digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

'Search is pathetic' - Bill Gates

weblogs.jupiterresearch.com — Q: So how far are you behind Google? GATES: We ’ll look back on this time and realize that search is pathetic. If I ask for something, I should get it, not a list of things to click on... It’s great for where it is, but it will get so much better. There’s no way to qualify results... by trusted sources. Sources I trust, that is.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • xanthin, on 10/12/2007, -10/+41Interesting, but for now, google and search are in the lead.
    • Trenton, on 10/12/2007, -19/+18I agree, but microsoft has the resources.
    • Poddo, on 10/12/2007, -21/+59"If I ask for something, I should get it"

      It's called Google Firefox. I type Digg into the address bar, I go to digg.com. I type Casino Royale Trailer, It takes me right there. The future is now, Billy Boy....
    • dasil003, on 10/12/2007, -19/+50You gotta admin, Gates always has had vision. The problem is that he doesn't have the management skills to make it happen. I mean, how the hell is MS gonna outdo Google if they can't even get WinFS to work? No, all the technology Bill Gates predicts will come true, it just won't be Microsoft that creates it.
    • Bogtha, on 10/12/2007, -21/+62> You gotta admin, Gates always has had vision.

      Vision? How much vision does it take to say: "Um, you know this thing we have now? Well in the future it will be way, way better!"?

      Reported as Stating the Bleedin' Obvious.
    • dracula7, on 10/12/2007, -22/+10OK so what he is describing is an encyclopedia... all of the internet's information aggregated into one website. reading between the lines, every1 is drawn to RSS because it will one day unify the web. syndication is the future. as far as indexing articles, keeping editorial pieces from "trusted" sources should be the job of the users.

      i really hope yahoo uses the del.icio.us database of tags to its advantage. social bookmarking is a goldmine, essentially intelligent web crawlers passionately labeling relevant and interesting information over an infinite period of time.

      part of the internets beauty is its limitless. there isnt one-side to anything (namely things outside of an encyclopedia) : open source, wikis, public domains... these things are the future. if microsoft could unify the web, i would tip my hat to them
    • deepsub, on 10/12/2007, -14/+28"You gotta admin, Gates always has had vision."

      Too bad it's been wrong most of the time.
    • Kolar, on 10/12/2007, -5/+25"I agree, but Microsoft has the resources."

      Resources mean nothing, they've failed to produce anything while google and others continue to come up with good and USEFUL (not to mention sometimes free) applications, google calendar is a good example. They're dealing with piracy like the RIAA and MPAA by employing tactics that hurt and sometimes criminalize the end consumer and small businesses. They have made big off of the consumers nativity and through monopolies to create the biggest software company in the world, the most used operating system but fail to input the time/money into making it secure enough and leave those pirates out in the cold to be scooped up by bot networks (without buying some other 500$ piece of *****, even then..).

      Microsoft is empowered and fueled by stupidity, both internal and external. I think they should stick to attempting to make new operating systems and stop trying to compet... sorry "keep google honest".
    • NotParker, on 10/12/2007, -22/+5Googles search results have been crappy lately.

      Want one reason why?

      http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/05/04/google_bigdaddy_chaos/
    • millixaw, on 10/12/2007, -7/+51"If I ask for something, I should get it, not a list of things to click on..."

      Try the "I'm Feeling Lucky" button
    • Chompy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12"I agree, but microsoft has the resources."

      All the money in the world isn't going to help a company that's clueless. Google is popular because it just *works*, and the ads are unobtrusive. All Microsoft or anyone else needs to do is get a focus group together and ask them why they prefer Google. Hell, they probably have done this, but apparently they aren't listening.
    • dWhisper, on 10/12/2007, -11/+9I'd love to use the "I'm Feeling Lucky" button, but if Google has taught me anything, they're not above doling out the top stop to the highest bidder. I still use it like a drug, but I've had too much bad luck on that one...

      And as for Gates being right or wrong, there was an article awhile back about his 96 book that looked at his predictions. He hit about 50-60%, which isn't half bad. Anything else being said, the guy obviously has the money and the success to show that maybe... just maybe... he knows what he's doing. Even if what he knows is simply being in the right place at the right time.
    • dave_colorado, on 10/12/2007, -13/+13oh yeah, you guys know what you're talking about.

      "gates has vision, but he's wrong most of the time." and etc etc etc that you keep saying.

      to think gates doesn't have vision is ludicrous. how did he become the richest man in the world without vision? you can say "he stole this he stole that". *****. that doesn't mean he doesn't have vision. he knew exactly who to steal from and when. and you know what? he was smart enough to make his OS run on any computer. something apple never did. well, once, but it was short lived.

      so whine about gates and how you don't like what he built, but saying he has no vision is just stupid.

      on topic though, gates is right about search being pretty pathetic now. but think about this - what incentive does google have to provide you with the best results possible? well, they have to provide reasonably good results, but if the gave perfect results, they'd lose their advertising business.



    • joshfraz, on 10/12/2007, -16/+7no, mr gates. you are pathetic.
    • NotParker, on 10/12/2007, -12/+4Funny. If I search for Napolean on Google.ca, I get a Fireplace company.

      http://www.google.ca/search?num=50&hl=en&safe=off&c2coff=1&q=napoleon&btnG=Search

      How much did they pay Google to do that?
    • SyDIGG, on 10/12/2007, -16/+12"You gotta admin, Gates always has had vision."

      Vision ...you mean ``640k should be enough for anybody.'' vision?
    • samdu, on 10/12/2007, -4/+18"You gotta admin, Gates always has had vision."

      Except for that whole "the Internet is just a nerd playground and always will be" thing. Oh, and thinking Bob was a good idea.
    • nailbunny, on 10/12/2007, -11/+4if it's pathetic, make something better, you *****, and shut your hole until ye do.
    • bojoes, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1dasil...Microsoft's stockholders would tend to disagree with you.
    • spectre_25gt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6The only thing this tells me is that Billy Bob doesn't understand how searching works. Most of the time when I search, having multiple results is a good thing, not a bad thing. How is anyone ever going to be able to figure out an algorythm to give me exactly what I want every single time? It's not possible and unless it was absolutely perfect it wouldn't be worth it. Even if I got a perfect hit 99% of the time I'd be really annoyed at that 1% if I didn't have other listings to choose from.
    • nofxjunkee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"he was smart enough to make his OS run on any computer."

      any x86 computer. well, they used to do alpha, and another one i don't recall.
    • ConceptJunkie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Gates lost whatever vision he had years ago (which was mostly a business vision, not a technology vision), and these days he has no concept of reality (if he ever did) and has become a caricature of himself, spouting imperial decrees that say (and mean) absolutely nothing. Has he said _anything_ relevant or meaningful in the last 5 years? He keeps making vague promises about all the incredible things MS will do, like recommit themselves to security (6 years ago), eliminate spam in 2 years (>2 years ago), and now he's making vague meaningless promises about beating Google at searching. There are never any details, and by time these pronouncements should come true, most people have forgotten them.

      Face it, his company can't even get the new version of its operating system out in 5 years even after taking out everything that makes it even remotely interesting. Microsoft has been riding momentum for about 5 years ago, and momentum only lasts for so long. They have nothing new to offer, no real innovations, only incremental improvements (if that). I personally think the company is starting to implode. They can't finish anything and almost no one cares if they do. Unless they can get some real innovation (even if it means buying it, as usual) they will continue to erode.



  • faulkner, on 10/12/2007, -19/+24he must have accidentally bought the Sour edition of M$ Grapes.
    • Ireland, on 10/12/2007, -7/+31He said the same thing about the iPod, when asking a bunch a kids in a classroom if they had an iPod, and when the put up their hands he turned the thing around to trivialise it. He made it sound like any other mp3 player, like Microsoft had a better idea. iPod/mp3 > apple, search > google. They are the best at what they do. Give up and come up with your own original ideas Bill, if you have any. And leave the other things that companies have already found great solutions to alone. The trouble with living in the future is you never live in the present, you never see that people are actually happy with Google. You had your time to rule the world now pass on the baton ;)
    • ThinkBox, on 10/12/2007, -9/+67"search is pathetic."

      Was he talking about trying to use the search function on XP?
    • FinishdLawSkool, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2At this point comments like Bill Gates' just make him seem bitter...
    • Tezkah, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Was he talking about trying to use the search function on XP?"

      or MSN Search... "You searched for "google", did you mean to search for 'What do alligators eat???'"
  • sam3, on 10/12/2007, -33/+6What? This comment doesn't even make sense.
  • Saintlink, on 10/12/2007, -5/+32Microsoft has been talking tough for a few months now about how they are going to take back search, but their actual product offerings are lacking. It just sounds like hype to get investors back on track for justifying the billions they are spending to keep up (or to try and catch) Google.

    Bill: Nice spin effort, please try again.
  • Hellsadvocate, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10Yeah, its called the "Get lucky" option in google. You ask for something, you get it. The internet is not any more capable of producing High quality answers for your questions, there's a few billion "shady" websites that people succumb too. Gate's is looking wayyyy to far into the future. WAYYYYYYYYY to far.
    • mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13and if you use firefox you can just type a term into the address bar and it will take you to the most likely website according to google. (i couldn't live without this)

      of course, you can't do that with IE.
    • Loonacy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Also, in Linux, if you select text, then old timey paste (middle click) in a window, it does a google search of that text. Quite handy sometimes.
  • jarcoal, on 10/12/2007, -9/+33i'm always blown away at how accurate google is, can't imagine it getting much better. i wouldn't even want something other than a list, choice is good.
    • wicked6, on 10/12/2007, -12/+12Bloody well said, jarcoal. Choice is, indeed, good. :)
    • jakeweston, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15"can't imagine it getting much better": Luckily innovation is left to people less content with current technology.
      Google is amazing, but I could easily imagine it being a lot better...

    • nerdler, on 10/12/2007, -7/+16If you can't imagine google being much better, you have a severe creative deficit.
    • jarcoal, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11ok i can imagine it getting better, but i will say that 99.9% of the time it finds EXACTLY what i want, hard to ask for much more than that.
    • liquidrums, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4That's why i bought InquisitorX for Safari. It gives you live results from Google while you type in the Safari search bar.
    • Nanobe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9How about improving the Google Q&A feature? If I type, "who is in the 'last supper' painting?", it should give me a list of names. How about an inline translation tool, so I can type "castle in spanish" and it gives me the translation? There are plenty of ways Google could be improved. Luckily, the company is set up in such a way that it is relatively easy for these kinds of innovations to come about. Microsoft is still rather big and clumsy (although it seems that they are working very hard to change that now).
    • jarcoal, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10i don't like the idea of google taking content away from the web or originating pages. if you type "who is in the 'last supper' painting?" i would rather have google hand over some links than give me the content right there. otherwise we might as well stop building new sites with new content and just wait for the entire web to be google.

      it's definitely a good idea to be adding utilities (like the stock quote or calc app in the search), but leave the real content creation/addition to the people.
    • NotParker, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2Google has been pathetic lately. Nothing but paid for adds at the top of the list.
    • betona, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Not me. I frequently go 4, 5, 6 pages into Google search results and don't find what I'm looking for. And there have been many times that I've specifically entered a site I know exists, and it doesn't come up in Google.

      Good, yes. Perfect/awesome/nothing better? Hardly.
    • spectre_25gt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@betona

      No offense intended here, but maybe you should spend some time learning how to search better. If you're expecting to get an answer the first time every time then you're going to be dissapointed. The most important thing about searching is being able to take information you find in your searches and build that into subsequent searches to find what you're looking for. This isn't a problem with search engines, necessarily, it's just that you can't always know what exact search term is going to bring up your answer on the first try.

      Actually, that raises a good question... Does anyone know of a good book that goes over this? I think it would be quite useful to a lot of people.
  • thedevilyouknow, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Bill just wants the info we read to come from his company. Looking for anything, he'll make sure you can find it. But you won't be able to find anything else.

    I wonder why the huge hate on for Google lately... Is it because they're the best?
    • riplikethat, on 10/12/2007, -23/+3"Is it because they're the best?"

      So you are saying that MS actually came this far after crushing thousands of googles in their past makes them second best but small tiny Google is the best? I don't trust them both, but I'd rather put my money on a MS than a company (Google) that uses it's fame and glory to market... chewing gum. Yeah that's how lame it is.

      Not to mention that their new free softwares are completely half assed attempts most of the time.
    • rowanjl, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I would hardly call Google "small and tiny"...
  • jbus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16Microsoft's new search technology... You get just one search result, but don't worry that one result is verified and approved by Microsoft, so all is well ;)
  • seenthefuture, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7If I want a clock, I'd rather see a lot to choose from rather than one that M$ feels I like best.
  • brandizzle, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Er...I can't see search getting much better than Google is now. There's maybe one or two times a month when I don't see what I'm looking for on the first page, and when I re-word the search I usually find what I'm looking for right away.

    Until my computer knows exactly what I'm thinking and what I want without me having to tell it, search won't get any better than this.

    Is Gates trying to suggest something like Google's feeling lucky button be the new standard for search engines? Because that's far from what I want.
  • Ziferius, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13I think Microsoft should try and get their "search" on the MSDN and Technet halfway descent before they move on to the intarweb. Holy crap.. it's so much easier to go to google to find work arounds and fixes for bugs and patches than to go to Microsoft.
    • Raznog, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5HAHAAHAHA oh yes if i want an upgrade i go to google and type it in not to microsoft =D hehehe so true
    • spliznork, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I hear what you're saying, but at least from a technical point of view, intranet and internet searching are very different problems. The density and richness of links in the internet enables algorithms like Google's PageRank. But, measuring the density of links for a single site is not nearly as meaningful or as productive. ... that's why you don't see Google owning site searching, for instance.
    • spectre_25gt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2That's true, but I'm sure the people at google could come up with something really good for site searching if they thought it would be a worthwhile investment. Most of the site searches out there (yes, MS KB is a good example, but far from the only one) are completely horrid. I have much better look looking for info on Google than going to a site search most of the time.
  • wmbattsjr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Just another item in a growing list of predictions made by Mr. Gates that will never see fruition (if he really said it).
  • FullMetalMonkey, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2The can't be real. I'm going to need to see this from another source before I Digg it.
    • nodnarb24, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4It probably is real but I do agree that another source needs to be seen. This link is horrible, it's just a third party's interpretation of an interview with no quotes or anything. I'd much rather see a transcript of the interview.
  • tommertron, on 10/12/2007, -11/+7I guess MSN search is a lot better then right? Seriously - somebody go to search.msn.com and search for something. I searched for "Napoleon" and it produced NO results. I guess no one on the Internet has ever mentioned Napoleon??
    • RableRableSnarf, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1LOL! You're right! Nothing from MSN.

      And a Google search to be fair: "Personalized Results 1 - 10 of about 41,600,000 for napoleon [definition]. (0.11 seconds) "
    • lavawalker, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7um, http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=Napoleon
      "1 of 4,394,196 results"
    • noll, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2There are plenty of results, try again.
    • Jonny5alive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2What? MSN search gets over 4million results for that.....
    • thegsa, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4@ lavawalker
      microsoft search is SOOOO accurate, that when i typed napoleon, the first result was NAPOLEON DYNAMITE
      c'mon.
    • balloot, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2Huh? There are a ton of results for Napoleon. It really isn't that hard to legitimately rip on MS - you don't have to make stuff up.
    • optikburn, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3at least, when I search "raldz" I get what I want.. but still I'm not impressed..
    • cesclaveria, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2I got plenty of results with search.msn.com

      "Resultados Web
      Página 1 de 4,587,762 resultados que contienen napoleon (0.16 segundos)"
    • NotParker, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3"microsoft search is SOOOO accurate, that when i typed napoleon, the first result was NAPOLEON DYNAMITE"

      Same with Google.

      http://www.google.ca/search?num=50&hl=en&safe=off&c2coff=1&q=napolean&btnG=Search

  • stoanhart, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4'Microsoft builds platforms for information organization. We’re not going to “organize the world’s information” for it.'

    Well, until you do, we will continue to use google...
    • TekJansen, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3That line seems odd since it would take a lot of organizing of the worlds information to provide the "If I ask for something, I should get it, not a list of things to click on" scenario he is talking about. I would not like to use such a search engine anyway since it would have to read my mind to know what I am really looking for. Unless that will be a feature as well, in which case I will just add another layer of heavy duty Reynolds to my shiny hat.
  • DigDuality, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Trusted Sources he says?

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=UtU_AiE-nu0

    http://www.againsttcpa.com/

    That's what i have to say about that.
    • detrate, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3awesome video, thank you for the link.
    • freeaxes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Interesting video. Very well put together, and definitely thought provoking.

      I have to say though, there are a LOT of people out there who aren't informed enough to make those decisions about what's a threat themselves. Those people put the information on their machines at risk when they make the wrong choices. I'd be fine with that if it only ever effected them, and if they took responsibility for their own poor choices, but frequently those machines contain OTHER people's personal information (say they work at an insurance provider or a credit card company). Do you want your personal information to be put at risk because someone else made the wrong choice?
  • fatcat, on 10/12/2007, -14/+13Jobs > Gates.
    Nuff' said.
    • DigDuality, on 10/12/2007, -12/+23are you freaking kidding me??

      Jobs is only "nicer" than Gates b/c he's at the bottom of the totem pole. Jobs would be just as horrible if not more so. Jobs is on board with the TCPA, Jobs loves DRM, Jobs loves stealing from Open Source and giving nothing back in return (you see.. it's stealing when you use it, profit, and don't help out in kind IMO).


      Jobs is an idiot. I love my Mac. I do, and i love OS X with a passion, but gimme a break. You're looking at a man who thinks he can "sell culture" b/c he took acid one time.

      You're not your ***** iPod.
    • Boondoggle, on 10/12/2007, -11/+3@Digduality:

      I don't think ">" means "nicer" in this context. Everyone knows Jobs is an ***** in any case. But he definitely has a better track record of personally guiding the creation of great products that have tremendous impact.

      Oh, and you're obviously an idiot.
    • probeta, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1@DigDuality
      lol "b/c he took acid one time"

      absolutely. but Jobs IS his iPod.
  • dielawn, on 10/12/2007, -11/+9didnt bill also say all the average person would need only 604k of memory? and he also said linux wasnt a competitor...why in the hell should we believe him now?
  • whoatemydigg, on 10/12/2007, -8/+5Im waiting for the government to install INTERNET 2. In INTERNET 2 everything will be tightly regulated and controlled. No Porn, no spam, no junk. Everything will be unifed and standardized. So there would be only one grand blog search engine where you can go to search and find all the blogs or one grand business website search where you can find all the businesses. This is all possible because in INTERNET 2 anyone who want to create a blog or a web page will have to sign a contract, register and for whatever web page is set up, it will have to conform to a set of standards applicable to every website of its kind. INTERNET 2 will exist along with regular internet but because this internet will be so much more efficient and trusted eventually regular internet will be left with porno and stupid video clips. Wait for it.
  • bpapa, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4There's something else out there, I think Gates is right. Look at tagging. That is infinitely more powerful then search. Instead of looking at what is in an H1 tag or page rank, a tag is something that somebody puts on something to say "THIS IS WHAT YOU ARE LOOKING FOR!"

    So... yeah, tagging is a relatively new technology (waits for a ton of smart ass comments), and that's 10 years after search. So Gates could be right, who knows where we will be in the future. It could be Google that provides it, it could be Microsoft, it could be something else. But I think search will be better and different in the future.
    • Boondoggle, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5I'll tell you what, you go out and tag all the web pages and we'll see how that works out.
    • bpapa, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Way to think inside of the box. I'm not saying tags are the future, but they are a clear indication that a complex search algorithim and 100,000,000 databases of indexed content might not be the only answer - exactly Gates's point.
    • ianTits, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3uh, that's how the web used to work. you'd put tags in the meta data and Altavista etc would search on it. Left it open to mass abuse, that's why Google overtook them.
    • bpapa, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1adadadadada
  • tidu, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5"It's called Google Firefox. I type Digg into the address bar, I go to digg.com. I type Casino Royale Trailer, It takes me right there."

    Hats off to this dude... I never knew that before.
  • ragtag, on 10/12/2007, -9/+1Gates $ > Jobs $
    Nuff' said.
    • t3hX, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3Please remember that while Jobs is out to change the world, Gates is out to make money.
    • wolver1ne, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Every CEO is out to make money. Be it your beloved Steve Jobs for iPod-mania or hated by the world Sir Bill Gates for misunderstood BSOD messages.

      But that aside, how is Bill not out to change the world? All Jobs does is "making" iPods and waving his annual $1 payment check from Apple to look modest while Gates is donating his millions to charity. Avading tax I hear you saying. Could be, but as far as I know both Steve and Bill pay millions in taxes from their shares and whatnot.
    • mikewashere05, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@wolver1ne

      Millions? Try billions. I believe his charity (The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation) was endowed with 26 billion dollars out of his own pocket. He's also donated around 3 billion to other charities.
  • sirius889, on 10/12/2007, -9/+6640K is more memory than anyone will ever need.
  • thegsa, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"It’s great for where it is, but it will get so much better. Right now, there’s no way to qualify results by authority, by trusted sources. Sources I trust, that is."

    Well...I Don't Trust Microsoft.
  • chadseld, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2Talk is cheap.
    • ConceptJunkie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Richest man in the world, but all he does is talk... and not even well.


  • mntpng, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Trusted sources? You mean like if I type "Linux", Microsoft will simply take me to their knowlege base page on how to uninstall it? What if I type "antitrust lawsuit"? What are the chances that Microsoft is trustworthy enough to take me to Microsoft's antitrust case as it should? In case you're wondering, Google's top three results are about Microsoft.

    It's bizarre how Microsofties including Bill and Steve tends to throw around words like innovation and trust but when you look at their past, neither of them really comes to my mind. Not even close. Bill should look up the definition of those two words and get in sync with the rest of the world on what those words actually mean and use them accordingly.
  • honging, on 10/12/2007, -6/+17Digg me down, I don't care, but the ignorance level in the comments is astounding. Forget for a second who said that quote and put aside your anti-Microsoft sentiments, cause what Gates is saying is profound. What he's basically saying is that search, as it stands, is not as good of a tool anymore and that this not the final iteration of search on the web.

    I'm willing to bet that most of you are locked in to the same type of sites - you'll automatically go to Wikipedia for references, Songmeanings for lyrics, Digg for interesting articles; most of us have gravitated away from simply seaching Google whenever we need something because we build trusted sources for specific information.

    Gates is simply talking about the next iteration of search on the web which will use trusted sources to "push" things up instead of the anonymous way we're doing it now.

    What do you think Digg is? Digg personifies this idea more than anything - for Digg, we trust the user base at Digg to push interesting items top the top. It's the same concept with delicious. Yahoo!'s started investing a lot into "social searches," and this is precisely what Gates is talking about.
    • drizek, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3whats the point?

      Wikipedia is the only free encyclopedia, why would you even want to go anywhere else? If an article is going to exist its going to be in wikipedia.
    • JoeWall, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4most intelligent comment ever
    • Boondoggle, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2Thank you Captain Obvious.
    • bpapa, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Good post, and here's another example. Cause honging isn't a total ***** tard and just wrote one of the best posts I've seen on Digg, I am going to add him as a friend so I can keep an eye on him. See the comments he makes. See what stories he digs. Not exactly a "search", but it's a form of "social search", an only recent innovation, and exactly the kinda stuff Gates is talking about.
    • ardellin, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4My thoughts exactly (the original comment).

      What gets me are the morons above who get defensive about Google and say searching is as good as it can be. Don't get me wrong, Google is my freakin homepage, but how can we embrace innovation when we don't push for something more?

      In context to searching, this reminds me of something Kevin said on a diggnation episode a month or two back. He thought that future searching may be tied more to social aspects rather than pure algorithms. So when I search for something, I should get results relevant to my peers' habits rather than an algorithm such as PageRank. He said it a lot more cohesive than that, but I agree with his point. Just look at the success of digg, a social oriented news bookmarking site.

      Maybe Google will stay on top in the future of searching, but who knows. Like or not, Bill Gates does in fact have a keen sense for the future of technology. Much better than any of us, at least, so don't dismiss the article so easily.
    • drizek, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6i dunno about you guys, but i dont want "trusted sites". Why the hell would you want MS/google/yahoo to send you to "trusted sites"? Trusted sites will be no different than what we have now, companies paying the search engines to list their sites on the top of the list. Except now you wont even have a list anymore, you just get sent straight to a big corps website whenever you search for anything.

      And dont accuse me of being a google fanboy. I certainly dont think current search engines are perfect, but i dont think gates has the right idea either.
    • ardellin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Great thoughts drizek, but "social searching" has nothing to do with what you are complaining about. It implies searching based on your friends/peers, and not just going where Google/MS wants you to go.
    • ardellin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Also, to expand my last comment further, read the following quote carefully.

      "Right now, there’s no way to qualify results by authority, by trusted sources. Sources I trust, that is."

      In the second sentence, the "I" refers to the user, of course. Gates is not saying that the search engine is the trusted source should tell everyone where to go. Users will have their own trusted sources which will help sort relevant information to the top of the search results.

      From there, it is not a far stretch to bring up the topic of social searching. Taking all this into account, you see why your last comment is not relevant to this particular message thread (or the entire comment page, really).
    • drizek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3youre right, i guess i kinda went off there. But the way he worded it, it just doesnt sound right.

      Honestly, do you really think MS will make a search engine that can:

      1. Be fast and efficient
      2. Be compatible on any browser on any platform
      3. Respect your privacy
      4. Have a nice clean layout
      5. Be truly innovative and thoughtfully implemented?


      I dont know about you, but ive lost a lot of faith in MS over the past couple of years. The idea that MS can create something innovative like a social search site just doesnt register in my mind. AFAIK, digg is independent of any company and it is just a startup. Do you really think digg would be as cool as it is today if it was being managed by a huge corporation that cares about nothing other than the bottom line and marketshare?

      Social search is becoming more appealing to me the more i think about it, but only when it is outside the context of MS. It will have to be in the same spirit as digg for it to be usefull, not msn.
    • thekolonel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Yup. While social search has its own limitations at least it's an alternative to all the SEO-gaming that goes on within the major search engines. I can't tell you how many times I've clicked on a seemingly-relevant link only to find one paragraph of actual info and a whole page of adsense spam.
  • moonmuppex, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1You can almost taste the bitterness on BG's breath. But honestly, what would it take for a search engine to differentiate between the TV show "Live Hot Puppet Chat" (www.decovo.com) and the evolving online porn culture of "live hot puppet chat"? Would your computer need to estimate whether or not you're "into" something lewd in order to filter the results to your liking? If you sample some online porn, will your search engine plague you with "teen cam" results for a week or two?
  • zubi, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Search is great... BECAUSE is lets us choose between various opinions...

    If I want a hamburger, I would rather have all the burger joints in front of me to choose..

    and not have whichever burgerjoint pays the most be the only one in front of me

    Sorry Bill... but you are wrong.
  • mateo60, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4If anybody gave a crap about MSN Search, all of the sudden I'm sure search would be quite important to him.
  • Aleman360, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Hey Bill, try the "I'm feeling lucky" button.
  • msafi, on 10/12/2007, -7/+7Bill Gates is such a great man. He believes in the unlimited possibilities of technology, and he's a visionary. Add to that his charitable contributions to the world. Isn't the world a better place because of him?
    • SaintStryfe, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2He's that rich because he makes average people do the work. HE doesn't provide support (not much at least) for Word. He doesn't help people with Windows issues (by He I mean Gates' company).

      He's rich due to striking at opportunity, and he's stayed rich by exploiting people. His charitable causes are noble, yes, but I'm sure most people would be a hellova lot more generous if they didn't have to upgrade to XP just because they bought new systems from one of the OEMs MS strong-arms into installing only the newest, more profitable things.
  • perlfu, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Bill Gates is a visionary in marketing, not technology and software. The only thing I can currently recall that he actually had a hand in "creating" is basic, which really isn't much of a language to be proud of anyway. He bought dos from a Seattle based company who has previously released it as, "qdos", and just remarketed it pretty much as it was. There was also Xenix, but that was pretty much the same deal. As far as windows goes, there haven't been too many innovations there either. You could say the GUI, but it looks too much like an apple/nextstep hybrid to really give him credit for that. Anyway, what he lacks in imagination he certainly makes up for with marketing skill, and apparently there's no end to that in sight.
    • xedeon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Marketing? I doubt it maybe Business Apps, that's about it.
    • Insolence, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2You've got to be kidding me... Gates _realized_ how important those were, bought them cheap, sold them high. He's a _visionary_ genius.
  • quoigonfishin, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2I almost mistakenly dugg this. At first glance I thought the title read "Vista is pathetic."

    Never mind.
  • Jammerdelray, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0well if microsoft aquires yahoo they'll already have to money to back it up but yahoos know how and extra resources.
  • nessup, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Decentralization is the future.
  • eddyc, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Wake up! If you give moral credence to someones business practices be they good or bad you are very misinformed , ITS CAPITALISM for gods sake, get a clue
    This article is lame
  • Amplix, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5You know what's pathetic? Walking, who needs things to step on? I want to go somewhere I should just appear there, you know, driving is pathetic too...
  • jonesin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2If his "trusted sources" are anything like his "trusted computing", then I don't want it.
    • ardellin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Right now, there's no way to qualify results by authority, by trusted sources. Sources I trust, that is."

      In the second sentence, the "I" refers to the user, of course. Gates is not saying that the search engine is the trusted source should tell everyone where to go. Users will have their own trusted sources which will help sort relevant information to the top of the search results.

      ^I took the above from an earlier comment of mine, but decided to repost this part since a lot of people (i.e., you) seem to think that Gates means MS should be the trusted source.
  • Cheesehead9805, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2dasil003
    >You gotta admin, Gates always has had vision.

    He has not always had good vision.

    "640K ought to be enough for anybody." or "No one will need more than 637 kb of memory for a personal computer."
    http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Bill_Gates
    • cesclaveria, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7do you realize the quote you are referring to is under "Wrongly Attributed"?
  • optikburn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Google and Yahoo are better in delivering relevant search results compared to MSN.. why? Because I have 3 SEO sites that ranks very high in MSN but very low on Yahoo and Google.. of course everyone here knows that SEO sites are made for advertisements, therefore, MSN could not filter really relevant results from just plain crap..
    • admirabumblebee, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1OsX has a 'feature' on by default (it's built in) that is neary functionally identical to indexing in windows. Difference is that it's very clunky for certain types of computer use (media production largely).

      We already know OSX is slower on identical computers than XP, but that is mostly due to things disabled by default in XP and enabled in OSX. Learn your computer before you complain.

      Turn on indexing, and searches are fantastic in windows.

      ----

      Why did I post this, I freaking hate windows :-
  • warnergt, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3Heck, just searching for files on my Windows PC sucks.
    How is M$ ever going to let you search the whole Internet?

    I search for a file on my Mac and, in about 3 seconds, I
    have it. I search for a file on my 3.4 GHz Windows PC
    and it goes on and on for minutes. WTF!?

    Along the same lines, did you ever notice when you
    turn on file sharing on a Mac, it is available in about
    a second or two. Share a big folder on your Windows PC
    and it starts fiddle-farting around for minutes. WTF!?

    Windows just plain sucks.
    • pabster, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2Got to agree on those points. OS X has a far superior search mechanism, and the sharing is not only faster but more intuitive.

      Then again, Vista is supposed to support search OS X style. Whether it has the speed and functionality remains to be seen.
    • ElJefeGrande, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4You've never heard of indexing, have you. I am so tired of people hating Microsoft just to hate Microsoft (or liking Apple just to like Apple). This article was about searching the Internet, and some how people are starting to talk about how XP can't search a hard drive (which it can do well...if you turn on indexing (also, not a hard thing to do)) and then end their comments with crap like "Windows XP just plain sucks". I don't recall this article being about XP.

      > "I search for a file on my Mac and, in about 3 seconds, I have it."
      No one brought up the fact that Apple in all its wisdom and glory, doesn't have an app that can search the Internet in 3 seconds (like it can search your hard drive) and find just what you want. But nooo, don't wrap on the mighty Apple.
    • Kyderdog, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2>>which it can do well...if you turn on indexing
      you mean its not a default setting....Windows XP sucks....

      >>No one brought up the fact that Apple in all its wisdom and glory, doesn't have an app...
      Google Search seems to do that from me...(its in that Safari thing)....Windows XP sucks.... :)
  • xedeon, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Wow Bill sure is upset, Just because they can't/didn't do a great job in the search market now he is undermining Google, just like how he said the $100 MIT pc for 3rd world countries is sucky cause it didn't run an embedded windows OS Bill Gates has the lamest visions ever I am yet to see one that is successful and innovative.
  • digitallysick, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3totally un related, have you even tried to use "msn.com" you cant read an article without " lower my bills" flashing in the middle of it, trying to give me epelisy style seziure. When i see that, it shows me that msn is going down hill
  • Boondoggle, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1This is how Bill spends the time that should be used talking about all the great features in the recently released Vista. But as we know that didn't work out so well.
  • DrEbola, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Bill Gates? He's all talk. Only the richest human in the world. He's all talk, really.
  • konkushn, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7You Apple and Linux people are pathetic. Quit crying so much. Whaaaa! Whaaaa! Microsoft is Evil! Bill Gates is the devil!! Whaaaa!

    I fart in your general direction.. Now on you way..
    • w0rd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Your mother was a hamster and your father smells of elderberries!
  • jeffreymcmanus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0BillG is new to this search thing so he probably doesn't realize that there are a number of products that give you the ability to qualify search by sources you trust, http://myweb2.search.yahoo.com/ is a good example of this.
    • xedeon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I will believe it when I see/use it..
  • wastern, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3he sucks at search, so he says search sucks. haha. classic
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 80 of 80 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.