Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Almighty Buck Technology

Fortune Magazine On Google Growing Up 301

Posted by simoniker from the blossoming-money-tree dept.
prostoalex writes "Fortune Magazine runs a pretty long story on Google, but instead of the usual exultation over PageRank algorithm and Larry-and-Sergey biographies, we get a different message - is Google growing up, and is trouble brewing at Google? Here's Fortune's description of the pre-IPO days: 'Google has grown arrogant, making some of its executives as frustrating to deal with in negotiations as AOL's cowboy salesmen during the bubble. It has grown so fast that employees and business partners are often confused about who does what. A rise of stock- and option-stoked greed is creating rifts within the company. Employees carp that Google is morphing in strange and nerve-racking ways.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Fortune Magazine On Google Growing Up More

Fortune Magazine On Google Growing Up

Comments Filter:

  • So what we need really is.. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by caston ( 711568 ) on Thursday November 27, 2003 @07:01AM (#7576461)
    An open source search engine run by a business with an open source business plan. We should trust closed source business plans as much as we trust closed-source software.
    • Stupid as I may replying to my own topic, but Nudge looks like it may be a good plac to start. Anyone know of any others or have more ideas? http://www.nutch.org/docs/en/ regards, Chris

    • Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Thursday November 27, 2003 @07:23AM (#7576526)
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Re:So what we need really is.. (Score:4, Insightful)

        by pubjames ( 468013 ) on Thursday November 27, 2003 @08:11AM (#7576644)
        Believe it or not, there are some applications that CANNOT BE EFFECTIVELY OPEN SOURCED.

        Open sourcing a search engine would 100% guarantee absolute junk for results.

        Believe it or not, this would depend on HOW YOU DO IT.

        I seem no reason why search engine technology couldn't be open sourced if it was approached in a sensible way from a technical viewpoint. After all, the technology of the internet itself is all open source, and yet we don't really get problems with companies trying to fiddle that software in their favour (for instance, randomly deleting packets from their competitors).

      • Re:So what we need really is.. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by david.given ( 6740 ) <dg@cowlark.com> on Thursday November 27, 2003 @08:18AM (#7576665) Homepage Journal
        Other examples where obscurity is the ONLY security:

        1. Code that states/federal revenue services use to flag accounts for audits.

        So change the code. Stop using hard limits, which is a stupid idea anyway, and start using score-based heuristics. The weightings aren't part of the code-base anyway, so analysis of the code won't give you much. Apply a random factor so the edges are fuzzy. People are going to try and find loopholes in the code and avoid audits anyway --- let 'em. If your code is good, the only way they can avoid audits is by not doing anything that requires auditing. Which is the whole point.

        2. Fraud detection code used by credit companies, service providers, etc.

        3. Code that determines which passengers get flagged for pre-flight searches.

        Exactly the same things apply here. Hiding the problems doesn't prevent the problems. All it will do is prevent you from knowing the problems exist. Make the algorithms public and you can see the problems --- yes, they can be exploited, but they can also be fixed far more quickly, and improving the algorithms is the correct solution.

        If Google released their source code, then yes, evil people could find loopholes and exploit them to artificially boost their rankings... but non-evil people, finding those same loopholes, could work out how to close the loopholes and submit the changes back for inclusion in the running code base. The end result? A better search engine.

        Think of it in evolutionary terms. The spammers are evolving to take advantage of Google. Google is evolving to defend itself from them. Open-sourcing Google would speed up the process, that's all; which means we'd end up with a better search engine more quickly.

        • If Google released their source code, then yes, evil people could find loopholes and exploit them to artificially boost their rankings... but non-evil people, finding those same loopholes, could work out how to close the loopholes and submit the changes back for inclusion in the running code base. The end result? A better search engine.

          Actually your description sounds more like "a constant battle for the status quo" rather than "a better search engine". Of course I think you're tremendously understating t
      • These four examples destroy your silly notion.

        You seem to be very confused.

        Your examples are bespoke systems for very specific purposes. There would be no benefit in open sourcing them because they are only used by the people that write them.

        But lets ignore that. Let's say, just for arguments sake, that the Revenue Service did want to open source software that only it uses. There is no reason why it couldn't do it - you see you assume that for instance, the reveunues software would contain hard-coded ru

      • Re:So what we need really is.. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Artifakt ( 700173 ) on Thursday November 27, 2003 @08:24AM (#7576692)
        I'm inclined to agree with you, but (you knew there was a but coming, didn't you?) I recall the flap a decade or so ago over the US IRS. They were flagging people who corrected minor mistakes by the IRS and paid what they thought was actually correct (where this was higher). Seems the IRS fell into the habit of calling this the "dumb but honest" flag. Remarks to that effect were even in the IRS's codebase. I don't think Open Source would work for the IRS any more than you do, but I also want to find a way for some sort of watchdog to quickly detect such things hiding in Closed Source applications, particularly ones used by the government, but possibly including private entities where they have become trusted keystones of the society. The IRS has actually become a better agency over the last ten years or so, but it took a lot of effort by congress to weed out problems that had become endemic and institutionalized.
        So I guess the question is not should Google become Open Source, but should there be some auditing process for Closed Source code used by such entities, and if so, who should become the new watchman?
      • **If I had access to the code behind PageRank, I could guarantee my clients get excellent pacement. Same with other people. Honest people who just put up a website/page would be left in the dust by spammers.**

        this junk can be 'guaranteed' already. there's shitload of linkfarms out there on the less than high profile(but much used) search words from pron to emulation. and sadly it doesn't look like they're doing much to filter it out themselfs.

      • What you are basically saying here, is that the code is so shotty to begin with that if it were to be open sourced, people could take advantage of it. If google open sourced their codebase right now, there'd be all hell breaking loose (or not, depending on how they index). The fact something is open source and/or obscure doesn't mean it's secure or insecure.
      • Open sourcing a search engine would 100% guarantee absolute junk for results.

        Google's having a pretty hard time with having their ranking system gamed right now. It's not unusual for me to get 5 pages worth of results, with about about 75 per cent of those hits pointing back to the same domain. I really don't think it matters there.

        I pretty much agree with the rest of your examples. Of course, those are things that commercial software couldn't do either, since anyone could buy their own copy and reverse
      • Lot's to argue with here but I'll take up only one: Credit Card Fraud. Are you aware that the Visa spec for authenticated payments online is open for download to everyone who wants to view it or explore it? It tells you exactly how the authentication of your credit card is processed. Here's the link [visa.com]


      • Open sourcing a search engine would 100% guarantee absolute junk for results.

        Nope. There are two components to any computational system: algorithms and state. A good search engine would use adaptive algorithms, in which the state (the result of past operations) is allowed to (at least implicitly) modify the algorithm itself.

        This would still not quite be fully open, as the state information would have to be hidden or it would be possible to generate pages with bogusly high rankings on the fly, but it

      • I disagree with Dan's hypothesis that there are some things that must be closed source.

        In all cases he assumes that the program logic is built into the application itself.

        This is a bad assumption. You can (and should) build an application that reads configuration information in from an external file or database, and behaves based on those configurations. Those files can be unique for every installation as needed.

        Another thing you did not take into account are embedded scripting languages for extending
      • I agree with you conclusion, but disagree with your reasoning. It's one thing to assert that some examples can't be solved with open source, and another thing to prove it, and I don't think I agree with any of your examples.

        Google, OTOH, may be a legitimate example. This is because there is one principal search engine (i.e., an effective monopoly). There is a lot of hardware employed in doing this kind of web indexing, so it can't easily be replicated. Etc.

        An example of what *could* be an alternative
      • 3. Code that determines which passengers get flagged for pre-flight searches. Armed with this information criminals could fashion profiles that guarantee they will not be probed in-depth.

        Hah! My random number generator can't be circumvented.^-^
    • Here's one - open source search, open source biz plan:

      Mobilemaps.com [mobilemaps.com]

      It's a location search rather than a traditional search, and the demo is of California. Some commentary from Search Engine Watch is here. [searchenginewatch.com]

      The biz plan is geotargeted advertising - articles on it published here [directionsmag.com], and here [directionsmag.com].

  • Phooey. What a load of spin. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Space cowboy ( 13680 ) on Thursday November 27, 2003 @07:02AM (#7576463) Journal
    "Google's foes have a much firmer hold on customers", argued some bloke who wrote a book about Google, so is an immediate expert.

    Perhaps. But Google has a much firmer hold on the search technology, and at least in this market, the technology is important. Google as a business need to sort out its stuff (perhaps, we don't really know), but I'd guess that the vast majority of the planet who use search engines, use google, and that can't be bad...

    Simon.

    • Re:Phooey. What a load of spin. (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      A good friend of mine interviewed with Google, and the big problem is that technology is driving the business, not business. The interview centered around how the business model of my friend's former company didn't 'scale' because it required human intervention, instead of focusing on the business reasons for human intervention and how to make it economical. Google's engineer wouldn't have any of that, sticking to his guns instead of getting out of his box...

      This will probable be the downfall of Google.

  • Heading for a fall (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Zog The Undeniable ( 632031 ) on Thursday November 27, 2003 @07:09AM (#7576478)
    The weird hiring policy reminds me of James Dyson (the vacuum cleaner tycoon). He's done OK out of it personally, but competitors have caught up with the cyclone technology [1] and the public are realising that 250UKP for a plastic hoover (which breaks easily) is about twice the market rate. He's recently outsourced manufacture of the cleaners to the Far East and has made a lot of redundancies in a small English town where Dyson was the biggest employer. He famously refused to employ graduates on the basis that they had been brainwashed and couldn't think for themselves any more.

    Google got where it was largely because of the crapness of AltaVista, Yahoo and Hotbot et al; at least some of these have now woken up and smelt the coffee.[1] not new in itself; they've been used for dust extraction in industry for decades

  • Google's efficacy (Score:5, Interesting)

    by n0nsensical ( 633430 ) on Thursday November 27, 2003 @07:09AM (#7576482)
    Also, anyone else noticed that Google itself is getting less effective lately? Some searches I make, the first 2 pages all go to the same advertiser's site except all the links have different domain names; I think they're figuring out how to exploit its page ranking. Other searches I get tons of 404s, especially with image search, and the images aren't cached except as thumbnails so it's even more annoying.

    • Re:Google's efficacy (Score:4, Interesting)

      by js7a ( 579872 ) * <james@nOspAm.bovik.org> on Thursday November 27, 2003 @07:24AM (#7576531) Homepage Journal
      I think they're figuring out how to exploit its page ranking.

      You're right about that. Advertiser techniques are presently far ahead of anything pagerank can do to outwit them. Some of them are getting remarkably sophisticated. For more info, search on "blogspam" for example.

    • it's not new, but it's getting more and more exploited.

      linkfarms suck, they should figure out how to filter them out. it's not like it would take more than one guys salary to hire somebody to figure out the most linkfarm infested searches (emu, pron, warez, drivers, some reviews &etc) and do filters to remove those linkfarms(there's not too many people doing this though it seems, if you look at the pages you seem the same referral id's over and over again, somebody should kick their asses).
    • Yup, particularly so if you are, say, searching for your own /. or K5 or Slash/Scoop site nick. :-)

      I find myself using alltheweb more and more these days, although nothing beats Google's news aggregator. As yet, that is.

  • Should be interesting to see (Score:4, Insightful)

    by kapok_tree ( 670008 ) on Thursday November 27, 2003 @07:11AM (#7576485)
    Provided they retain their philosophy of not damaging their product - the end-user experience - I'm not overly worried about Google's continued existence. The copanies planning to compete have generally shown a tendency to occasionally break that rule, and I believe that tendency will tend to drive consumers back to Google. until a competitor with a similar philosophy arrives, Google will remain king of the search engines.

    But that leads to the question of what Google will do during its reign. ARE we seeing dot-com arrogance? This isn't a new phenomenon - Apple suffered the same thing back in the early 80s.

    Well, I look forward to the IPO and seeing where Google intends to go from there.

    • The copanies planning to compete have generally shown a tendency to occasionally break that rule, and I believe that tendency will tend to drive consumers back to Google. until a competitor with a similar philosophy arrives, Google will remain king of the search engines.

      Arrogance could hurt Google in the long run though. If a competitor does show up with a better product, Google's domination of the market could disappear in an eye-blink or two.

      Google's monopoly is only based on the absence of any decent

  • Eight words... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Max Romantschuk ( 132276 ) <max@romantschuk.fi> on Thursday November 27, 2003 @07:12AM (#7576490) Homepage
    "All good things must come to an end."

    Not that I'd hope this is the way it goes, but it's entierly possible it does. Has happened before and will happen again.

    • Re:Eight words... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by MooCows ( 718367 )
      And in the background we can hear:

      Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers!

      *shudders*
    • All good things must come to an end.

      Uh-oh .. does that mean SCO and Microsoft will last forever?!
    • When I started working in the industry, Alta Vista was literally the kingmaker of the web. You were in their index (or Yahoo's directory) or your were unreachable.

      Yes there were SEOs (third party optimizers) for Alta Vista back then too.

      Then came Lycos. Then came Inktomi. Then came Google. Google has stayed on top a long time by their regin must end - sooner or later PageRank will be totally cracked by SEOs and their algorithm won't provide decent results anymore.

  • Google translator doing well (Score:4, Funny)

    by mattjb0010 ( 724744 ) on Thursday November 27, 2003 @07:12AM (#7576491) Homepage
    Well, at least the Google translator is doing well, repeated use seems to have generated: Employees carp that Google is morphing in strange and nerve-racking ways.

  • Trade name (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Aneurysm ( 680045 ) on Thursday November 27, 2003 @07:17AM (#7576501)
    I think Google has something very important. It is now almost a generic name now for searching. I know a lot of computer illiterate people who have heard of Google, and have no idea that there are other search engines out there, and that google IS the internet's search engine. As long as people hold on to the association of the word "Google" with "searching" they will have no problem.

    • Walmart is a huge conglomerate that, through its sheer size, can easily dictate the terms under which suppliers will operate - including their business practices, margins, etc. Despite the immense pressure for lower-cost goods, many suppliers see business with Walmart as a double-edged sword - they won't clear the margins they'd like, but it's likely that the volume will make up for it. Nonetheless, they grow dependent on their business ties with Walmart, as it often ends up representing a significant porti

  • summary (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 27, 2003 @07:21AM (#7576513)
    Summary of the article:
    "Oh no, there's this company here that values engineers highly, and does all sorts of wacky non-corporate stuff. How can they survive ?
    They must behave more like other dot-com companies, otherwise they /might/ be doomed.
    "

    All in all an odd article, since google is one of the few prospering .com bubble survivors, who survived /because/ they were different.

    • Re:summary (Score:2, Interesting)

      by cfradenburg ( 592693 )

      While the article doesn't say it FORTUNE does believe that Google has done a lot right, they've published other articles saying that. This article is about the problems in Google. It would be a better article if the balanced it with what Google is doing right but that's a different issue.

      "Oh no, there's this company here that values engineers highly, and does all sorts of wacky non-corporate stuff. How can they survive ?

      The point isn't that they value engineers highly, the point is that there's a ve

  • Fast growth in power breeds arrogance (Score:4, Insightful)

    by kompiluj ( 677438 ) on Thursday November 27, 2003 @07:22AM (#7576520)
    The process of fast gaining power has always resulted in growing arrogance, see for instance Microsoft.
    Unfortunately it also applies to Open Source companies. Sigh.

    • Re:Fast growth in power breeds arrogance (Score:4, Interesting)

      by SacredNaCl ( 545593 ) on Thursday November 27, 2003 @08:10AM (#7576641) Journal
      My favorite part of that story, about M$.

      Then there's Microsoft. The company has an army of brainiacs working on incorporating web search into MSN and its new operating system, code-named Longhorn, due out in 2006. It plans to be able to index every user's hard drive and use the information to provide better searches. "All I'll say is that search is vitally important to us," says Chris Payne, Microsoft's executive in charge of search.

      That right there is in a nutshell why Microsoft doesn't get it. Users don't want the contexts of their hard drives indexed and shipped off to the highest bidder for them to generate marketing to them. That's the equivalent of a door to door salesmen breaking into my house and taking an inventory of everything I own so he can try to sell me what I don't when he interupts what I am doing with 10 more door to door salesmen at the front door.

  • My company (Score:5, Insightful)

    by deadgoon42 ( 309575 ) * on Thursday November 27, 2003 @07:24AM (#7576529) Journal
    My company has been around a few more years that Google, but it is going through a similar situation. We have expanded greatly over the past 5 years and now the company is starting to lose focus on what made it a success in the first place. Now the focus is entirely on maximizing revenue and maximizing profits with little care for future consequenses. I expect that my company will be a lumbering giant before too long, just like everyone else in our industry.

  • Google has no problem. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by professorhojo ( 686761 ) on Thursday November 27, 2003 @07:29AM (#7576549)
    For those of you who hadn't heard -- Google recently blew minds in the advertisng scene by being voted the most recognized brand in the WORLD -- over Coke, GM, BMW, FedEx, IBM, Microsoft, you name it.

    the voters were senior advertising execs. perhaps you saw this news earlier this year. it was truly a shocker to the usual suspects (the suits), as Google accomplished this amazing feat in just a few years and with virtually ZERO bucks spent on advertising.

    • Re:Google has no problem. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mccalli ( 323026 ) on Thursday November 27, 2003 @07:37AM (#7576575) Homepage
      - Google recently blew minds in the advertisng scene by being voted the most recognized brand in the WORLD -- over Coke, GM, BMW, FedEx, IBM, Microsoft, you name it.

      That survey must have been complete nonsense. There is a very large world population that has never received so much as a single packet from the internet. I'll bet quite a few of them have drunk some Coke though.

      GM, BMW, FedEX and the computer lot - yep, can understand that (though not agree). But Coke? Utter nonsense - Coke penetrates both high and low tech markets, something Google simply cannot do.

      I'd be interested to see the nature of this survey - do you have a link?

      Cheers,
      Ian

      • I guess it all depends on whether your definition of WORLD stretches out beyond the Atlantic or Pacific...
      • The comment you're replying to says the voters were senior advertising execs. I understand that many of these people have, on occasion, used the internet.
        • The comment you're replying to says the voters were senior advertising execs. I understand that many of these people have, on occasion, used the internet.

          These happy internet-using execs were then said to have voted the brand the most recognisable in the world. And that's simply cobblers. No matter who voted for it, they are wrong.

          Cheers,
          Ian

  • when is going public good for a company? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ponxx ( 193567 ) on Thursday November 27, 2003 @07:31AM (#7576557)
    Really, going public does only one instantaneous good thing for a company, raise some instant cash, and a good thing for the owners of the company, raise some more cash for them.

    After that, it's a big burden, the company has to follow a whole new set of rules, publish accounts, be subject to pressures from shareholders for instant returns, etc. etc.

    Anyway, maybe there is an economist out there who can explain to me why it is good for a company to be listed on the stockmarket as opposed to being in private ownerships. Is there any more to it than a one-off sum of instant cash?

    Ponxx

    • Re:when is going public good for a company? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by mericet ( 550554 ) on Thursday November 27, 2003 @07:53AM (#7576611) Homepage
      IANAE, but RTFA, they will have to follow these rules anyway because of the large number of option/stock holders (probably mostly employees), in this case, not going public is unfair to these option/stock holders, because it will enable them to cash in or diversify their portfolio.

      Plus, being public means they can always issue stock if they need to raise money (e.g. for buying microsoft), they can buy back stock too.

      Being public gives the company valuation, strong valuation carry some serious negotiation power with it, even if they will not want to dilute ownership they can use stock as collateral for loans or basis for issuing bonds.

    • Good question (Score:4, Insightful)

      by tgma ( 584406 ) on Thursday November 27, 2003 @08:49AM (#7576774)
      The main rational for going public, from the company's point of view, is the fact that employees will be more motivated by the fact that their share options have a cash value set by the market, rather than by the company. There is a secondary reason, which is that having publicly traded shares creates a currency for acquiring other companies.

      This logic works best when you are dealing with a company that does not generate dividends. When you have dividends, then shareholders get their rewards from these, and so there is less of a need to go public. The problem is, it takes time for companies to mature to the extent that they pay dividends, and everyone involved is generally too impatient to wait.

      Having said that, it's usually the shareholders and the management who decide to go public, not the workers. The main reason for an IPO, in reality, is to allow venture capitalists and management to cash in, generally by capitalizing on market hype. This was the pattern for the nineties - everyone involved in taking the decision is in favour of the IPO: VCs and management want the cash, and the investment bankers and lawyers and accountants want the fees. And the press wants an interesting story. And, sadly, the investing public (including their so-called professional advisers in the mutual funds) seems to be willing to buy into all of this.

      There have been suggestions that Google is worth $25 bln, in the press, who generally know nothing. Even if it's half that, then it's still valued at more than 10 times revenue. Just to give you an indication, my company will be criticised by its board, and the analysts, if we pay more than 2 times revenue for a company.

      So you are right, that the main interest is a one-off sum of cash, plus the hope that you will be able to attract good staff with options, even though most of the upside from options has already been appropriated by the early movers. And that you might be able to use your inflated stock to buy other companies. It's known as the "bigger fool" theory of company valuation - you might think this is a silly price for our company, but we're sure that you will be able to find a bigger fool further on down the line.
    • The main benefit of going public is the ability to cash in on getting overvalued by a hype-driven market. A private company that would normally sell for $1 billion can sell $2 billion or more of stock in an IPO.

      But the real reason is that decisions made by executives are not designed primarily to benefit the company; they are designed to benefit those who make the decisions. IPOs are usually very profitable for the pockets of executives, even if they are detrimental or neutral to the long-term health of

  • Fortune == Hack Job - what is the real story? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jimmyfred39 ( 727599 ) on Thursday November 27, 2003 @07:35AM (#7576570)
    Fortune and the author of the article is notorious for taking comments/events out of context and blowing them into a story that is not really there. This certainly fits the pattern - and account of outrageous behaviour followed by carping loosely sourced but based on what competitors (and snubbed suitors = MSFT) are saying. Can any of the "engineers and other geeks attending a conference on Internet search" comment on accuracy of the characterization of Brin's Q&A session as being like "a rock star being asked to play his greatest hit one ... more ... time?"

  • Duh. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Fantastic Lad ( 198284 )
    Centralize power, toss in Greed, hire ex-NSA employees (yes, this is the case), and WHAT DID YOU EXPECT????

    Remember the days when you used Altavista? --And when there were millions of personal webpages with, what did they call them. . , LINKS??? which led you across the wide and complex internet to find amazing pools of data and knowledge? Where people were required to think and explore in order to find things? Where cool and interesting top ranking, easy to find information was decided upon by pro-activ
    • "I am actually slightly more disgusted with people over this subject than I am with their complicity in the bullshit going down in the Middle East."

      Where I'm from, we call that "not having your priorities straight".

    • Re:Duh. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by johannesg ( 664142 ) on Thursday November 27, 2003 @08:23AM (#7576681)
      Ok, I'll bite. For one thing, search engines have been around before there even was a WWW (remember gopher?). Secondly, there is no inherent design to the web - it just grew this way. Noone (well, apart from you) decided that search engines were not allowed. Thirdly, when I need a specific type of information I do not have time to linksurf for a couple of days. Doing so would be foolish, since a couple of seconds on Google can get me to the same places.

      I certainly recognize that Google presents a weakness in the web. For example, it could be used for censhorship by simply hiding undesirable information. It is also arguably a critical point in the web infrastructure, with all associated dangers. However, neither of these problems seem too severe. Attempts at censhorship would be overcome by massive numbers of bloggers, who have large readerships and would raise an enormeous outcry if such a thing were to happen. And if Google falls of the edge of the web, there are still plenty other search engines that can take its place.

      As for Google being more harmful than the situation in the middle east, I won't comment other than by saying "nice troll".

    • Re:Duh. (Score:3, Interesting)

      by GeckoX ( 259575 )
      Ah, jealous that the internet isn't only your playground anymore are we?

      Search engines, like google especially, are the only reason the internet took off: They made the internet _accessible_ for everyone, not just for those with big brains that insist everything be a problem to solve.

      I suppose you believe calculators are evil as they allow people to do math without thinking too hard...must be bad!

    • Dude. Take some kava.
    • Daniel Brandt [google-watch.org], is that you?

      I didn't know you had a Slashdot account!

  • One other sign of Google going down: Google Groups (Score:3, Informative)

    by Mengoxon ( 303399 ) on Thursday November 27, 2003 @07:48AM (#7576598)
    About a year ago, I found out that it was suddenly not possible to post anymore in "old" Google Groups discussion.

    When you are ready to post, click on the "Post a Follow-up" link below the text of the message to which you wish to reply. Please note that follow-up links only appear on messages that are less than a month old.


    I don't get it! At the time I found a solution to a problem that was posted, I just wanted to add that solution but could not! What's the point?

  • Businesses are like organisms... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by heironymouscoward ( 683461 ) <heironymouscoward@NOsPAm.yahoo.com> on Thursday November 27, 2003 @07:52AM (#7576605) Journal
    The idea that businesses are "run" is somewhat of a illusion. In fact, businesses run themselves once they get beyond a basic size, and they follow rules (like Zipf's law) which (appear to)govern their size and market position.

    Of course a business has a culture, and this affects the way it works, but a culture is like a strategy: theft, honesty, quality, exploitation... all choices made in order to improve the odds of winning at what is always a gamble.

    No surprise that as Google gets larger, its culture would change: it is entering new domains, needs to adapt, has many new people, each with their ideas and influence.

    The "give the customer what they want" culture is very strong at Google, and is the reason for their success up to now. But it is only a successful strategy when it makes a difference. When Google find themselves needing to defend a captive market (of advertisers), fight off hostile intruders (like Microsoft), and change its definition of "customer" (from people doing the searches to people placing adverts), it will also change as a company. This is what is happening now.

    Zipf's Law is fun, BTW. It explains the relationship between size and power, in summary it states that in a self-adjusting system, power is balanced out at all levels. I.e. in a market, the largest business will be about twice as large as the two second-largest businesses, about three times as large as the next three businesses, and so on.

    The same kind of organic maths applies to cities, earthquakes, and natural languages.

  • 6 coders, a fat pipe or two, and a million dollars (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 27, 2003 @07:58AM (#7576619)
    is all it takes to replicate a smaller google until the cash starts coming.
    Sadly, their niche is getting easier to replicate as hardware becomes cheaper.
    If the first 50 search results for "cups" want to sell me a cup, I'l l increasingly turn to another search engine to find my information. The next wave though, is the sort of AI that can rate pages or servers based on their quality of information. \

    Show me a search engine that can distinguish between an Erica Rose pic and a Mother Teresa pic, without the filename, and I'll invest, until then: it's all just bullshit and more piles of bullshit.

    did you mean bullshiat?

  • The Next Google (Score:3, Interesting)

    by iantri ( 687643 ) <.iantri. .at. .gmx.net.> on Thursday November 27, 2003 @08:03AM (#7576628) Homepage
    Assuming that Google did something stupid (i.e. like Altavista's turning into a portal), who do you think would become the next Google?

    I'd hope it would be Alltheweb [alltheweb.com], but I know they are unknown in the real world, even if their results are nearly google-level in quality.

    I fear it would be a great opportunity for Microsoft to seize yet another market...

  • Decrease In Linking Over Time (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Boricle ( 652297 ) on Thursday November 27, 2003 @08:19AM (#7576670) Homepage
    Something I have been wondering about is will the massive adoption of tools like google start result in a reduction of linking, hence undermining the very web that google (and many other engines) crawls.

    I know I don't bother with many links these days - whats the point when I can use google to search for it, the open directory to find by category (or even on the odd occaision Yahoo). Even if I am looking for something similar I don't even have to web crawl for it - you can just Show Similar to find it.

    I stating the assumption that others are also doing this - and if this is so, then won't the ability of page rank and similar link "usefulness" evaluation algorithims to produce good results degrade?

    Any thoughts....?


    Keep Lamb Chop On Top - SETI - The Team Lamb Chop Gauntlet [teamlambchop.com]

    • I think the only thing that has prevented this so far is PageRank's reliance on links, and the fact that people know about it - if the most popular search engine had still used only content-based ranking, people really would see no need for links. But what we're seeing now is a split between legitimate sites, which aren't bothering so much with links, and affiliate networks which are generating as many as possible. It's already affecting the quality of Google's results.

  • Frustrating (Score:4, Interesting)

    by loconet ( 415875 ) on Thursday November 27, 2003 @08:20AM (#7576671) Homepage
    "Google has grown arrogant, making some of its executives as frustrating to deal with in negotiations as AOL's cowboy salesmen during the bubble. "

    So they're frustrating to negotiate with just because someone [slashdot.org] didn't get [slashdot.org] their way?
  • Over the last week Google has moved their corporate offices, to the old HQ of SGI (who is still hanging on in one building). Their old offices were extraordinarily crowded but had lots of character (buildings 0, pi and e). The new building sounds nice (more space, glass walls everywhere, lots of conference rooms and the usual late-90's tech boom perks and toys). But who knows what a change like that will do to corporate culture.

    Also, if some business development types are being arrogant in outside meeti

  • The gapin flaw with this article is that it take the typical suit view of Google. Google's founders have one overriding principal that guides everything, "Don't be evil," which has lead to it's continued success. Things like "locking in" customers would be the death knell of Google, as it's simplistic and quick search are what attracted it's user base to begin with.

    Their successful advertising initiative likewise mirrored the message. People don't like being treated like a commodity to be "locked in", especially not the droves of nerds on the internet. I'd be highly suspect that ANY of the "competing" search companies would steal away any of google's userbase, as they will all try and do things for their own benefit that will ultimately make them seem worse in a head to head comparison against google.

  • Simply... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by floydman ( 179924 ) <floydman@gmail.com> on Thursday November 27, 2003 @08:29AM (#7576708)
    take a look at this [google.com] and tell me one single company that has such ideas, technology and momentum as google. This article talks about google as if Google is planning to stay as it is for the next decade, ofcorse not.... they might be stupid(which i doubt), but they have so much ideas and "know-how" in their heads they can re-revolutionize (i cant say that word again :)) the web search
    technology.

  • In a year I'll be crying after google fails to deliver, and I'll go back to the internet archive's time machine. Then I'll be puzzled by the 2001 google not working.

  • Get out my tinfoil hat! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dsbrain ( 633666 ) on Thursday November 27, 2003 @08:55AM (#7576800)

    I'm surprised that no one has pointed out a pattern I see here in these 100 incidents:

    000) About 2 months ago Microsoft executive Jim Allchin said condescendingly: "Google's a very nice system, but compared to my vision, it's pathetic."

    001) Microsoft may have offered to buy Google right before it is set to go public, but Google turns them down.

    010) Google changes it's program in an attempt to get better weighted results and gets bad press from business about it.

    011) Word "leaks out" that SCO may be planning to sue Google for not paying them the "license" tax.

    100) Fortune publishes a negative article about Google's management.

    All this happens just as Google is about to offer it's IPO and just as M$ is starting it's own online search engine. Tons of negative press for Google, lots of praise for M$'s "forward thinking" on search technology. Coincidence? I think not...

    Davey B. This eCS-OS/2 (Warp 4.52) system uptime is 14 days 06 hrs 42 mins and 22 secs

  • Not all that important... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by evilviper ( 135110 ) on Thursday November 27, 2003 @09:12AM (#7576863) Journal
    What people seem to overlook about google, is that it brought searching out of the stone-age, and forced everyone else to improve greatly, or die out. No longer are searches riddled with links to unrelevant material like porn, link-farms, etc. (Well, there are some, but still only with rather uncommon search terms). If google dies (like many very good companies have before) it will certainly be a sad day, but we can all move on and not be much worse off.

    The reason we can live without Google, is it's legacy... Other search engines like Yahoo finally invested the money in improving their own search engines, so that they get results almost as good a Google. Unfortunately (and the reason they can't possibly beat-out Google) their goal is only to match, they could have done a bit more work and been better, and innovative, rather than just imitators.

    So, google may go away eventually, but their legacy shall remain, and we are all better for it.

  • Forbes store gets it half right (Score:5, Insightful)

    by wpugh ( 204847 ) on Thursday November 27, 2003 @09:53AM (#7577030) Homepage
    Since I taught Sergey when he was an undergraduate at Maryland, and have done some consulting at Google, I can offer some insight on on Forbes article.

    The Forbes article is right that Google is very selective in their hiring, and puts a premium on intelligence over experience. However, the claim that you need a degree from a top-10 university is bogus. Actually, one thing that helps a lot is a graduate degree. I believe the current situation is that they have more people on the engineering staff with PhDs than with BS degrees (and more people with Masters degrees than either).

    One of the interesting things about the Google engineering team is the number of people who had previously done research in topics such as compiler optimization than have no relation to Google's business. They just hire smart people.

    I understand that a number of people are upset by recent changes in Google's ranking scheme and the fact that it isn't public or open source. The thing you have to understand is that Google will be forever in a war with the people doing "Search Engine Optimization". These people don't care about having Google return the best result for "ceiling fan", they just want their web site selling ceiling fans to be on the first page.

    The initial papers on the Page Rank algorithm assumed a web that was unaffected by the page ranking algorithm. Now, with Google being a dominate search engine, a substantial part of the web is designed to influence Google's search ranking. Figuring out a search ranking algorithm that works well in that context is very hard, and would be impossible if it was public or open source. The SEO people would 0wn it in a moment.

    A problem I've noted with Google in the past few years is that a search for anything that people are trying to sell, like "ceiling fans", mostly returned links to web stores selling that product. The newest ranking for "ceiling fans" includes other links as well, such as informative web sites on installation, manufacturers and energy conservation. So it seems like an improvement to me.

    Clearly, managing a company that is growing like Google is growing is a challenge. But I'm not sure anyone else could do it better.
    • Google seems to be having problems with domains that change ownership. When a domain name expires and somebody else picks it up, it no longer should have the authority of links that existed to it before the ownership changed.

      For example Google search for "perl foreach" [google.com]. The first result is from perltoys.com. perltoys at one point had magnetic perl poetry magnets that slashdot and millions of other sites linked to. As a result they have very high page rank. Now the domain has been bought by somebody e

    • ...a search for anything that people are trying to sell, like "ceiling fans", mostly returned links to web stores selling that product. The newest ranking for "ceiling fans" includes other links as well [...] So it seems like an improvement to me.

      It's not the genuine online store sites that are the problem; often a genuine place to buy is just what you are looking for and such links are at least genuine and relevant. No, the big problem is "link aggregators" and shopping comparison sites. Search for term

      • Sort By Price (Score:3, Informative)

        by meehawl ( 73285 )
        Google is rapidly becoming useless as a web shopping search tool. Which is more than annoying, as I haven't managed to find a useful replacement.

        Yahoo Shopping. Sort-by-price. Cross reference merchant ratings with BizRate if in doubt.

  • Fortune/Forbes qualified to talk about technology? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by InfiniteWisdom ( 530090 ) on Thursday November 27, 2003 @10:06AM (#7577080) Homepage
    Am I the only offended by condescending tone of the article when it comes to computer scientists and engineers?

    I suspect these people are merely shocked that someone without an MBA degree and who doesn't walk around in a $2000 suit can call the shots in a company, and greatly exaggerate the degree of "arrogance"

    --engineers and other geeks attending a conference
    Yeah... all those weirdos

    ..."It's a distraction from pure technology, which is what I love...." ....Brin will become a billionaire. Make that a multibillionaire. So to hear him pining for the good old days sounds strange--
    What? There are things more important than money???!!!

    roller-hockey-obsessed doctoral students in computer science
    Computer Science gradstudents must be obsessive, right?

    an unspoken caste system has emerged. At the top are the engineers, people in the mold of Brin and Page.
    They have people who actually make the product at the top????!!! Why can't they be like every other company and have all those TPS report-demanding MBAs at the top.

    ...wrote off SCO as a bunch of sleazebags and went back to playing live-action roleplaying (LARP) games in their mothers' basements, or whatever it is they do when they're not writing device drivers and complaining about clueless end users.
    From Forbes... linked to in another posting [forbes.com]

  • ....And watch Google turn into AltaVista.

  • What Forbes seems to miss (Score:3, Informative)

    by Animats ( 122034 ) on Thursday November 27, 2003 @11:43AM (#7577489) Homepage
    is that Google is not only profitable but has paid back its startup costs.

    Few Internet companies can say that. AOL/etc. can't. Yahoo can't. The new telecoms can't. Microsoft can.

    Google as a business has no real need to go public, because they don't need cash. Going public is a dumb financial decision for them, because they'd be overpaying for money they don't need.

    The founders could buy out their initial investors in a leveraged buyout and go private. That's a tough deal to set up, and the VCs would have to agree, but it's another, and perhaps a better, option.

  • It's easy to picture Microsoft using its Windows monopoly to lasso people into using its search--even if its search is slightly clunkier than Google's. That scenario won't happen, says Brin. He thinks the company with the superior technology will triumph: "If they force users to use MSN Search and it's inferior, it will cause lots of problems for them."

    Forgive me Brin, but Microsoft have made heaps of money without problems by selling technically inferior products. Users forced to search on MSN will expe

Slashdot Top Deals

I cannot conceive that anybody will require multiplications at the rate of 40,000 or even 4,000 per hour ... -- F. H. Wales (1936)

Close