wrong, but it seems that contributors to these discussions rate FAST as the best alternative to Google (from the users' points of view). This being the case I was merely suggesting one way that the popularity of FAST might be improved would be with a front-end name other than 'AllTheWeb'.
I've had a look myself (whilst bored) to see if there are any suitable names available but couldn't come up with anything that's not already being used.
As a matter of principle, if ever I criticise I always try to have a suggestion in mind. It therefore annoys me when loads of people whinge about problems with Google without even suggesting changes that Google might make to improve things. It was with this in mind that I thought someone out there might be able to come up with a great name for a search engine and, rather than keep it to themselves, put it forward in discussion. Of course, if someone did suggest a good name, I would not be surprised if a reader were to register the name in the hope of making a quick buck. Nevertheless, I can't think of any other way of making FAST more popular with users.
Personally, I find results from FAST to be very good, in fact, I would rate it equal first with Google but I tend to use search engines in fairly limited technical (mostly programming) areas so I don't feel qualified to stick my neck out and say that either FAST or Google is better. But if other people really want to see FAST compete with Google, then they should try to do something about it rather than just complain. A better front-end name would be a start but there's far more to it than that.
Finally, a note from history.
In the early eighties, Philips, Sony and JVC all developed their own video formats. Of these, Sony's BetaMax format was rated about equal first with Philips with the VHS format (by JVC I think) way behind. However, the inferior product won the battle due to far better marketing.
It is definitely not in the best interests of the internet that Google should be so dominant, but if all people do is whinge rather than actively trying to support the best alternatives, then Google, whether they deserve it or not, will continue to dominate.