Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We Need Viable Search Engine Competition

peebs.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 146 posts

Re: We Need Viable Search Engine Competition

#61

Post by gress »

r0h1n wrote: post #41
tsurantino wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Google has gotten so rich, entrenched and popular that IMHO no competitor can dislodge it." Isn't this the definition of a monopoly? And if so, isn't that reason enough to consider search as a public good or a publicly regulated means of accessing information?

The key word there is "IMHO" Judging from the various anti-trust cases that have been brought on against Google around the world it's clear that proving that is nearly impossible too. More so because Google operates in a sector (Internet software) that is theoretically open to infinite competition and zero switching costs.

That theory - infinite competition and zero switching costs - seems to be completely ungrounded in any kind of reality.

Re: We Need Viable Search Engine Competition

#63

Post by gress »

ceph_ wrote: post #21

>1. Google is making arbitrary rules on how sites should behave, because they have a monopoly. How are rules against paid linking scams or procedure generated content farms considered arbitrary? It's clearly trying to game the system, and the rules are explicitly laid out to tell you NOT to do it. >2. Google needs these rules, because Google’s rankings are apparently trivial to game. If this were true, you can make m…

The 'system' they are trying to game is Google's system - tuned to maximize the profitability of Google's ad business. It's not some benevolent public good that is being 'gamed' here.

Re: We Need Viable Search Engine Competition

#64

Post by mgkimsal »

gress wrote: post #61
r0h1n wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The key word there is "IMHO" Judging from the various anti-trust cases that have been brought on against Google around the world it's clear that proving that is nearly impossible too. More so because Google operates in a sector (Internet software) that is theoretically open to infinite competition and zero switching costs.

That theory - infinite competition and zero switching costs - seems to be completely ungrounded in any kind of reality.

There's a whole issue of what the definition of 'using google' is to people. Even if I never search with Google, I'm still often using google stuff - or, more precisely, Google services are using/tracking me. And there's no obvious way to turn it off or opt out of it.

Re: We Need Viable Search Engine Competition

#65

Post by [deleted] »

mrnzc wrote: post #10
Aqueous wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google pays Mozilla hundreds of millions a year to keep its default status in the search bar. Perhaps being able to use PR was part of the deal, or perhaps Mozilla is rich enough to pay royalties to Stanford. Or perhaps Google doesn't mind because Mozilla doesn't seek to directly compete with Google on text search. Edit: Woops. So none of this is true.

Moz (formerly: SeoMoz) != Mozilla

[deleted]

Re: We Need Viable Search Engine Competition

#66

Post by ceph_ »

bushido wrote: post #32
ceph_ wrote: post #21

>1. Google is making arbitrary rules on how sites should behave, because they have a monopoly. How are rules against paid linking scams or procedure generated content farms considered arbitrary? It's clearly trying to game the system, and the rules are explicitly laid out to tell you NOT to do it. >2. Google needs these rules, because Google’s rankings are apparently trivial to game. If this were true, you can make m…

> How are rules against paid linking scams or procedure generated content farms considered arbitrary? It's clearly trying to game the system, and the rules are explicitly laid out to tell you NOT to do it. The whole case with the delisting/penalization and subsequent(and extremely speedy) re-listing of RapGenius is a great example of Google's current arbitrary practices. I covered this is some details on another thre…

The rule they broke is clearly laid out [1]. The practice of manual penalties is as well [2]. They outline a course of action on how to remove the offending links [3]. How is this arbitrary?

[1]https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/66356

[2]https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/2604824

[3]https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/2700611

Re: We Need Viable Search Engine Competition

#67

Post by gesman »

One of the viable venues to compete with Google is not by developing "new, better search engine", but rather "better vertical platform".

What's the best search engine where buyers go? Not google.com and never really been google, it's amazon.com and ebay.com.

What's the best search engine to find answers on technical questions? Stackoverflow.com is approaching google very fast.

So the answer would be for sharp minds to develop sharper and better vertical portals/platforms and pick google apart piece by piece.

Re: We Need Viable Search Engine Competition

#68

Post by Aqueous »

mrnzc wrote: post #10
Aqueous wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google pays Mozilla hundreds of millions a year to keep its default status in the search bar. Perhaps being able to use PR was part of the deal, or perhaps Mozilla is rich enough to pay royalties to Stanford. Or perhaps Google doesn't mind because Mozilla doesn't seek to directly compete with Google on text search. Edit: Woops. So none of this is true.

Moz (formerly: SeoMoz) != Mozilla

Woops. Even so Google might not mind because the opensiteexplorer doesn't really compete with its core business.

Re: We Need Viable Search Engine Competition

#69

Post by romanovcode »

teddyh wrote: post #45
gradys wrote: post #15

I would say that Bing already is a viable alternative. Having used it for several months now, there aren't too many queries that it doesn't handle well, and usually when I check Google's results for those queries, they are equally bad.

So instead of an entrenched monopolist, I’m supposed to choose… Microsoft? That just feels wrong .

It's 2014, times have changed.

Re: We Need Viable Search Engine Competition

#70

Post by alan_cx »

r0h1n wrote: post #41
tsurantino wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Google has gotten so rich, entrenched and popular that IMHO no competitor can dislodge it." Isn't this the definition of a monopoly? And if so, isn't that reason enough to consider search as a public good or a publicly regulated means of accessing information?

The key word there is "IMHO" Judging from the various anti-trust cases that have been brought on against Google around the world it's clear that proving that is nearly impossible too. More so because Google operates in a sector (Internet software) that is theoretically open to infinite competition and zero switching costs.

Depends on one's definition of "cost".
Post reply on HN