Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Yahoo! Businesses The Internet

Yahoo's Build Your Own Search Service 104

Posted by kdawson
from the meet-the-new-boss dept.
ruphus13 and other readers alerted us to Yahoo's BOSS, Build your Own Search Service. It gives access to Yahoo's entire databases for Web, image, and news search with no cap on queries per day and no restrictions on mixing Yahoo's search results with others or re-sorting them, and without Yahoo branding visible. From their blog announcement: "As anyone who follows the search industry knows, the barriers to successfully building a high quality, web-scale search engine are incredibly high. Doing so requires hundreds of millions of dollars of investment in engineering, sciences and core infrastructure — from crawling and indexing technology to relevancy and machine learning algorithms, to stuff as mundane as data centers, servers and power. Because competing successfully in web search requires an investment of this scale, new players have effectively been prohibited from delivering credible alternatives to Yahoo! and Google. We believe the BOSS platform will begin to change that."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Yahoo's Build Your Own Search Service

Comments Filter:
  • BOSS? (Score:4, Funny)

    by larry bagina (561269) on Friday July 11, 2008 @11:10AM (#24152729) Journal
    Sounds a lot like FOSS. I bet the confusion is intentional, probably a MS/Y! conspiracy to attack Open Source.
    • Hah. I think attacking Open Source in this manner is akin to having a fist fight with a man made out of smoke.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Darkness404 (1287218)

      Sounds a lot like FOSS. I bet the confusion is intentional, probably a MS/Y! conspiracy to attack Open Source.

      Ummm... No. As much as MS would like to see open source dead, this isn't part of it. First off, no one but F/OSS geeks even use the term FOSS, and none of us would confuse BOSS with FOSS. Now if it was something called like, Free Source or something, or something similar to Open Source like MS's Shared Source, it might be taken as an attack, this is just a slightly similar acronym.

    • by kc2keo (694222)

      Sounds a lot like FOSS. I bet the confusion is intentional, probably a MS/Y! conspiracy to attack Open Source.

      So does this BOSS (BGI Over SDL Subsystem):... BOSS [codedread.com]

      :-D

  • Totally Boss! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by introspekt.i (1233118) on Friday July 11, 2008 @11:12AM (#24152765)
    So the ultimate plan is to get students and academicians to make their search services for them. Once they're good enough for market, they can purchase the rights to said BOSS search services (or incomplete ones that look very promising...to part out and use in the code base). That's a good idea coming out of Yahoo! Finally some decent press for them.
    • Re:Totally Boss! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by menace3society (768451) on Friday July 11, 2008 @11:30AM (#24153019)

      It can do a lot of things, actually. One use, as you've noted, is to serve as what amounts to a source of free R&D.

      But there are a lot of other things that can come out of this, too:

      • People who want more advanced search features (like regex support) can write it themselves instead of pestering Yahoo.
      • Better support for foreign language search.
      • Since a lot of websites still roll their own site search functionality and do it badly, use Yahoo as a replacement.
      • More flexible 'Safe Search' access control.
      • etc...

      I think it's a great idea. It might open them up to some serious copyright challenges, but if it doesn't (or, preferably, if those challenges get tossed aside), it would be great to see all the search portals do something like this.

      • Re:Totally Boss! (Score:4, Insightful)

        by el americano (799629) on Friday July 11, 2008 @04:18PM (#24157381) Homepage

        "People who want more advanced search features (like regex support) can write it themselves"

        I wish that were true, but this does not magically allow queries that their database does not support. What you get, according to TFA is re-rank, combine with other data, and remove Yahoo branding. It also allows news and image searches and unlimited queries. This is exactly like previous APIs, but with a few more freedoms.

        Somebody is buying into the hype.

        • Somebody is buying into the hype.

          Actually, I just didn't bother to RTFA and guessed as to what one could do, but good on you for reading it.

          It's a bit disappointing that you can't do something like that, as it might get me using yahoo once in a while.

    • by Gewalt (1200451)
      What I don't get here is why Yahoo! thinks that I can make a useful search system from their database when they themselves can't seem to. You know why I like google's search over yahoos? 'cause its better. Not 'cause it took me hundreds of hours to tweak it into producing results I like better.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        There are some feature in Google's websearch that would be interesting to try and implement elsewhere. Getting results sorted by date is a pain. Filtering out websites would also be great, if I'm looking for an answer to an obscure tech question I don't want crap from ExpertsExchange popping up.
        • I wish there was a way to default google so it didn't include expert exchange in the results.
          • If you scroll all the way to the bottom of those expert exchange results, the answers are always there.. but I agree, they're still annoying. Loading their site in a background tab- some javascript thing causes it to jump to focus on every load. It gets old quick.

            Let's vote to get rid of expert exchange from all search listings.
          • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

            by neonmonk (467567)

            experts exchange -site:experts-exchange.com

            wow that was hard...

            • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

              I do use that quite a bit, but a preference option to always exclude certain sites would be nice.
        • Clicking "Advanced Search" is a pain?
          • Not so much a pain, but it would be pretty cool to have pre-configured search criteria based on what kind of search I was doing. If I'm looking for tech help I'd have one set, news would have another, etc. It's a pipe dream I know.
      • "As anyone who follows the search industry knows, the barriers to successfully building a high quality, web-scale search engine are incredibly high. Doing so requires hundreds of millions of dollars of investment in engineering, sciences and core infrastructure -- from crawling and indexing technology to relevancy and machine learning algorithms, to stuff as mundane as data centers, servers and power.

        I'm confused. Didn't Yahoo get their ass handed to them by a search engine that was created in a garage,
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by JSBiff (87824)

          I'm confused. Didn't Yahoo get their ass handed to them by a search engine that was created at Stanford University by PhD Computer Science students , whose creators only saw significant investment after that was concluded (because they had free access to University resources, like bandwidth, computers, and power)?

          • Exactly. They didn't have any resources that are out of reach of any student, and students are poor as dirt. It's not like it's hard to get into a university and use their resources...
    • I could be wrong, but I think this comes down to paid-search. There was an article just the other day on slashdot about Yahoo, Microsoft, Google, and a patent Yahoo acquired when it bought Overture, which gave them a paid-search property. That is, people listing with yahoo pay to get their search rankings elevated.

      I believe, however, it is a pay per click model (I might be wrong). So, what Yahoo seems to be trying to do, in letting you use their 'search results' (I put it in quotes because, when the results

    • Re:Totally Boss! (Score:4, Interesting)

      by rtb61 (674572) on Saturday July 12, 2008 @04:15AM (#24162671) Homepage
      It is far more than that. It is all about building localised search services. The larger local media distributors ie. local newspaper or television channels can effectively incorporate the global search facility and enhance it with their localised knowledge and content to more suit their local market. In turn of course Yahoo can then incorporate that localised search more effectively into their global search engine.

      This in affect gives Yahoo and the local media players and far more effective search platform and a real market threat to google as well as of course that other major players in the search engine business.

      This wider distribution of search engine services will also push search from the current marketing perceived foreground way into the back ground as simply a subsidiary service of any typical major web portal whilst simultaneously pushing local web portals into the foreground in local markets by them being able to offer globally effective search services on their site.

  • So then... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Bullfish (858648) on Friday July 11, 2008 @11:12AM (#24152771)
    MS can stop trying to buy Yahoo and do this for free!!
  • by gcnaddict (841664) on Friday July 11, 2008 @11:13AM (#24152789)
    I can't see Microsoft justifying a Yahoo purchase unless they knew about the BOSS platform in advance, which is probably why the sale fell through in the first place.

    Then again, I doubt BOSS alone would save Yahoo anyway.
    • Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)

      by jchawk (127686)

      The deal feel through because of Jerry Yang's ego. Taking the deal was the right thing to do for the shareholders and he didn't do it because he let his pride/ego get in the way.

      • by Daimanta (1140543) on Friday July 11, 2008 @11:34AM (#24153087) Journal

        And I thank Jerry Yang's ego very much for that.

      • by _Sprocket_ (42527) on Friday July 11, 2008 @11:44AM (#24153225)

        The deal feel through because of Jerry Yang's ego. Taking the deal was the right thing to do for the shareholders and he didn't do it because he let his pride/ego get in the way.

        Or he did it because he knew it was the wrong thing for Yahoo! and the wrong thing for shareholders who are interested in the long view. But hey - this horse has been worked before.

      • by TheRealMindChild (743925) on Friday July 11, 2008 @11:48AM (#24153277) Homepage Journal
        "Better for the shareholders" is a subjective term. To YOU, you think selling out and making the board a quick wad of cash was "Better for the shareholders". The thing is, Microsoft loves to buy and completely wreck successful companies. I think, from a business point of view, that selling out to Microsoft would mean the death march for Yahoo. You and I don't know what Yahoo has up their sleeve. They have been taking some new and interesting paths lately. It may be that it is "Better for the shareholders" to ride the new wave and see where it takes them.
        • No Way (Score:3, Interesting)

          by encoderer (1060616)

          The shareholders of Yahoo are not there because they're tech visionaries or Yahoo loyalists. That's the point of the Icahn lawsuit. Some may be, but institutional investors hold the bulk of Y! shares that aren't held by corporate officers. Mutual funds, pension funds, etc.

          These people hold Yahoo for one reason only: to earn a return on their investment.

          Microsoft made an offer that was VERY generous. Not just measured on Y!'s latest performance: Microsoft offered a higher value than Yahoo's stock has seen in

          • There's this thing called "time value of money" that, simply, a dollar today is worth FAR more than the promise of a dollar tomorrow. You can't say that "shareholder value" is subjective because Yahoo MIGHT turn themselves around and they MIGHT be successful and they MIGHT then be worth more in the future than Microsoft offered today.

            This is just a stockholder version of "Wasteful Spending". You would rather throw away your CRT TV go out and buy a brand new LCD TV with inferior color, when the CRT has bet
            • I have to assume that you've never owned a business, or been a shareholder in one. That's the only thing that could explain what I'm reading.

              The fuunction of a business is NOT to "sustain life." The function of a business is to accept cash as input and produce EVEN MORE CASH as output.

              That's it. And there's been LOADS of companies that have liquidated all assets and close down to deliver cash back to the shareholders. And that's the best choice. And there's nothing wrong with that.

              And the flaw in that sent

      • by sobachatina (635055) on Friday July 11, 2008 @11:49AM (#24153297)

        the right thing to do for the shareholders

        That is an interesting choice of words. You are presenting this opinion as fact where I believe there is room for many other interpretations. There are a lot ways that taking the deal could have been the wrong thing to do.

        It was only guaranteed to be the "right thing" if you define the "right thing" as "maximizing short term stock price gains". There are many other ways that the "right thing" could be defined where that deal may or may not have been better. Things like "Maintaining reasonable profit growth for the next 50 years." or even "Providing a work environment that reduces employee attrition". I'm not saying that MS is necessarily bad at these things but a CEO could definitely make a case that the company would be better served by staying independent.

        I personally never invest in companies that have a history of making decisions where the "right thing" is defined as "maximizing short term stock price gains". When you do that you're not building anything you're just gambling.

        • I personally never invest in companies that have a history of making decisions where the "right thing" is defined as "maximizing short term stock price gains". When you do that you're not building anything you're just gambling.

          Banks aim for long term, but see the ARM crisis.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by encoderer (1060616)

          Oy Vey.

          You are confusing things here. For example:

          You start talking about shareholder value. Then you say this: "a CEO could definitely make a case that the company would be better served by staying independent."

          This isn't about what would best serve the COMPANY.

          It's about what would best serve the shareholders.

          Period.

          Yahoo has underperformed for years now. Yang has an obligation to the shareholders that made him a billionaire when he decided to go public.

          It's not about "short term gains" it's about recoupi

          • This isn't about what would best serve the COMPANY. It's about what would best serve the shareholders. Period.

            My point was that shareholders may have differing opinions about what would best serve them. I used myself as an anecdotal example: when I buy stock in a company I become interested in the long term performance of that company- it would not be in my best interests as a shareholder to see a spike in my share price at the expense of the company going down the toilet.

            What PROMISE can you make for tomorrow that will be worth more than cash today?

            How about a lot more cash tomorrow? That is after all what investing is. I give you a little of my money in exchange for part of a company th

      • Taking the deal was the right thing to do for the shareholders

        It might have been good for a shareholder short-term wind-fall, but if it ultimately destroys the value of the company, it's not a good thing.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by immcintosh (1089551)
        While many others seem to have commented on your use of "better for the shareholders" in the technical sense, I'd just like to point out how absurdly perverse a world view you must be to value shareholder profit above all other considerations (as you clearly do). There's more to life, there's more to BUSINESS, and to being a good citizen of your country and the world, as a business and as a person, than immediate shareholder profit. Always depressing to see how many people's vision ends at the shareholder
        • You do realize that the shareholders OWN the company, right? It's theirs. They own it.

          It's like me saying: You won't let me build my house on your front lawn? Why not? All you care about is "resale value" and "property law." Home ownership has not been good for our culture.

          Yang and Filo sold the right to control their precious baby when they took it public. They took on a duty to be a steward for shareholder value. In exchange, they were made instant billionaires.

          Now he wants to still treat Yahoo as HIS. It

          • You do realize that I'm complaining about the attitude of the shareholders themselves, right? I know it's really easy with the degree of separation public ownership gives you to stop being able to think beyond your own pocketbook--it's just oh so fashionable, I know--but it's irresponsible, unethical, and not even necessarily a good thing for the long term health of the companies they own. I honestly couldn't give two shits about Jerry Yang and what he may or may not want, or the reasons for it. My accus
            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              by encoderer (1060616)

              Long term health of companies is not important. Why do you think it is? What difference does it make if a company exists for 5 years, or 50? As weak companies fail, stronger ones grow from their ashes.

              The only purpose of a corporoation is to make money. They're money making machines. They accept money as input into their machine, and the output should be EVEN MORE MONEY. If that is not the output, the machine is broken. Yahoo is broken. It is not producing value. Yahoo owes it to the people who paid to BUIL

    • by sm62704 (957197)

      From the summary this seems to have a glaring drawback: it isn't Google. Yahoo search results are IMO quite inferior to Google's. Before Google I used infoseek, because it, too returned better results for me.

      Google has let you use their search without restrictions almost since the beginning. When I had web sites I used Google for my site search, and a lot of big commercial sites do, too.

      Why would you buy a Vega for the price of a Caddilac when the Caddilac gets better mileage?

      It sure seems to have taken Yah

    • Good oportunity for Microsoft to set up a decent Search Engine... For once... Tony Danza says "Who's The BOSS??"
  • by kriston (7886) on Friday July 11, 2008 @11:15AM (#24152825) Homepage Journal

    It will be really interesting to learn how all the Inktomi technology works and how it well it was integrated with Yahoo.

  • by decavolt (928214) on Friday July 11, 2008 @11:17AM (#24152847) Homepage
    "...from delivering credible alternatives to Yahoo! and Google."

    I find it a little hard to believe that Yahoo, especially in their current state, actually wants to encourage even more competition against themselves. I think the real target here is more competition for Google, not for Yahoo, and Yahoo seems OK with giving away their own tech if it helps knock Google down a few notches.
    • by Darkness404 (1287218) on Friday July 11, 2008 @11:20AM (#24152885)
      Yet I think what is so funny is Yahoo is what made Google popular in the first place. When I go to Google, I have the A) Google logo B) A search box and C) A bit of navigation. When I go to Yahoo, I have ads, a large Yahoo logo, a page full of useless information, and Flash. Google uses no Flash which is helpful for a Linux user like me, which, although Flash works, it has a terrible CPU leak in the more recent versions.
      • by imaginaryelf (862886) on Friday July 11, 2008 @11:33AM (#24153063)

        Which goes to highlight where the companies come from, and what the companies do. Google does search. Yahoo does a lot of other things, of which search is just one component, albeit a major one.

        If you go to http://search.yahoo.com/ [yahoo.com] or http://ysearch.com/ [ysearch.com] then you get the same experience as going to google (classic).

        • by Darkness404 (1287218) on Friday July 11, 2008 @11:37AM (#24153127)

          Which goes to highlight where the companies come from, and what the companies do. Google does search. Yahoo does a lot of other things, of which search is just one component, albeit a major one.

          The same thing though could be said about Google, Google has maps, blogs, a social networking site, 2 video sites, and much more

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by imaginaryelf (862886)

            Most of which do not contribute to their bottom line, if at all. So you put in your frontpage the things that make you money, so google -> search. Yahoo -> search and other stuff.

            If yahoo's frontpage were to be equivalent to ysearch.com, then they would be deliberately taking money away from their other business units which are making them money.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by CastrTroy (595695)
            Yeah. I think the trick here is that Google doesn't try to muck up their main entry point displaying everything they support while yahoo does. You can go to search.yahoo.com and get a nice little search screen, very similar to google. But most people don't go there. They go to www.yahoo.com. I think Google was smart in keeping their homepage simple.
      • by magarity (164372) on Friday July 11, 2008 @12:14PM (#24153767)

        That's because you go to Yahoo's portal page. Yahoo's search page [yahoo.com] is every bit as clean as Google's, and always has been. Meanwhile, Google's portal page [google.com] is every bit as busy as Yahoo's.

        • are you drunk or did you link to google's news page on purpose?

          news.google.com is NOT google's portal. it's their, uh, news service. which is why the first word in the url (you know, the server name) is "news".

          i would guess that www.google.com would be their portal, since it's their "www" server, as in "world wide web", which is this thing we're all -- oh, nevermind.

          mr c

        • It's not the same. news.google.com has (wait for it) news. Yahoo.com has search, links to a long list of services, email, IM, weather, movies, news, stocks, shopping, and food. To get a similar level of noise at Google you need to us iGoogle.

        • by fuzzlost (871011)
          The difference is the main page. Sure, we geeks are savvy enough to go only to yahoo's search page, but when the default page on the root domain is so cluttered, far less likely to use it (if all I'm looking for is search)
      • by corbettw (214229)

        Though Google's homepage design is irrelevant now. I haven't even visited a search engine's homepage in years. I just type what I'm looking for in the search box on Firefox, and hit return.

    • by mpapet (761907)

      You may want to consider the move roughly equivalent to unleashing a swarm of bees at a picnic. Google can't possibly keep up with every specialized search engine possibility.

      Alone, none of the specialized search engines could possibly defeat Google, but if enough of them fragment Google's base, then Yahoo comes out way ahead.

      If I had the time, I'd get started today writing a couple of specialized search engines after I checked out the license terms.

  • Goog (Score:5, Informative)

    by Faux_Pseudo (141152) <Faux,Pseudo&gmail,com> on Friday July 11, 2008 @11:26AM (#24152963) Homepage

    Google already has this feature [google.com]. I wonder what the differances are. For example how come google didn't get a slashdot story when it launched its version?

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Rik Sweeney (471717)

      Google already has this feature [google.com].

      Google already has this feature [google.com]

      There, fixed it for you.

    • by wmbetts (1306001)
      The only thing close I've seen from google makes you state your using google. This on the other hand doesn't.
      • by mpath (555000)

        You could use the SiteSearch [google.com]: you don't have to state you're using Google, but you do have to pay for it.

        We use it on our $work site and since it's a business and we have over 5,000 pages, it's $500/year for access to the service and we get access to the XML data and can present it however we'd like.

    • Re:Goog (Score:5, Informative)

      by Quixote (154172) * on Friday July 11, 2008 @11:28PM (#24161449) Homepage Journal
      This is more than Google's CSE.

      From Google's CSE docs [google.com]:

      • Apply your website's look and feel to the search results page.
      • Provide search refinements within results pages to make it easier for searchers to find the information they're looking for.
      • Add sites to your search engine's index as you surf the web.
      • Invite friends and trusted users to co-edit and contribute to your search engine.
      • Make money from your Custom Search Engine by participating in Google's AdSense program.

      Yahoo's BOSS allows you to retrieve raw results from their index, and then munge them as you see fit. Google does not allow you to tinker much with the results (just add/exclude sites), except maybe the presentation.

  • Inertia (Score:4, Insightful)

    by frodo from middle ea (602941) on Friday July 11, 2008 @11:32AM (#24153041) Homepage
    I have been so used to goolgling for stuff, that I hardly see a point in switching my search engine. 1) Google comes up with relevant results for 99.99% of my needs. 2) Their search page and subsequent results page is very easy to use, has no flashly graphics, the sponsored ads are clearly marked and never really mingle with the actual searches. Not that I am saying yahoo's search is any less in quality, but the inertia for me has set in, and unless google does something stupid, like making the whole website flash/silverlight/java-applet based, Why should I switch ?
  • by saterdaies (842986) on Friday July 11, 2008 @11:37AM (#24153115)

    This is one of the smartest moves I've seen Yahoo make. The key is that you are required to run Yahoo ads alongside the search results (when said ads become available).

    So, if I'm creating a search for my website, I can go the Google route, embed an iframe and look amateur or go with Yahoo and look professional and completely integrated.

    Not only that, but there are a lot of niche markets that big players can't go after that add up to a lot. As someone who programs for those type of sites, Yahoo's BOSS is really appealing. Yahoo ups their ad revenue, I get access to world-class internet search.

    It's all about increasing the number of ads served. The more people who choose BOSS, the more ads Yahoo serves and the more money Yahoo makes.

    • by CopaceticOpus (965603) on Friday July 11, 2008 @12:28PM (#24154007)

      As I read the announcement, running Yahoo ads is not a requirement. Running Yahoo ads will be a future option to those who want to use the ads as a profit stream, but it's up to the site owner to decide.

      If you like, you could take your Yahoo search results ad-free and run Google ads next to them. That's why this announcement is so bold - there are basically no requirements or limits on using BOSS.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Quixote (154172) *
        From the FAQ [yahoo.com]:

        Will I make money by hosting the Yahoo! Sponsored Search advertisements in my search application?

        Yes. It will be a requirement to host our ads on your site. We're building this technology into our platform and it is coming soon. Yahoo! Search will share the revenue produced through these ads with developers. In the meantime, the API is open for free use without ads.

        and

        What if I want unlimited queries but I cannot take ads?

        After the ad infrastructure is ready it will be a requirement to p

  • I guess it's easier to make everyone construct their own search engines rather than spend the time and energy to make a well-developed, fully-functional one themselves. Poor Yahoo. Sometimes I feel sorry for them.
  • They are not really in a position to give things away, what way do they plan to make money with this project?

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by wombatmobile (623057)

      what way do they plan to make money with this project?

      From advertizing. Yahoo will feed ads to the people who use their search services.

      --
      Science is the depolitization of economics

  • Oblig. (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Fine! I'll go build my own search service... with blackjack... and hookers.

  • Or at least, that is what they should have named their "BOSS Application ID".

  • maybe they are trying to poison pill [wikipedia.org] Microsoft and prevent a hostile takeover of the Yahoo board.
  • by Animats (122034) on Friday July 11, 2008 @12:12PM (#24153731) Homepage

    BOSS is not really new. Yahoo already had the Yahoo Search API [yahoo.com], which does essentially the same thing. BOSS is essentially the Yahoo Search API with different terms of service. In particular, BOSS will, in future, allow "monetization". BOSS also allows users to intersperse their own search results with Yahoo's and run ads.

    Google used to have a SOAP-based API [google.com], but they stopped allowing new users in 2006. It didn't force the caller to display ads. There's still a Google search API [google.com], but it's tied to their widgets and has restrictive terms of service.

    We support both with SiteTruth. Yahoo search API version [sitetruth.com] Google AJAX search version [sitetruth.com]. The interface code is quite different but the end results are similar.

    It's not about technology. It's about what you're allowed to do with the data:

    • The Yahoo search API terms of service have a rate limit, don't allow you to add ads, but do allow reordering of results.
    • The Google AJAX API terms of service don't have a rate limit, restrict presentation to Google's format, and don't allow reordering of results.
    • The first rule of the BOSS Terms of Use [yahoo.com] is that you don't talk about the BOSS terms of use. "You shall not issue a press release or other written public statement regarding this TOU without Yahoo!'s written approval."
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      These are some of the limitations imposed by Google's API that are NOT applicable to BOSS:

      "The API may be used only for services that are accessible to your end users without charge."

      "You agree that you will not, and you will not permit your users or other third parties to: (a) modify or replace the text, images, or other content of the Google Search Results, including by (i) changing the order in which the Google Search Results appear, (ii) intermixing Search Results from sources other than Google, or (iii) intermixing other content such that it appears to be part of the Google Search Results; or (b) modify, replace or otherwise disable the functioning of links to Google or third party websites provided in the Google Search Results."

      " incorporate Google Search Results as the primary content on your website or page; "

      "You agree to include and display the "powered by Google" attribution adjacent to the Service search box."

      "For all Search Results available through the Service, Google provides Google AJAX Search API attribution language (such as "clipped from Google - date" or such similar language as may be used from time to time). You agree to include this attribution, unmodified, adjacent to Search Results on your site."

      Most importantly, BOSS can be completely under the covers, and allows you to MODIFY the results themselves as you see fit.

    • by mds820 (944427)

      BOSS is not really new. Yahoo already had the Yahoo Search API [yahoo.com], which does essentially the same thing. BOSS is essentially the Yahoo Search API with different terms of service. In particular, BOSS will, in future, allow "monetization". BOSS also allows users to intersperse their own search results with Yahoo's and run ads.

      Google used to have a SOAP-based API [google.com], but they stopped allowing new users in 2006. It didn't force the caller to display ads. There's still a Google search API [google.com], but it's tied to their widgets and has restrictive terms of service.

      We support both with SiteTruth. Yahoo search API version [sitetruth.com] Google AJAX search version [sitetruth.com]. The interface code is quite different but the end results are similar.

      It's not about technology. It's about what you're allowed to do with the data:

      • The Yahoo search API terms of service have a rate limit, don't allow you to add ads, but do allow reordering of results.
      • The Google AJAX API terms of service don't have a rate limit, restrict presentation to Google's format, and don't allow reordering of results.
      • The first rule of the BOSS Terms of Use [yahoo.com] is that you don't talk about the BOSS terms of use. "You shall not issue a press release or other written public statement regarding this TOU without Yahoo!'s written approval."
      • The second rule of the BOSS Terms of Use [yahoo.com] is that you don't talk about the BOSS terms of use.
      • The third rule of the BOSS Terms of Use [yahoo.com] is that you don't talk about the BOSS terms of use.
  • Ad-Revenue (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    In the end, it is just a move to gain more ad-revenue.

    From their Forum:

    "Hi -

    You can use Boss for mobile as long as it is a search product. Keep in mind though that in the future we will require Ads over a certain query volume a day. Mobile ads may not be available right away, so we'll have to figure that out.

    Hope this helps.

    -bill"

    So basically if you do develop something that a lot of people love, and you receive a load of hits. You will start to see Yahoo adds Pop-Up.

"Pull the trigger and you're garbage." -- Lady Blue

Working...