Forum Moderators: open
AT the World Economic Forum in Switzerland last week, Microsoft, the software heavyweight, and Google, the scrappy Internet search company, eyed each other like wary prizefighters entering the ring.Bill Gates, the chairman of Microsoft, stated his admiration for the "high level of I.Q." of Google's designers. "We took an approach that I now realize was wrong,'' he said of his company's earlier decision to ignore the search market. But, he added pointedly, "we will catch them.''
The four top Google executives attending the forum, at the ski resort of Davos, were no less obsessed with Mr. Gates's every move.
Rest of article at:
[nytimes.com...]
[edited by: Marcia at 9:55 am (utc) on Feb. 1, 2004]
[edit reason] Made link clickable. [/edit]
"Our strategy was to do a good job on the 80 percent of common queries and ignore the other stuff,'' he said. But "it's the remaining 20 percent that counts,'' he added, "because that's where the quality perception is.''
Such an attitude explains many of their products.
Is this American useage? In other words, should I take it to mean 'full of fighting spirit', or 'incomplete, low-quality untidy mess'?
The former rather than the latter
Oh ;)
Microsoft has already begun a recruitment campaign aimed at demoralizing Google employees, several Google executives said. Microsoft recruiters have been calling Google employees at home, urging them to join Microsoft and suggesting that their stock options will lose value once Microsoft enters the search market in a serious way.
Bill wants it bad.
I saw an funny interview with Bill recently where he was referring to their yet to be revealed "new technology". He said they'll be able to look at a page on "chips" and be able to discern whether it's about "potato chips" or "computer chips". Brilliant!
But this paragraph is curious:
>>Google executives also say they believe that Microsoft is systematically pursuing Web sites downgraded by Google, which punishes companies for trying to manipulate their rankings. The company is striking partnerships with unhappy Google customers.<<
How in the world could M know who was downgraded and how can they 'partner' with them? In an otherwise well researched article, that bit gave me pause.
Hook into some of them, big or small, and have them partner up via promos for MSN as the +next +new +thang.
How effective is it? I dunno, but if you gots peeps calling googlers at home to comment on future value of stock, it's a rather odd campaign anyway.
For Google, though, the greater threat is that Microsoft will decide that Internet search, like the Web browser before it, should be an integral part of future versions of the Windows operating system.
Are they daring users to switch operating systems? Didn't they learn anything about playing nice?
Didn't they learn anything about playing nice?
Why play nice?
They've got almost all the desktop market and browser market.
Now google have to be nicer to users and webmasters
"Google executives also say they believe that Microsoft is systematically pursuing Web sites downgraded by Google, which punishes companies for trying to manipulate their rankings. The company is striking partnerships with unhappy Google customers."
"Partnerships" probably just means that Microsoft hopes to sell them PPC ads. It's hard to imagine Microsoft Search launching with the ad slogan, "All the spam that Google won't let you see!" :-)
The right sites are now showing there while only 4 out of 89 have returned to google.com's top 100.
By the way, the term which google missed in Florida got hit in Austin. Almost all of the technically competent sites for the term which the technical folks use have now vanished.
All the spam that Google won't let you see!I was actually considering a 403 page for anyone referred by Google with a link to the same search from another search engine. More of an "All the QUALITY RESULTS Google won't let you see".
incomplete, low quality, untidy messIn what part of the world does 'scrappy' mean this?;)
incomplete, low quality, untidy mess
In what part of the world does 'scrappy' mean this?;)
Did no-one ever write this on a piece of your schoolwork Powdork - it's a standard phrase in the UK teaching profession ;)
Still, this reminds me of Murphy's Law of journalism: Everything you read in the paper is absolutely true, except those things which you have first hand knowledge of."
NYT is a great paper, but I learn more here--easy. Still, don't miss this article.
(Note: The AdSense ads at the bottom of the page for me were for replacement ink for my computer printer. Not a great contextual match--except I need ink for my computer printer. How did it know?)
According to the article written by John Markoff, "Last spring, Google had more than 50,000 computers distributed in over a dozen computer centers around the world. The number topped 100,000 by Thanksgiving, according to a person who has detailed knowledge of the Google computing data center. The company is placing a significant bet that Microsoft will be hard pressed to match its response time to the ever increasing torrent of search requests."
Google now has an immense number of users, with 200 million searches on an average day.
I wonder how many of those searches are the result of users refining, and maybe re-refining, unsuccessful searches before they finally find what they were looking for.
I also wonder if it matters.
you don't need a NYT subscription if you access the page via google news:
I tried it and it asked me to register.
[nytimes.com...]
On computers at Google headquarters, the home page constantly displays a graph reflecting how well Google does on searches, compared with its competitors.
What methods are they using to define a successful search, and how do they know without getting inside my mind as I look over the SERPs for any given search term?
Does their definition of a successful search match mine?
I wonder if they are seeing a slight dip after the latest updates at Google Headquarters?
