Google Expands to 'Universal' Search

ppadala writes "Google today unveiled its uber search which allows you to search for text, images, news etc. together. This is the result of unifying various search engines that Google developed for web, images, news etc. Google's main page and the results page are also sporting a polished look with a top menu bar sporting various search items."

how very..

[PhrostyMcByte (589271)]

"sporty" of them.

Didn't Y! have this already ?

[Gopal.V (532678)]

If I remember correctly, Yahoo's oneSearch [yahoo.com] already did this ? Except it doesn't seem to be available for regular search.

On the other hand, I've been playing around with the Alpha (Beta) [yahoo.com] search, which seems to be much cooler. But only available for australia (the cool interface must be due to their uber-cool [flickr.com] office).

Heh, to put it mildly ... everybody's doin' it :)

Re:Didn't Y! have this already ?

[panaceaa (205396)]

There's major advantages to Google universal search over Yahoo! oneSearch Yahoo!'s Alpha (Beta) Search. First, file type suggestions (e.g. Video, News, Images) are suggested based on where valuable content exists. If you search for "Google", you get Web and News on the header since there's a lot of web content and news about Google. But you don't get "Video," since there aren't many valuable videos about Google on the current web. (You can still get video by clicking on the top header, though, but it's not a suggested search.)

On the contrary, with Alpha(Beta) search you always get the YouTube, Wikipedia and Yahoo! News links on the right sidebar. There's no feedback as to whether they're potentially interesting until you click on them and judge for yourself. Same thing goes with Yahoo! oneSearch -- it's just a bunch of data listed on one page, without much filtering by possibly relevant datatypes.

But my favorite part of Google universal search, and I must admit that I work at Google on unrelated projects, is the ability to play videos right in the search results! I haven't seen anything like it on other major search engines. And it's great that the videos aren't off to the side, or up at the top -- they're mixed in the normal results and ranked quite appropriately! Which is great for me because it shows me how relevant the video actually is, whereas videos on the right hand side of Alpha(Beta) may be relevant or may be irrelevant, but with no guidance given.

Re:

[Merusdraconis (730732)]

But my favorite part of Google universal search, and I must admit that I work at Google on unrelated projects

And I believe you've just broken your NDA. Unless they don't have that pesky 'you're not allowed to say you work for Google until all of the info we have that you know, including your interview, is on public record' in your NDA, in which case hurrah!

Re:Didn't Y! have this already ?

[panaceaa (205396)]

It doesn't violate my NDA (well, actually, my employment agreement) because it's public information. There's lots of stuff I know that I can't talk about, but if a web site's written a story about Google, or Google's issued a press release, I'm free to link people to those pages, dictate what they say, and provide my opinion so long as there's not forward looking statements or an appearance that I'm talking on behalf of Google. When I previously worked at Adobe I could do the same thing after I signed a blogging agreement.

Cool indeed

[xtracto (837672)]

On the other hand, I've been playing around with the Alpha (Beta) search, which seems to be much cooler
It sures yields unexpected results

Error: Bad Feed We're very sorry.
Gremlins have stolen our ram.
We sure will miss them.

We are having technical difficulties. We will rectify the problem very soon. Please try again shortly.

Why not Live or Yahoo stories?

[choseph (1024971)]

Why is this news -- because it is Google? The whole article is filled with "Google understands blah blah...but all their competitors do too and have been doing the same thing".
No hot grits, but you can see natalie portman images inlined in the search results in live.com and that has been there for a while now. http://search.live.com/results.aspx?q=natalie+port man&form=QBRE [live.com]

Directly from the article:
Google's competitors have also begun integrating results from their engines in various ways and with different approaches, but with the same goal in mind: improve the search experience for users.

Re:Why not Live or Yahoo stories?

[Anonymous Coward]

IIRC you could get Natalie Portman images inlined in Google search results before 'Microsoft Windows Live! Search' even existed. This is about improvements in the integration with video et all and the first major interface change to Google in a while.

Re:

[ControlFreal (661231)]

You mean, like this http://www.google.com/search?q=natalie+portman [google.com]

Re:

[nine-times (778537)]

Why do people care about Google's search and not Microsoft's or Yahoo's?

Because people actually use Google.

Re:Why not Live or Yahoo stories?

[bertramwooster (763417)]

Dude, you just slashdotted search.live.com!!! They are probably not used to such load.

Re:Why not Live or Yahoo stories?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a subtle difference here, actually. I should state now that like a previous poster, I work for the big G, but not on universal search.

The OneBoxes you have seen on Google for years and you see now on Live/Yahoo search are useful as far as they go, but are limited architecturally. They're basically an intersection between {your query, top N popular queries on image/book/whatever search}. So if you're searching for an image of something on web search that isn't a hot celebrity, you probably won't see the box.

That's a problem because you won't see the onebox for queries that should probably show it. Fixing it is hard, for scale reasons. As the post on the Google Blog implies, there are "issues" with sending every query from the massive web search traffic stream to every property. What's more, even if you could do that, how do you decide when to show the onebox? Even though you can now search images/books/videos for every web search query, it doesn't necessarily make sense to include results, especially not at the top. So you need to blend them into the web results somehow. But PageRank is no use here, how do you rank a book against a web page? So you need new algorithms too.

I will admit that at first this looks simply like moving the onebox around the page a bit. In fact it's the groundwork for much more than that - it's building a "search engine" instead of a "web search engine with extra bits". If you do a query and there are 5 relevant books, 3 relevant web pages and 2 relevant pictures, then that's what you'll see instead of today where you have (maybe) a onebox and then 10 web pages.

Re:Why not Live or Yahoo stories?

[Jugalator (259273)]

Why is this news -- because it is Google?

You guessed it!

Just like the Lynx browser coming out in a new release isn't big news, Firefox doing the same is!
News has a lot to do with impact among people.

Live Search changing stuff only impacts a very small group of people in the geek community, for example.

Apple will sue

[ghoul (157158)]

Did nobody else notice the iGoogle link on the top right hand corner? Doesnt Apple have trademarks on anything starting with a small i?

Re:

[SharpFang (651121)]

yep, that's interplatform service.
Visit Apple's portal to find gApple.

Re:Apple will sue

[ubrgeek (679399)]

I doubt they have a trademark on everything beginning with "i" (otherwise my buddy igor is in trouble ;)) but could this be a deeper beta-beta-beta of the Apple/Google partnership everyone keeps mumbling about? Otherwise, I agree - It does lend itself to people pointing out the "i-linkage" between Apple and Google, and free publicity for both can only be good ...

Re:

[ghoul (157158)]

How about Google Apple and AMD joining hands to combat WINTEL. They could even pull in Sony and IBM on their side as tehy compete with Microsoft on XBoxes and with Intel on Cell processors. Then we would have 2 big behemoths of equal size. As for the useless services divisions that IBM has it is already getting rid of Global services so it will be techies vs techies. Sigh Daydreams....

Re:

[ubrgeek (679399)]

iConspiracy? ;)

Re:Apple will sue

[Red Flayer (890720)]

(otherwise my buddy igor is in trouble ;))

Do you have any iDea if he writes his name as iGor?

Oh crap, I wrote "iDea", I expect a cease-and-desist letter now for that little iTem of trademark violation.

Oh crap, I did it again. Dammit!

Re:

[Aqua_boy17 (962670)]

I have a gmail account as well as a personalized Google home and noticed the "i" a few weeks ago.

Re:

[dosquatch (924618)]

Did nobody else notice the iGoogle

Dear FSM, yes I have. I'm still looking for a feedback button to tell them it's retarded.

Maybe that's what Google needs - a user moderation system. You know, something that'll keep a score for the page, maybe even let users flag it as "imformative" or "insightful". I seem to remember that somebody around here has something like that...

so ...

[Anonymous Coward]

is this your final form?

Where is this new search?

[bcmm (768152)]

Where is this new search? Usually Google doesn't announce things till they are ready (well, or at least beta ;-). One of the things I've always like about Google is that it seldom builds up some product/vapourware before it's release. Is that policy going to end now?

Re:Where is this new search?

[Qzukk (229616)]

Where is this new search?

Just search. I just searched for Microsoft, and got web (default), patents, and news options. The patent search is pretty nice, they've laid out the patent in a nice, clear manner, including links to cited patents, etc.

Re:

[bcmm (768152)]

Ooh! Wasn't doing that last time I looked! I wonder if it is being rolled out by region, or by random cookies like the last change was.

Re:

[Virtual_Raider (52165)]

As of Thu 17, 21:51 Australian East time, the interface is the exact same ugly and boring simple interface from all time from my computer. Where is my eyecandy!?

Where is the distributed community search?

[Morgaine (4316)]

Although everyone loves Google at the present time, it's still always puzzled me that people aren't working on a distributed search mechanism that could potentially be far more capable and powerful than Google.

After all, individual sites are far better placed to index their resources than a generic crawler can ever be, for a number of reasons. They have far more efficient access to their local data for starters, and are able to do the indexing instantaneously as things change. Individual sites are also able to apply semantic information since they know what their sites are actually about, whereas a generic engine cannot possibly know.

The sheer power available in a distributed search system would also be massively beyond anything that even the mighty Google could ever supply, for all the usual reasons associated with distribution and distributed computation.

Once you recurse more than a few levels down a parallel distributed search tree, the available processing power and bandwidth just go totally astronomic. What's more, simply limiting the degree of query recursion would allow you to tailor your desired results/time behaviour, and since the intelligent tagging at each site would contain hugely more semantic information than currently, you could direct your searches far more effectively too.

And it wouldn't be slower ether, because the distributed indexes are easily gathered by caching aggregators, and competition would no doubt provide plenty of those.

I know that several distributed search efforts do exist, but the point here is that they have virtually zero takeup, largely because of the dominance of Google and the general state of happiness with centralized search technology. While centralization works more or less OK for now, distribution has the potential to provide a vastly superior search system in ALL respects.

We really should be looking at it more seriously.

Spam.

[rumith (983060)]

You're forgetting about one humble factor: spam sites. What's in it to stop a spammer from getting a hundred of high-end servers [or better yet, from using his arsenal of infested Windows PCs], and throw their resources on building an index to match his own agenda?

Re:Where is the distributed community search?

[GeneJoker (549689)]

Search for: "Business Software Solutions"

Results:

www.lolita-ultracore.com reports that it has a 100% relevance score for "Business Software Solutions".

www.geocities.com/mykawaiiwebcam reports that it has a 100% relevance score for "Business Software Solutions".

www.we-report-that-we-have-a-100%-relevance-score- for-everything.com reports that it has a 100% relevance score for "Business Software Solutions".

Re:

[J0nne (924579)]

I take you've never written a search function for a website? It's not simple, especially if you want the results to be as good as or better than Google. Why do you think so many sites have a 'search this site with Google' box?

Terrible interface

[Rik Sweeney (471717)]

I hate the way they've stuffed the options up into the top left hand corner. Now I have the drag the damn mouse up there, click on the link I want, then drag the damn mouse back to type in what I need.

Granted, the focus moves the search box but the search results page looks clumsy and is unintuitive.

Google, change it back. There's no shame in admitting you made a mistake.

Re:Terrible interface

[ghoul (157158)]

I also hate that switching is not automatic. Earlier if I tyoed in something in the search box and click on news it would search the text already typed in in news search and show the results. Now if I click news whatever I had typed in disappears and it shows the default news page and I have to type it in again.

Re:

[QuantumG (50515)]

Either they fixed that since you posted your comment or you're on crack.

Bug closed - WORKS FOR ME.

Re:

[MyLongNickName (822545)]

Nope. If you click 'search' and THEN hit 'news', it works. But if you just type something in the search box and go 'oh crap I am in the wrong area' and click 'news', it does not remember the search box text.

Re:

[IamTheRealMike (537420)]

It's kind of the whole point of universal search that you don't need to pick which web property you're on. It's all available from the same universal search box - the one on google.com. That said, what you reported sounds like a bug/feature regression.

I second that

[Bueller_007 (535588)]

I agree 100%. Google, change it back, please.

Re:Terrible interface

[Cato (8296)]

Exactly - and now I have to enable JavaScript for the whole of Google.com, or the entire menu bar vanishes! Not hard to do with Firefox's NoScript extension, but Google needs to have a sensible fallback when JavaScript is disabled.

Getting something this basic and visible so badly wrong is not a good sign - it's hardly rocket science to provide fallbacks...

Re:Terrible interface

[jackb_guppy (204733)]

I was hoping that this new BAR interface was a opps. But it is not. Change it back GOOGLE and stop being evil.

Re:

[setirw (854029)]

I hate the way they've stuffed the options up into the top left hand corner...

Funny, it's worked for Apple for all these years... :-)

Where is it?

[suv4x4 (956391)]

I only see the altered layout on the home page, but nothing universal about it? anyone got an exact link?

Clusty

[s122604 (1018036)]

www.clusty.com I'm loving this search engine. Besides the big G I find its the only one worth trying. It is especially good when your search terms are ambiguous or have multiple meanings. For example "Web Service". That has a meeting and a connotation for developers, but a much more accepted connotation to the public at large... Clusty immediately separates these into nodes so you can focus on what you are looking for... Now if they only let you set up your own clusters (nodes) It would totally rock.

universal search model

[bl8n8r (649187)]

seems to need work though. searching for boobies just returns a bunch of pics of seagulls.

Unfortunately...

[bluemonq (812827)]

...'Universal' Search still can't find where you put your car keys.

yes, all very nice but...

[owlnation (858981)]

Ok, so I understand the concept behind this change. At least, in part I do. It's a reflection on web 2.0 hype - blogs and video being more popular.

However, somehow I think Google may be missing the point. I'm certain I can't be the only person who is finding less and less relevance with every search request I type. How does this change improve that state? If anything, as far as I can see, it's adding even more noise to drown out the signal.

Especially where blogs are concerned, my (wholly unscientific and subjective) impression is that at least 60% of all blogs are just SEO link farms (ironically, the majority of which are hosted by Blogger).

Web 2.0ish, but all style, gloss and less substance. So yes, very Web 2.0ish

Re:Google?

[vivaoporto (1064484)]

Do you want to know...._what_ _it_ is....? Google is everywhere. It's all around us, even in this very room. You can see it when you look out your window or when you turn on your television. You can feel it when you go to work, when you go to work, when you pay your taxes. Google is the world that has been pulled over your eyes, to blind you from the truth. A prison...for your mind....Unfortunately, no one can be..._told_ what Google is...you have to see it for yourself.

This is your _last chance_. After this, there is no turning back.....You take the blue pill [turnofftheinternet.com], the story ends. You wake up and believe...whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill [google.com].....you stay in wonderland...and I show you just how deep the rabbit hole goes.

Re:Google?

[suv4x4 (956391)]

You can feel it when you go to work, when you go to work , when you pay your taxes.

Aha, a glitch in the Google.

Re:

[dosquatch (924618)]

Can we have an URL? What is this Google thingy? ;)

This is Slashdot! We're not doing your research for you! Get off your lazy ass and Google it yourself.

Oh - wait...

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

I suspect that if there were any Google employees on /., the site would suck a lot less.
Unless...the suction is merely a ruse. Faux-suction? Fscktion?

Re:

[youngerpants (255314)]

"Microsofting", "wikiing"; I don't know why they don't just googleize everything to a more ISOed format. It would be a lot more businessified for the internetted generation.

Re:

[kiracatgirl (791797)]

"Moving from a clean interface to a cluttered feature-laden experience"

Where is this cluttered feature-laden experience you speak of, so that I may complain with you?

Google's search pages still look pretty much the same to me. So they added a few relevancy-related search category links and did some very minor reorganization. This is cluttered how?

I know criticizing large companies is everyone's favourite passtime, but think about what you're saying just a little before you start.