Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 126.96.36.199
Forum Moderators: open
No comment there about Fast being more relevant or faster. Its just that they wanted a search solution which would enable them to return their own PPC listings ranked however they would like. The article does seem to suggest that Google's solution couldnt do that.
I suspect this sort of customization will not lead to greater relevance; however, insofar as it's a free resource, it provides a model for profitability.
The article also says that FAST "offered speed far beyond what CareerBuilder had experienced". Assuming CareerBuilder reviewed several search engines, including Google, I'm sure a lot of factors went into their decision. However, I suspect the "customizability" factor and their flexibility (to accommodate both real-time updates AND turn over control of both the apps/servers to CareerBuilder) plus unspoken-things such as price were key to the final decision.
Should also add "THANK GOD Google's app doesn't allow for that 'customizability' yet." because you know some people in Google marketing will be wondering that. If its algos did, then it would be open to even more manipulation of the wrong kind.
Quite possible. If however Google wants to really compete in the search technology market they will have to build solutions fitting the customers needs, not their Stanford based websearch philosophy.
This is not a question of good or evil. What if a customer wants say results from their own property A ranked differently than from property B?
However, this is strictly corporate search market, not websearch. While clearly at both companies the core technology is the same for websearch and corporate search this shouldn't lead us to draw conclusions about how Google or Fast operate their websearch.
<added>BTW: didn't really see why the story was out there - has careerbuilder just gone live with the new search solution? The deal however was announced back ilast summer, I think we had it here in the forum somewhere.
"If however Google wants to really compete in the search technology market they will have to build solutions fitting the customers needs, not their Stanford based websearch philosophy." Actually, the Google Search Appliance *does* have a feature like this. It's called "KeyMatch" and lets you show desired results for specific queries. Search for 'keymatch' on this page:
It's interesting that InformationWeek seems to be covering enterprise search more lately. This article just appeared on their site yesterday:
I thought it was funny that the main reason listed for picking FAST was that you could put paying customers above the normal results.
It is funny. If you visit the site, you'll see that the results of paying clients list on top for their category on that day of release. The results look integrated so you can't quite tell any special attention is being given to them (other than that they land at the top of the search- but only on the day they were released). Not sure why this is such an "edge" but perhaps there are other more compelling reasons...
(BTW, from an american slang perspective, I love your "handle" Heini! The term "heinie" was first introduced to me via Calvin & Hobbes, who I'm sure would have a unique take on all this ruckus in the SEO world. :))
Whatever, back on topic. This thread is not about the rivalry between Google and ATW (websearch), but between an established major player on the enterprise search sector (Fast Search & Transfer) and a newcomer (Google's blackbox).
[edited by: heini at 6:32 pm (utc) on Jan. 24, 2003]