What is Digg?33 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7I disagree @noamsml. Human intervention will only lead to bias as the system will be manipulated more than an automated approach.
The truth is Google continue to provide an excellent service that is completely free to nearly all that use it. It is also now a generic name for search engines - just like Hoover is (for vacuum cleaners), Walkman (for personal stereos) or iPod (for MP3 Players). I just can't see them losing their edge without doing something really bad or someone else doing something amazing. - Aleks, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5If people aren't using the Windows Live search site, I'm happy :)
- flag564, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4All they need to do is to have someone do something cool with their logo during holidays, and they will be the next Google.
- Brahma, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I am sure Google is not sleeping over this. After all 99% of their revenue comes from search related ads.
- hypercube33, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Newcomers like SNAP? Snap was around before I even knew of google...NBC's search engine of sorts, I loved the interface.
- BeserkerNJ, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Google is NOT a search company, they are an advertising company. Search is more like their marketing tool.
- malibu1123, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I think Chacha will be the next great search engine. The more the public uses it, the better the results will be. Here's to the best results the first time, no more sifting through many to find what you are looking for. Go Chacha!!
- Raian, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This last month Google has been a little sketchy-- the bugs in gmail, the strange de-listings... like boingboing and sex related weblogs... I do like Google, but this makes me loose a little faith... I know that they have to fight spam harder than anyone else out there-- but it seems they are experiencing more and more collateral damage.
- noamsml, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yes, but a lot of humans can be. I believe that a hybrid search engine combining digg-like functionality with a conventional algorithm is the way to go.
- holhare, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1ChaCha.com is going to surprise people. Mark my words. :) The more people use it, the more they are going to like it. Not only the search-with-a-guide feature, but the without-a-guide results are becoming way more relevant than Google's results, because ChaCha learns from HUMANS.
- Drahkar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Personally I always wondered why we have to find the next of anything? Why not actually fix the problems with the things we have so that we can actually get somewhere instead of stumbling over ourselves by starting over and over and over again.
Oh right. Money. I forgot. Its not about actually solving the problem. Its about making money. - funkspiel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I don't like the name "Clusty", sounds disreputable.
- freff, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I used to be pretty conscientious about using a mix of search engines. I didn't like the idea that all my information online was filtered by one gateway. So I used a bunch of different search engines, and tried new ones out as I heard about them. But, one by one, I realized that Google was just better. Not just better, but WAY better. It returned more relevant results, and way less spam or sponsored links than anything else that I tried. Google is Google because they are by far the best at what they do. That's why I'm interested in what they are getting ready to do in the future. They got a big challenge ahead because they're one of the big guys now, and they're trying to enter some crowded arenas, but when Google actually focuses on something, they've tended to do it right in the past.
- MySchizoBuddy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1if someone comes out with a better search engine than google. Google will just buy em out rather than play dead. As much as people want Google to die. it isn't going to happen. Google is continuously improving its search engine by acquiring new search algorithms like the one that australian student came up with.
so sorry ur assessment that google will be blown out overnight is plain stupid. - OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1No it's not. Use Customizegoogle so that you have easy access to multiple engines. You'll see that Yahoo, and unfortunately, the evil MSN, get very similar results.
http://www.customizegoogle.com/
Also keep in mind that Google ranks differently and has censored some sites. There is still a need for multiple search engines and always will be because not a single engine is perfect or completely trustworthy.
You were right before, relying on a single search engine is foolish. - silentdud, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"The three started Powerset, a company whose aim is to deliver better answers than any other search engine — including Google — by letting users type questions in plain English. And they have made believers of Silicon Valley investors whose fortunes turn on identifying the next big thing."
Doesn't that sound just a little bit familiar?
Two points I want to make about this type of thing...
1. It will not be popular for a long time.
2. It has a good chance of becoming popular once we can talk to computers and ***** like that. - OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1[quote]who the hell would ever use that is beyond me.[/quote]
Probably no one.
It's going to be incredibly tough to beat the established search engines. Google, Yahoo, and MS (M$) are gigantic, what startup can compete with the hardware resources and manpower these companies have? Don't forget you've already got "user-driven" search sites like delicio.us.
Eventually something new will show up, but it won't be a direct competitor to Google. I think specialized search engines that focus on a specific topic are the only ones that stand any chance of success. Unless some Communist country decides to pour unlimited VC into their own Communist search service of some type, I don't see how a startup can compete with Google; the playing field isn't the same as when Google started. - GawtMilk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1That isn't true. Google is a search company. They use their search technology to create good ads. They used the ads to make money.
- schestowitz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2It's all about brute force if they want to use breadth in knowledge. A few humans cannot be trusted.
They would need between 100,000 and half a million [f/F]ree servers (no, proprietary software is out of the question, not just because of cost) just to get started. Venture capital that's generous is highly essential. For human moderation, Wikipedia already reigns. - Diseage, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I think that the article is looking in the wrong field. Google came along and made something that was seen as mundane and useless, and turned it into something spectacular. They weren't trying to best a giant.
Something similar will happen in the future to something that we currently see as mundane or might not even exist yet.
It's all about doing one thing (at first anyway) and doing it very, very, very well.
The new "Google" won't be a search engine, it will be an unrelated company that has the spunk that Google has. - bariswheel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Don't let media and fud guide you to 'loosing' your faith!
- koalua, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Try exalead at www.exalead.com . Our engine is a fairly nice alternative to Google (though the results are not very different) but it has some nice features such as thumbnails preview and refinements on the right !
- Angelamongus04, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I think it will too. Chacha is great especially if your in a rush looking for results I love it!! And will continue to use it.
- maxum, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Try http://www.yubnub.org or http://www.sugarcodes.com ! Basically all engines in one!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The great thing about Google is that they're always on the lookout for technologies that complete with their core offerings or fit in with their future business plans. These companies are quickly spotted, tracked and eventually purchased and integrated within Google. This is why there will never be another Google - because Google will recognize the future threat, long before anyone else, and take evasive maneuvers to reduce the threat.
- Johnpaine, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I tried the others... they're slow as *****...especially hakia.com... who the hell would ever use that is beyond me.
- tinkwelch, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I think ChaCha will replace Google !!!
- Cryption, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I agree that Hakia and Snap are slow, but ChaCha's algorithmic search seemed very fast. It was sub-second each time I tried it.
- GawtMilk, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Hurrah! Let us out-do Google by letting users type questions in plain English!
Oh, oh wait.
*****.
Google Answers. - LiterateWolf, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Finally, search engines instead of marketing engines.
- TheComplex, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2My 2 cents:
1) Google isn't the best search engine, its simply the biggest if you count users. I've found Yahoo, Clusty and even MSN returning better (spamless) relevant results. Google may have big bag of tricks, but a painfully obvious one it hasn't yet mastered: neatly organizing and/or filtering results. Only Clusty and the old A9 came close.
2) While everybody still focuses on the 'engine', someone out there is figuring this 'search' thing out. At anytime and out of nowhere Google can be blow out of the water. Remember, this Internet business is fast and fickle and Google knows it. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -8/+0go ask the founders if they really want to be the next google
inaccurate.
dugg
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is