Google TrustRank 176
Philipp Lenssen writes "Google registered a trademark for the word "TrustRank", as Search Engine Watch reveals. Is this a sign we can expect a follow-up to Google's PageRank? An earlier, possibly related paper on TrustRank is available; it proposes techniques to semi-automatically separate good pages from spam by the use of a small selection of reputable seed pages."
Will this have anything to do (Score:1, Insightful)
What about the Sense/Net project (Score:2)
more censorship, unimpressed (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:more censorship, unimpressed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:more censorship, unimpressed (Score:2)
Well, if Google will be able to filter these out on popular demand (because nobody wants to see these pages show up in their search results) the google ads will come out better as well.
Re:more censorship, unimpressed (Score:2, Insightful)
Since when? Google is a privately owned corporation. They've got stock holder to answer to now, but it still stands that they can do what they want with what they own. They're not obligated to give you unfiltered results on their free, privately owned service.
Re:more censorship, unimpressed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:more censorship, unimpressed (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't want to find spam when searching for anything, and neither does anyone else. Ergo, eliminating spam from the search results makes everyone (except spammers) happier.
an anon has replied, "what is spam?" and i pose the same question. "spam" or unwanted content is far too complex an issue to be derived by a script. i could have a moodswing (or multiple personalitydisorder, or any number of othe
Re:more censorship, unimpressed (Score:2)
Only the government, with its threat of imprisonment, can censor. Is CNN "censoring" Bill O'Reilly because it does not broadcast his TV show?
Sildenafil citrate is a prescription medication (Score:2)
i could have a moodswing (or multiple personalitydisorder, or any number of other examples) and decide i want viagra one day.
VIAGRA (sildenafil citrate) is available only by prescription. If you want to find legit VIAGRA on Google, then you should be searching Google Local for physicians.
Re:more censorship, unimpressed (Score:5, Informative)
This is a basic problem of filtering web-content. How do you avoid throwing out the baby with the bath water? I'm running into that problem in designing a custom filter to keep my son from inadvertently seeing pornography as he looks for his "r0mz," but that's peanuts compared to Google's dilemma.
The fact is, spam filtering is inherently censorship. This kind of interference will always have a negative impact on the marketplace of ideas that is the modern internet. On the other hand, as a side effect, removing blogs from search results (as this trust metric very likely will) may increase the usability of Google overall. I suspect there will be some people who are not as happy about that as I am.
Re:more censorship, unimpressed (Score:5, Insightful)
Google's primary responsibility now is to it's shareholders, which means increasing the chance that you and I find exactly what we are trying to look for, and not to unabashedly display every peddler that serves up content over http.
Re:more censorship, unimpressed (Score:2, Interesting)
Yes, they can. Their search results.
Re:more censorship, unimpressed (Score:5, Interesting)
Google's primary responsibility now is to its shareholders. Google makes money from advertising. If Google can encourage you to patronize its advertisers instead of trusting its index for everything (which right now is pretty easily gamed), then Google makes more ad revenue and shareholders are happy.
Re:more censorship, unimpressed (Score:2)
So then wouldn't it make more sense to better target the advertisements rather than propogate more? I think this is generally the problem with the Internet as a whole currently; websites are running advertisements that aren't appropriate to their content, and an intellegent search engine like Google's PageRank is simply being confused into think that the ads are 100% to the point, and that the links are 100% focused.
TrustRank fixes this by better bringing you ad links
Re:more censorship, unimpressed (Score:2)
The average and median IQ is 100.
As a population statistic, this means that half (or more) of the population is IQ 100 or under, and that means that "any intelligent user" is by no means the population that those popups and banners address. They're not for intelligent users.
Remember that banner ads, popups etc. all cost money to generate. Why do you think they have not gone away? I
Re:more censorship, unimpressed (Score:2)
Secondly, banner ads and popups haven't gone away because we as a society are trying to beat the problem where it lies; every modern web browser (and I use that term liberally; IE is NOT modern) has some kind of integrated Popup blocker. Many have optionally integrated BannerAdvertisement blockers. Email has SpamBlockers. We're not fi
Re:more censorship, unimpressed (Score:2)
I disagree with your assertion. It is my impression that there is a very, very high correlation between low intelligence and gullibility. Leaving religion out of it for the moment, because that has a socialization factor added to the mix, I think intelligent people are significantly less likely to buy "Herbal Viagra" or "0v3r 7h3 c0
Re:more censorship, unimpressed (Score:2)
I think what you meant was "stakeholders". Modern Business schools now teach that you're just as responsible to stakeholders other than shareholders. And yes, in Googles case, this mostly means QoS.
Re:more censorship, unimpressed (Score:5, Insightful)
First of all, the only protection that is guaranteed you here is that the gov't will make no law abridging the freedom of speech.
Google, as influential as they might be, are not the government (insert 'Do No Evil' joke here). Therefore, they are not bound to this "Freedom of Speech" argument.
Secondly, "Freedom of Speech" is not this universal, higher-being ordained preserve at all cost idea that we have transformed it into.
Freedom of speech does not give you the right to spray-paint your slogan all over my front door, nor, in this case, does it give you a 'right' to be listed on Google. Nor do you have a 'right' to have your name printed on the front page of your local paper in 36pt font.
Not being listed in Google does not amount to censorship in any definition of the word. The net existed before google, and people still managed to find web-sites. Google gives (through PageRank or whatever mechanism they choose) free advertisement to 'good' sites. They have every right to only display sites that pay money, if they so desired. You have absolutely zero (0) 'rights' to be listed for free on Google.
Trotting out the Freedom of SPEECH argument is nothing more than whining about Big Brother coming to get you because what you have to say isn't worth hearing. Guess what? If you want to be heard, say something that's worth listening to. All that glitters is not gold, and much that is said (or printed) is worthless drivel. Much like this post.
"Censorship": You keep using that word.... (Score:2, Insightful)
You have the right to say whatever you want on your website. That does not impose an obligation on anyone else to link to your website, because that would deny their freedom. My right to free speech does not require that a broadcaster supply me his transmitter, a publisher his printing press, or Webmeister his server.
I really don't understand how these two concepts became conflated in the minds of so many people. "Censorship" is th
FCC licensees (Score:2)
My right to free speech does not require that a broadcaster supply me his transmitter
On the contrary, search for "fairness doctrine". Broadcasters in the United States are FCC licensees who in turn are public trustees who hold a government-granted oligopoly on broadcasting. If no broadcaster airs a viewpoint, then it has been censored from television. The FCC has overturned a regulatory version of the fairness doctrine, but Congress can legislate it back into effect at any time and is likely to do so gi
Re:"Censorship": You keep using that word.... (Score:2)
You haven't established that de jure censorship is the result of the practices being contemplated here. You need to do better than that to justify depriving Google of their right to choose how to rank search results.
If the terms
There exists monopolism, but not at Google.com (Score:2)
You haven't established that de jure censorship is the result of the practices being contemplated here.
Perhaps in the case of Google this is true because Google does not hold a monopoly. However, FCC licensees do hold a government-granted oligopoly on broadcasting in the United States.
[If mortgage payment dates are "conveniently" scheduled on election days,] Sounds like a good reason to do business with a more friendly banker.
Until the equal housing laws came into effect, there often wasn't "a mor
Re:"Censorship": You keep using that word.... (Score:3, Funny)
Please stop censoring me.
Re:more censorship, unimpressed (Score:2)
Hmmm (Score:2)
Slashdot censorship at its finest!
"DAYTOOK'RFREEDUMASPEECH!"
Oh man, that was bad. I feel dirty.
Re:more censorship, unimpressed (Score:5, Insightful)
2) You have the option of not using Google. Yahoo is a completely independent search engine now.
Re:more censorship, unimpressed (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not necessarily censorship. They could just present the "trustworthy" pages first. You could always skip to the later pages if you wanted, just like you can browse /. at -1 if you want.
And yes, this means that the system could be abused, just like PageRank and /. moderation.
Re:more censorship, unimpressed (Score:3, Insightful)
so when google desides what's trusted for us, what is good content and what isnt, are they still not being "evil"?
Are you fucking kidding me? This is just another mechanism for deciding whether particular pages should be shown for queries. Show me a search engine that doesn't do that.
If you use a search engine, then by definition you are trusting them to show you relevant results. If you don't want to trust Google, then use another search engine. If you don't want to trust another search engine,
Re:more censorship, unimpressed (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes.
Why is it that everyone is constantly striving to find Google's evil? Ranking the relevancy of pages to a search is Google's job. By ranking spam as relevant to my search they have failed. Using the concept of a web of trust to establish relevancy is a fairly obvious solution and has well established analogs in other fields (e.g. PKI).
If you're looking for evil, try GE, GM, or Unilever. Google doesn't even begin to rank on the evil-o-meter.
Re:more censorship, unimpressed (Score:2)
Well, then I guess that's the sad state that they have to find themselves in. Keep in mind that you're reading a very important document. If the company did not put that in writing prior to their public offering, then they would be lible to their stockholders for crippling the
Re:more censorship, unimpressed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:more censorship, unimpressed (Score:2)
google has been trying to get rid of spam for ages... this is just one of SEVERAL techniques that go into evaluating a page.
Re:more censorship, unimpressed (Score:2)
... until someone figures out hw to manipulate it - then your formerly-reputable page is now classed as a spam magnet, and all the work YOU put into it is fucked.
Google is like duct tape - there is a light side, and a dark side, and it's trying to stick the uni
Re:more censorship, unimpressed (Score:2, Interesting)
Conjuction? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Conjuction? (Score:3, Insightful)
And thanks to fuckers like you, pages like THIS are full of "Free IPod" links.
You can't complain about spam of any sort when you are a spammer yourself.
Spammy comment solution (Score:2, Interesting)
I've got an idea: Anytime you see an informative and/or insightful post whose contents you would like to see modded up, but which has a spam-o-licious free [product] link in the sig, just copy the informative content into a new Anonymous Coward post, which the mods can then moderate higher, while the spammy parent can be modded down into obvlion.
Re:Conjuction? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Conjuction? (Score:2)
I signed up for one of those gratis-network's promos (free mac mini) off a slashdot sig once. I had such high hopes! I signed up using a distinct email in my domain. I wanted to make sure things were on the up & up before I spammed all my friends & family. I waited a few weeks and you know what happened?
1. The "offers" I signed up for never got credited to me (thankfully I didn't have any trouble canceling after the trial periods).
2. That account gets an incredible amount of spam.
Potential abuse? (Score:4, Interesting)
Google may be better off as they are currently leaving all sites initally equal in influence before the Pagerank calculation.
Then again, Google has a great track record for testing their ideas before committing them to general service...
Re:Potential abuse? (Score:5, Interesting)
This to me keys that Google's trying to become a more involved company; instead of just sitting back, caching and searching the internet, they are now trying to serve you best and give you the results you are looking for. I would imagine with TrustRank, you will see a little star or something near a link on Google's home page, and the star would indicate if it is something in your field that you would be looking for. For example, if you were a Biologist and searched for a certain kind of fish, say "Blue Tuna", it would put stars next to sites with the fish's breeding habits, etc., but if you were a general consumer, it would provide links to the local fishery.
The internet is an extremely powerful tool, and search engines have simply evolved to the point that they are now "dumb technology". Without more user invervention (and not simply by throwing in more keywords and praying), they will continue to be as they are now. Once the company better knows what we'll be looking for, they can better serve us. And that's all I see this new tech as being.
Re:Potential abuse? (Score:2)
Yeah, they'll continue falling for users abusing their ranking system.
They'll continue falling for users like you and your sig.
Re:Potential abuse? (Score:2)
Or you could use Google Local and search for Fish (which probably would continue to use the PageRank system, since it's not significantly Locale effected), or maybe even Froogle.
The biggest part of it all is, the whole system is OPT IN. Google isn't likely to change much in it's classical operation, just expand it for those users who want more.
Re:Potential abuse? (Score:2)
Besides, if I were Google, I'd design it this way, as it just makes more sense in a Customer Service point of view. As Google has yet to show a public implement of TrustRank, we can only speculate as to how it will work. The theoretical and test implements I have read about as PDFs and such simply use a list of say 200 "good" websites determined by their "experts". Who's to say that when Google brings the implementation to life, they don't simply add a feature to tune these 200 good URLs? At thi
Re:Potential abuse? (Score:2)
Is that why everything google is constantly in beta?!
Re:Potential abuse? (Score:2)
Only useful for static seeds (Score:2)
I don't favor this type of scheme because it is not adaptive enough.
A much better manner for achieving the goals that Google is reaching for wou
psst, wanna buy some TrustRank? (Score:2, Funny)
Questions (Score:3, Interesting)
Will the owners of the pages / sites deemed to fall within the set of trusted seed sites get any money for all their hard work (i.e. hand-maintaining pages of links)?
What if such an owner decides to link to a page of commercial or spam links - will they get any money from the owner of the linked site? Is this a possible method of abuse?
Will that cool poster of links between websites now become 3D to give trusted links more prominence?
Re:Questions (Score:3, Insightful)
Lemme give it a try;
It's probably exactly giving a weight to PageRank, but the question is "Where will the weight be applied?", before the PageRank calculation (as in giving links a higher Rank because they are from a more legit website) or after the PageRank calculation (as in
Re:Questions (Score:5, Informative)
How is this different from applying a weighting to PageRank?
It attempts to detect clusters of pages which have few inbound links, which also propagating "trust" scores to all other sites by using their linking structure. For sites that have many inbound links (high scroring in pagerank), the authors claim this modification tends to classify spam and reputable sites differently.
Will the owners of the pages / sites deemed to fall within the set of trusted seed sites get any money for all their hard work (i.e. hand-maintaining pages of links)?
No.
However, they will get better search engine visibility, which is quite valuable.
What if such an owner decides to link to a page of commercial or spam links - will they get any money from the owner of the linked site?
The paper suggests using only highly reputable organizations with long-term stability for the seed pages. Government organizations, universities, very well known companies.
The analysis in the paper is based on a per-site graph, not per-page, by the way. They lacked the resources to try these computations on such a large data set.
Is this a possible method of abuse?
Presumably, the small set of seed pages/sites will need to be monitored by staff employed by the search engine company. If one of the trusted seed sites "went bad", they would need to be removed from the list.
Will that cool poster of links between websites now become 3D to give trusted links more prominence?
Probably not.
I can already imagine this... (Score:3, Informative)
I can see this already....
This page contains very objectionable content.
If you are easily offended, don't enter.
Blah, blah, blah.
Blah, blah, blah.
Do you agree to these conditions?
Yes [goatse.cx] No [disney.com]
Probably the other way. (Score:4, Insightful)
If you're linked by a trusted page, then your rank goes up, but there's no negative for being linked by untrusted pages - your pagerank stays the same.
Goatse and Disney (Score:2)
Yes [goatse.cx] No [disney.com]
Two things. First, "Guy Opens Ass To Show Everyone" has moved here [retropay.com]. Second, in this era of counterproductive copyright, lowering Disney's reputation is a Good Thing [losingnemo.com].
Similar to Advogato's? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Similar to Advogato's? (Score:2)
Domo Arigato Mister Advogato
for helping me escape from all the useless sites! Thank You!
TrustRank link broken, session expired (Score:5, Informative)
A good sign (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:A good sign (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's not get overly optimistic about what this is going to do for the web... such as:
By developing this tool, Google is helping to clean the Internet up and enable it to become the massive source of pure information it has such potential to be.
What exactly is "pure information" anyway?
Consider my little website [pjrc.com]. Lots of pages about how to design electronic stuff. But we sell components that support those activities, so it's not 100% "pure", is it? You could consider all those pages as a giant ad for the stuff on the store section of the site. But most people would consider my pages on the more informational side (and the vast majority really are).
About once every 2 or 3 weeks, I get a call from one of these search engine optimiztion companies. Not sure if it's the same couple companies... I usually just say "no" and ask to be on their do-not-call list. They're mostly a bunch of slimey people and probably don't honour such requests.
But sometimes, the idea is tempting. I resist because I believe it's unethical, and ultimately a bad long-term investment. Still, to anyone selling via the web, even a tiny little 2-person company like me, the sales pitch is quite compelling. Pay some fee, traffic goes up, more sales, increase in revenue offsets the cost for the SEO's work. Maybe it's not so bad if they don't stupe to cheating.
Still, I resist because I know it's not a black and white distinction. It's a fuzzy line between the obviously good techniques (improving site structure, rewording page titles, etc) and the obviously bad (cloaked pages). I also just don't trust them.
But even the distinction between "pure information" and "spam" is fuzzy. I'd like to think I'm leaning towards the "pure information" side, but we do indeed sell products. It wasn't always that way... in the mid-90's, the site was smaller and hosted at a university and no products were sold. I had several people begging me to sell them a few of the parts needed for a project. Eventually, a friend started selling some stuff (prices were high, service poor), and so I took it over. Satisfaction with the site has improved dramatically since then!
Still, it's a fuzzy area between pure information and purely commercial, or advertising or spam.
I can tell you it's a lot more work crafting really good web pages than just writing a check to a seedy SEO company. But if these ranking algorithms really do improve to perfection, the response is probably going to be more and more pages appearing in that gray region. Increasing sales can pay for a lot of man hours to author more material that's compelling for visitors and truely does help them to solve their products (especially if they buy the described products).
So, in a best case scenario, these algoriths reaching perfection (seems unlikely) is probably going to lead to a lot more very good content, but content that revolves around pitching products (eg, infomercials), and not "pure information".
Re:A good sign (Score:2)
And no need for the slimesucking SEO companies.
(No, havent bought one yet since the car I want ot use it in has 6v electricals and i don't know enough about sparks to know if it would owrk, etc. but I do keep you bookmarked)
Re:A good sign (Score:2)
Is the paper even the same thing? (Score:5, Interesting)
Trustrank explained (Score:4, Informative)
What happens is, that humans select some webpages which they trust. The idea is, that these trustworthy webpages only links to good sites. So, the trustworthy webpages are used as seed into a regular webcrawler.
At first glance, this looks like a low pass filter to me. Ie the same result could be achieved by cutting all PR 5 sites.
in toolbar (Score:2)
Yahoo behind trustrank (Score:3, Funny)
Bring lawyers, guns and popcorn (Score:3, Insightful)
* When I say sleezeballs and tweeking, I mean the people who will try outrageous stunts to game the system, rather than the consultants who will help you increase rank by the stunning tactic of actually improving your site. Radical, but sometimes it works.
Gmail spam filter? (Score:3, Interesting)
Becase we gmailers are picky.
It would probably have to be integrated with something else, because I bet there are a few pr0n mailing lists that lots of people have.
Re:Gmail spam filter? (Score:2)
PageRank is already no more what it used to be (Score:3, Interesting)
Even though it contains way too much rant for my taste, google watch [google-watch.org] is worth a full read by all
WTF? (Score:2)
Semantic Web... (Score:2)
If "Google trusts fooPage" becomes a standard, recognised triplet, I see no reason why this won't be extended to "Google trusts userX", which becomes "ebay trusts userX" etc.
It's very possible they're looking to the future, and have more in mind than "there's probably no pr0n on this page"...
Question. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Question. (Score:2, Funny)
suicidegirls.com?
This info is not intended to be read by a human. (Score:5, Interesting)
I guess we weren't supposed to read this. And you shouldn't have read *this*!
Personalised trust metrics (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Personalised trust metrics (Score:2)
Re:Personalised trust metrics (Score:3, Insightful)
say the first listing is clicked 70% of the time, the second is clicked 20% of the time, third 10% of the time. If you have a set of search results that has click rates of 30%, 50%, and 5%. Then you could say that the fi
A possible system? (Score:2, Informative)
weights in a trust system?
Links in messages identified as spam could be given a negative
weight. That weight could be determined by the number of people
identifying messages with that link as spam. Links from those sites
would being given less trust than a completely unknown page, unless they
are positively weighted themselves or linked to by a positively weighted
site. Links found in non spam messages could be given positive weights
My vision for trust... (Score:2)
Trust for things like email senders and web sites shouldn't be centralized. My web of trusted entities, which should be easy to maintain (unlike, say, blacklists or whitelists) and should evolve semi-automatically, should be based on the interaction of my trusted sites/entities, and, in turn, their trusted sites/entities. Sort of like TrustRank, but where each person determin
Re:My vision for trust... (Score:2)
Well... in that case, I don't trust you. trustrank=0. Next message, please.
Re:My vision for trust... (Score:2)
Now it occurs to me that you may *want*, for research purposes, say, search for untrusted sites, so that should be a search parameter.
Sounds like a confused algorithm (Score:3, Insightful)
Matches - spam - offtopic, sorted by relevence
not
Matches sorted by f(pagerank,trustrank)
Google used pagerank+on page text as a measure of how relevent a page is but thats not reliable anymore because the set contains spam pages.
The 'trusted' value tells you nothing about relevence, it only gives the likelyhood of the page being spam or not spam. If its spam you want it removed, if its not spam, then its page rank determines its relevence not some function of pagerank and trustrank.
i.e. they should not promote or demote pages because on trust rank, they simply define a cut off value K, if the trust is less than K then its likely spam and should be removed.
Since spam follows money terms, they should have K(keyphrase), so they can change the value of K on each keyphrase to remove the spam. Otherwise they will filter non money terms where no spam exists and their algo can only do harm!
I think I have an easier way to explain it (Score:3, Interesting)
Ranking by onpage text, links etc., the items that make a page relevant or not gives you:
A. 1st most relevant.
B. 2nd most relevant
C. Spam
D. 3rd most relevant
E. 4th most relevant.
F. Spam
After your Oracle has hand checked every site you get:
A. 1st most relevant.
B. 2nd most relevant
C. 3rd most relevant
D. 4th most relevant.
Not:
A. 10th most relevant
B. 2nd most relevant
C. 8th most relevant
D. 5th most relevant
Rankin
Re:I think I have an easier way to explain it (Score:3, Insightful)
Pageranks works differently since it covers all search terms and is ignorant of the search phrase. Its is a "how important is this page on the net" rank.
This article is about trust rank, a
maybe for Gmail (Score:2, Informative)
hmmm ...... (Score:2, Interesting)
Probably wouldnt be that difficult to get around it but might help a bit
t
Re:Cheeseh... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Cheeseh... (Score:5, Insightful)
Should Google just throw away their many years of research, and start from scratch?
I find this trust-based approach interesting, but I wonder how it's gonna work for smaller sites (Which the few trusted seeds will not ever link to), but I guess the smaller sites don't really have a problem as it is, because only specific search-terms are targeted.
There's also the problem of allowing new websites into the game, but I guess that's for the Google developers to figure out.
Re:Cheeseh... (Score:2)
That problem exists already for sites using the page rank system - you already need some good links to your site in order for it to come up in a decent position in a search.
All they're really doing with this new idea is tightening up the existing system by adjusting the weighting given in that system so that links from more 'trustworthy' sites are awarded a higher rank.
The choic
Re:Cheeseh... (Score:2)
I'm not entirely opposed to that given the blatant abuse of PageRank that warranted creation of TrustRank to begin with. The web was a different place when PageRank was developed and people didn't create sites for the sheer purpose of spamming search engine results. Indeed, back in The Day, search engine results were a lot better because human nature didn't entirely make it to the web yet.
TrustRank is simply a progressio
Re:Cheeseh... (Score:5, Informative)
Imagine going into your Gmail account settings, adding a string of a few websites you deem to be "superior" or of better quality, and then let TrustRank grab the collection of all of these, note where the highest votes go, and use these as more "Trustworthy" search results. Or, using PageRank, it simply adds an option "Vote these sites higher because they are linked to the user defined site settings."
Both schema make Search Engine spamming more controllable by Google (Simply by terminating accounts linked to spammers), and could have an interesting effect. Can't wait to see what happens with TrustRank.
Re:Cheeseh... (Score:2)
Say for example the BBC news site is trusted by google (no jokes please) and then the BBC links to a blog, that blog will be returned higher in the mix of search results because it has a relationship with a trusted site.
I don't think trustrank will always return certain sites first just because they themselves are trusted, that would be censorship and it would make the g
Re:Cheeseh... (Score:2)
I don't think trustrank will always return certain sites first just because they themselves are trusted, that would be censorship and it would make the google search less accurate.
I, on the other hand, would believe they would move certain results up the list. But I think you'd have to be searching through the TrustRank interface, or simply move a radiobutton indicating that you want to see the more relevant results first.
T
Re:Cheeseh... (Score:2)
Especially if you don't read the paper, which fully describes this algorithm, both in rigorous mathematical terms, and with quite a bit of explanitory text.
Re:Cheeseh... (Score:2)
Hey, we're not talking about MS here, so drop the cynical patches line thank you. And "old tech" can still bring you the best general web search results out there, no matter av,yah,msn,dp,whatever. Ad 1, we don't exactly know what they will use this "new" word for, what solution will it cover under its terminology. Ad 2, if Google seems to work on something, that's always a bit of joy
Re:Google argghh! (Score:2)
Might impact the development of one of the most critical tools on the Internet, but you're right, that'd just be news for nerds.
Oh, wait...
Re:Google argghh! (Score:2)
Anyways, that wasn't really the point of my comment.
Re:Google argghh! (Score:2)