What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
New Food Sprinkle Convinces the Brain to Stop Over-Eating view!
howlifeworks.com - How sophisticated scents are helping people control their appetite and lose weight
58 Comments
- ChuqAU, on 04/04/2009, -0/+65Totally inaccurate headline - Wikia Search is NOT Wikia!
- DigitalQuartz, on 04/04/2009, -0/+33Since this is the first I've ever heard of Wikia, I suspect at least part of their failure can be attributed to a lack of PR.
- bajanboost, on 04/04/2009, -8/+31Long live Google. They provide many things to us free of charge and as long as they keep on that path of freedom, I back them 100%.
Google, Gmail, Youtube.. Three of my favorite online tools. - inactive, on 04/04/2009, -2/+20I don't think you were going to tell us.
- spiralspirit, on 04/04/2009, -0/+17To beat google you need a better product then google. sadly, this company did not have one. They weren't killed by google - they were killed by the lack of convenience of their product over the established and convenient google.
- Sublex, on 04/04/2009, -0/+17Yeah, I was totally freaking out.
I love wikia. - MavRevMatt, on 04/04/2009, -1/+15So somehow it's Google's fault that they offer the best product in search, and no one else can match or beat it?>
- theghoul, on 04/04/2009, -0/+14Absolute power corrupts .. uh..screw it, let me google that.
- thrashertm, on 04/04/2009, -0/+10The search engine competition is too "dog eat dog". We should pass some rules that lets the other search engine makers compete.
Signed,
James Taggert
President of Yahoo.com - qxrt, on 04/04/2009, -0/+9As much as everyone hates the monopoly company (see: Microsoft), Google hasn't had too many missteps as of yet...we all appreciate the services and convenience it provides, but we're also watching it like a hawk for the smallest mistakes.
- burketo, on 04/04/2009, -0/+9the answer to your problem is to google your query and follow it up with "wiki". It not only gives you every wikipedia page that relates to your query but also a load of other wiki's if they are relevent
E.g. "mac and cheese wiki" http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&q=mac+and+ch ... - OneOfNone, on 04/04/2009, -0/+8Wikia Search is dead but Cuil is still alive... There's no justice. EDIT: More precisely, there's little correlation between level of suck and extinction odds.
- macfan93, on 04/04/2009, -0/+7THANKS FOR POINTING ME TO YOUR BLOG!
I TOTALLY WANNA SEE THAT! LOLZ - netant, on 04/04/2009, -1/+8You see, that's the problem with people like you. If a company is so wildly successful, it becomes a monopoly by popular acclaim, then suddenly it becomes a threat to all markets, by its market lock on its niche. "If you're good, by definition you are a threat, and must be destroyed".
The only LOCK that Google has is the PERCEPTION that it is the best and "thus" only search engine option "worth using". Google will lose that branding the instant there is something available that produces more desirable search recommendations. The reality is that the other search startups didn't fail because they were smaller than Google. They failed because they didn't provide superior search results to Google before they burned through their venture capital funding. I don't give a f**k that they tried, or they believed in their narcissistic haze, they had a superior product. If the latter was true, it wasn't apparent, so they deserved to fail and die. Since when did capitalism become kindergarten soccer league, where every kid gets a trophy for running around a field and not doing crap towards scoring the most goals???
I have zero doubt that a company like Microsoft is capable of putting out a superior search engine product that could kill Google like Google killed Hotbot. They don't do it because they're a bunch of mercenary morons with no vision. Microsoft does not want to put out a superior search engine to Google if it doesn't make a huge profit for Microsoft. That's why Microsoft is Google's bitch. Yahoo doesn't have the capital OR VISION to put out that superior search engine to Google. Yahoo is Google's bitch. But Google isn't going around killing venture capital funding to startups or buying out every competitor to establish a monopoly.
Empires come and empires go. How about producing something of merit before pissing on the industry leader? - MavRevMatt, on 04/04/2009, -0/+6This has nothing to do with Wikipedia's search...
- franklymister, on 04/04/2009, -0/+6Either that, or it only proves that Jimmy Wales doesn't have what it takes to build a Google competitor.
I'm still amazed that he managed to have the one success he did have. - legendxx, on 04/04/2009, -0/+5Please report.
- Qumahlin, on 04/04/2009, -0/+5ok, first off the headline is horribly misleading, it makes you think Google did something to drive them under other then just existing, which isn't the case.
Next, how did they expect a "human-powered" search engine to ever truly scale and be useful in any meaningful manner? They were NEVER a competitor to Google, they were trying to create a niche market for people that wanted results and real input about them....guess what, most people just want results.
The only thing this proved is that Wikia Search had a bad business plan from the onset and as others mentioned they didn't exactly advertise. - NeedlerFanPudge, on 04/04/2009, -0/+4I was gonna go crazy. I couldn't exist without Halopedia or The Vault or all the other specific Pedias.
- LightUrple, on 04/04/2009, -0/+4I'm confused. I read the article and I still don't see how Google killed this or any of the other search engines mentioned.
The article says, "...it made sure to become powerful enough that no young upstarts would do to it what it did..."
Was Google not supposed to grow as more users turned to it? I'm at a total loss for the point they're trying to make in this article. - machoraz, on 04/04/2009, -0/+4I'm only using DuckDuckGo from now on.
- o76923, on 04/04/2009, -0/+4They just listed a whole bunch of inferior products. Maybe google is winning on searches because it offers users far more?
- dungbeetle, on 04/04/2009, -0/+3Google knows how to provide services to its customers for free or very cheap that other companies would demand an arm and leg for. No wonder they are the main portal to the internet. Look at MSN or Yahoo. They make you pay for pop3 access to your email account. That's insanity. And their searches up until recently were the slowest, most cluttered pages on the internet. Google has the market on cheap, fast, and minimalist web services that new guys can only emulate. And since Google knows what everyone likes, all they need to do is expand a little in that area.
- FreckleEars, on 04/04/2009, -0/+3I just hope that no matter what competition Google crush's that they do not become 'evil' and start selling every single bit of usage statistics. I am not sure their plan or premise on gathering so much data but as soon as the data is sold to another company... that's the end game. The damage would have been done. That being said, Google hasn't really gave me any impression that them gathering most of the world's data on internet use is malicious in any way.
Keep on truckin' Google!! - foofoobee, on 04/04/2009, -0/+3I agree - they have not employed any unfair market practices as far as I can tell. We can lament the downfall of any of these startups, but honestly - how often did we run back to Google because Cuil's search results sucked or we didn't like the interface of another product?
- ASfinkterSezWut, on 04/04/2009, -0/+3I don't think...
- leamanc, on 04/04/2009, -0/+3Still there...still *****....http://www.cuil.com/
- thelastcivilian, on 04/04/2009, -0/+2"The best new entries on the web are Kosmix, ChaCha and DuckDuckGo."
This ChaCha? http://digg.com/d1crQR I think they've probably got a ways to go. - zemkacz, on 04/04/2009, -0/+2GTFO ma DIGG!
- inactive, on 04/04/2009, -0/+2Well I've heard of it a few times, but even then it wasn't that great. Don't get me wrong, it was a great idea and a pretty good search engine, but to build an index that's reasonably competitive anyway is probably implausible at this point.
- wilsondus, on 04/04/2009, -1/+3Sounds like their death means they failed to provide a better service than Google. Sure, some may like it, but you have to be able to appeal to more users than your competition. Google won't kill them all, just the ones that don't provide more than Google. It will take some real ingenuity to find something new that people haven't seen before but love.
- thrashertm, on 04/04/2009, -0/+2BTW, anyone know how to see if someone has replied or dugg/buried your comments? You can see on Reddit, but I can't figure out out on Digg. Very annoying.
Edit - that is, some way that you can easily be notified, vs. having to go check your history. - Dankoozy, on 04/04/2009, -0/+2blogspot - bringing more spam to the internet since '00. if google were really that great they would have shut that ***** down the minute they bought it
- dhughes, on 04/04/2009, -0/+2 Because if it ever does break what will we use?
Don't put all your eggs in one basket, choice and competition are good. - rif42, on 04/04/2009, -0/+2Well, it was an attempt. Wikipedia is a "user-powered" encyclopedia and they did succeed with that. Wikipedia succeeded because it was the first big free encyclopedia, while the alternatives did cost money.
Nowadays Google is so wellknown and entrenched that you will have to make something not just a little better, but 5x better to have any significant number of people to care use your new search engine rather than Google. - JeffDUpp, on 04/04/2009, -0/+2Why do people care? Google stays because it is best. Why fix what isn't broken?
- qxrt, on 04/04/2009, -1/+2Then again, to be frank, Google didn't have much PR either. It spread like wildfire due to word-of-mouth and peer-to-peer, not because it spent money advertising to gain awareness.
- noumuon, on 04/04/2009, -0/+1google doesn't want to sell data; they want to own all data. once they know everything, they control everything... <evil laugh>
- tnoy, on 04/06/2009, -0/+1Not exactly what you want, but a lot better than using the history: http://www.neaveru.com/digg/index.html
- Philbert, on 04/05/2009, -0/+1I was thinking about something today, you know how many companies use Google as their main source of income? Look at mozilla, they make all their money from that Google search bar in the upper right corner. What happens if Google suddenly disappears one day?
- tnoy, on 04/06/2009, -0/+1They use someone else or find another more viable source of income.
- oxilite, on 04/20/2009, -0/+1Eff-ing right. Had to log in just to digg your comment.
- qxrt, on 04/04/2009, -0/+1Google won simply because of its simplicity and convenience. Before Google, we were all stuck with "web portals" like Yahoo! that bombarded us with front pages covered with so much crap. I can only say that I'm glad that Google came along and bucked this trend. Less is more.
- KAMiKAZOW, on 04/05/2009, -0/+1Um, you confuse "free of charge" with freedom (=libre). Google supports some FOSS projects through Sommer of Code and its Android involvement, but Google's core assets (search algorithm etc.) are not libre.
- carpeclunes, on 04/05/2009, -0/+1I...
- angelorlandopaz, on 04/04/2009, -0/+0Google rocks!!!!!!!!!
- inactive, on 04/04/2009, -1/+1What about searchme.com?
- KAMiKAZOW, on 04/05/2009, -1/+1They use Yahoo?
- coffeerox, on 04/05/2009, -0/+0@netant - You're a frakking moron. I use Google on a daily basis for all kinds of things, mostly work related and it performs every function the way that I need it to. (notice keyword, need, not want, need, I am very well aware of how Google works in it's entireity) Google has been such a wonderful tool in getting my job done and no other search engine/Company has ever done so. I tried using MS, Yahoo, SearchMe, Ask, none of those ever come close. Google is a monopoly on search engines and rightfully so, it is because they ARE that damn good.
-
Show 51 - 61 of 61 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is