Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Netscape The Internet

Netscape Search to be powered by Google 71

Posted by CmdrTaco from the ain't-that-spiffy dept.
UM_Maverick writes "According to this article at news.com, Netscape is going to replace their Excite-powered search engine with Google technology. " Heh. I use my google Slashbox a lot. Linux based search engines are good.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Netscape Search to be powered by Google More

Netscape Search to be powered by Google

Comments Filter:

  • AOL/Netscape's Business Strategy (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I find it interesting that AOL/Netscape is continually aligning itself with the OpenSource community or with the "little guy with the best tech". First Communicator goes Open Source, then the acquisition of NewHoo, now Google - what will be next?

  • Riemann-type curvature-of-thought search engine (Score:4)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 24, 1999 @06:39AM (#1835222)
    Google, find +keyword -keyword etc ... it's just yet another single-point-of-thought-oriented brute force engine, no matter how elegant its structure and interface. Except that they be within the boolean realm of the header/body/links of an address, there is no relationship between the keywords. (Each keyword representing a point of thought sought by the user, the minimum point of thought being in fact a phrase.) In other words, all the boolean energy remains only within the header.body.link realm of a single file, which is a single point address.

    But the user's need is inevitably a curvature of thought problem. The user is seeking to solve a relationship between one thought and another.

    Why not make a quantum step contribution: think Riemann-type curvature-of-thought search engine. Allow the user to keyword two points of thought, as before, and also define an allowable separation or curvature-of-thought between them, such that, as in the case of url searches for example, the keywords be not only in the same file address, but possibly in two different files which are related by a common directory name, domain name, etc.

    This has economic implications for Mozilla which go far beyond web searches. With an half decent search engine, Mozilla could easily replace the fat and boated and proprietary adobe acrobat. This came up for me on a magazine company (history and law) which wanted to republish and gpl older issues in html-cdrom format. The necessary element was a decent search engine, like the ones used by lexus-nexus. In a Mozilla Gymnast, the user would still enter multiple points of thought (as in the prior boolean days), but would also be able to specify a relationship distance or curvature of thought as well. Curvature of thought for literature, law, science, programming, etc. would be defined by two points of thought (a variable name for example), but the relationship distance would be sentence, paragraph (subroutine), case-report/article, chapter, book, author and date, rather than url, subdomain, domain etc. Mozilla with an small integrated lexus-type search engine could improve on adobe acrobat, and terminate the proprietary pdf format.

    Next time you are struggling with a complex, hurried and meaningful search in url space, as you scan down the pages and pages of return data (no matter how complex your boolean input), look inwardly and see that what you were really looking for to start with was a relationship between two thought, or a curvature of thought. See how restricted you were because you were restricted to a brute force single-point boolean mode thinking at the start.

    Meaning comes from relationships between points of thought, the curvature of thought so to speak, and not from the point of thought itself.

    Think elegant, Mozilla. Think curvature of thought. Hell baby, that's how you were born.


  • I used to hate this kind of knee-jerk-esque rhetoric about Netscape....

    Then don't make them yourself. Do you really think that the same people who are busy coding away on Mozilla are being pulled away to make a marketing decision to use Google as the search backend for the Netcenter portal? Hello?

  • Well, they used to be at archive.netscape.com [netscape.com] (username archive, password oldies) last time I looked, about a month ago when I was digging for a 3.0 version for Solaris. But now there appears to be nothing there either. Anybody know what happened to them?
    --

  • Down (Score:1)

    by MikeO ( 951 )
    Google's down at the moment -- bad timing, that... :-)

    --
  • Good for NS... google does work well, and I definately prefer it over excite (altho that's mostly and interface issue).

    I just wish these search engines would webcrawl a little more often. It's hard to turn up a search page that isn't stuffed full of months-old and outdated pages sometimes.

    --
    rickf@transpect.SPAM-B-GONE.net (remove the SPAM-B-GONE bit)

  • >Linux based search engines are good.

    Why does the underlying operating system mean that the search algorithm is superior or inferior? Or is this more mindless linux bigotry?

    Certainly, Linux's lack of a fast storage and support for advanced technologies such as NUMA mean that it is unsuitable for large-scale searches.
  • Jealousy? Why? I don't write operating systems, and I have a Linux machine at home!

    Now, you could row across the atlantic, and boat designs are free, and you don't need anyone's help, but personally, I find it easier, cheaper in total cost, faster and more enjoyable to take an airliner.

    And that's why just because something's free that doesn't automatically make it good.
  • Put the following into your .netscape/preferences.js:

    user_pref("network.search.url","http://www.googl e.com/keyword/");

    And any search terms you type in the location textfield will be passed to Google.
  • The archived versions of Netscape Communicator are no longer on the Netscape FTP server [netscape.com]. When did this happen? Why?

    [conspiracy mode="greed"] The latest version of Communicator has AOL Instant Messenger "integrated" and AOL didn't want previous versions floating around. [/conspiracy]

    [conspiracy mode="big brother"] The latest version of Communicator have a tracking mechanism ("What's Related") or some other Bad Thing. [/conspiracy]

    Or else they just ran out of space.

    In any case does anyone know of a FTP site that has 4.51 for Mac. 4.6 has a reputation of hosing computers (this according to my wife, a Mac tech support type).

    --
  • I used to hate this kind of knee-jerk-esque rhetoric about Netscape....

    Until I started to have to do some web design....

    Now I feel like I wish I was allowed to not support Netscape.


  • Has anyone else noticed that by putting your web page address in your user info on Slashdot, it appears to Google that Slashdot (which is highly rated) has linked to your page every time you post? Although Google kicks ass compared to other search engines (at least for broad topics), this bug/feature demonstrates that the technology still isn't perfect.

  • Updates (Score:2)

    by emag ( 4640 )
    This is good. I use google for everything. Well, everything that isn't too new, like the last several months. I hope Netscape actually reindexes & updates their databases more often than google does.
  • According to a post by dariuszon the editor's forum:

    Last night, Netscape launched its own built and branded search product. The new Netscape Search combines the breadth and quality of the Open Directory Project with new J-Searchrelevancy ranking, Google's PageRank technology, and innovation of Smart Browsing todeliver the most relevant results on the Web. Netscape Search is available now at http://search.netscape.com/index.html?cp=tafnsr001 . Click here http://search.netscape.com/about.html?cp=tafnsr001 to learn more.
  • If you don't recall, Netscape purchased Gnuhoo/Newhoo/Open Directory ( directory.mozilla.org [mozilla.org]) a while back with the intent of tying it to Mozilla. Will OpenDir be dropped come Mozilla final in favor of google, or will the two establish some sort of relationship? For instance, would dmoz abandon its search backend in favor of Google?
  • This is really cool that Netscape is using one of the best search engines on the planet, but *sigh*, I'd prefer that they pay more attention to fully supporting CSS and other HTML niceties. It's a sad fact that IE supports css better and generally is easier to code html for... Netscape on the other hand just plain makes a page look ugly...
  • Thanks... it really wasn't knee jerk. I do a lot of design and it's really hard to code html for NS...
  • It doesn't feel like Google. In fact, searches that I have performed often on Google show up completely differently on Netscape. On many searches, the top result is not the same, and the entire list returned seems entirely different.

    Anyone out there find it curious that Google.com is 'temporarily down' today, of all days, too?
    ---
    seumas.com

  • This has got to be a great shot in the arm for Google. Though Google is the greatest search engine, I am surprised that Netscape is going with such an unknown (to the general public) search engine.
    Anyone have any guesses as to why Netscape went with Google? Other than the obvious fact that Google is so much better than everyone else? There has to be some sort of business reason for it...
  • Still down. Any business association with AOL scares me...
  • Yes, this feels like a troll.

    But it is a good point, since if you're looking for quirky individual-run sites, you'll find they don't tend to have a lot of links until they're very established.

    Unfortunately, AltaVista isn't good at finding them either.

    D

    ----
  • This article [msnbc.com] at MSNBC mentions that one of the (two?) major initial investors in Google was an @Home startup.
  • I'd be interested in knowing if Google actually gave them any software. Last I heard, Google is only selling a service - if you want them to search your site, you let them crawl your site. Much like Inktomi, and in contrast to Infoseek, which will sell you software you can host at your site.

  • Re:ggogle (Score:3)

    by ethereal ( 13958 ) on Thursday June 24, 1999 @05:54AM (#1835244) Journal

    I think Google ranks a site X by finding how many other sites link to site X. Their theory, IIRC, is that the more sites which link to X, the more important X is to that particular topic and the more likely that a user searching for a site on that topic wil want to see site X. The Google ranking of the sites which link to X is also taken into consideration. So if you want a higher Google ranking, you need to get linked from more sites and more highly ranked sites. According to their FAQ [google.com], "This definition seems circular, and it is."

    I'm not sure if this is a troll or not, but since I've seen DAVEO post on other articles, I'll assume not. I have to concur with some of your other respondents: you really should try using the first person some time. It's surprisingly easy and fun to use, and you will automatically get more respect for your postings and fewer people will call you a troll. This is just friendly advice.

  • ...cause we already know every important site out there! You must be a hacker-in-training.

  • Yes Google is fast, but I still like Altavista better.

    "Lee you dumb bastard!" you say, "Google is the best! Linux rocks! You will die now!"

    Well yes Google is great for when you want to search on something about Linux and sometimes about other computer/technology related things. But what about when you're looking for some obscure Literary commentary for an English term paper or you're trying to see if one of your long lost relatives has a website? I mean don't get me wrong (too late...I'm sure I've been flamed like 300 times already) I like Google , but it still needs to increase the amount of material it covers as well as the frequency of its database updates.

    -Lee
  • Yes, Google [google.com] only points to "mainstream" sites. I use Google most of the time, because I usually want the "main" source of information about something. If I want to find something obscure, I use Metacrawler [metacrawler.com], which searchs other search engines. It's like dredging the bottom of a lake to find all the dead bodies. If there are any dead bodies what so ever, then Metacrawler will find them. It's great.



  • This is not true.

    Google don't build on Kleinberg's HITS technique.

    Let me try to explain.

    Google start with assign every page p a rank r[p].
    Then assign a weight to every link w[p][q] form page p to page q.

    something like this

    w[p][q]=k+r[p]/(#link on p);

    then recompute the rank like
    r[p]=sum(w[s][p],s={every page with links to p})

    repeat to convergence.

    This is how google works as far as I can remember.
    I read the paper before they was remove form Stanford's server.


    While Kleinberg HITS algorithm goes like this.

    It assign a authority a[p] and hub h[p] rank to each page.
    start by make a guess for the authority ranking.
    and the calculate h[p]

    h[p]=sum(a[s],s={every page p have links to});

    the recalculate a[p]

    a[p]=sum(h[s],s={every page which have links to page p});

    repeat to convergence.

    I think it is easier to spam HITS than google becourse it use the hub structure.

    I am currently working with a modification to HITS that will solve the problem(I think).

    By the way check out my own search engine at Aeiwi [aeiwi.com]
    It is not a ranking engine as Google and HITS, but a automatic generated
    directory.
  • Google being the best surely is a business reason? The best business reason in my opinion.
  • Oh, that's interesting.
    I did a Netscape search for my last name and the only results were two "reviewed Web pages" from the Netscape indexes.

    I did a Netscape search for my last name and some other words and it performed a Google search with many more, although less focused, results.

    Looks like there's more to the Netscape search algorithm than only the Google tools.

  • They've already switched to Google [google.com].
    Go to Netscape [netscape.com] and notice their Search box at the top says NEW.

    If you do a search using the Netscape option, the URL of the search engine appears as google.netscape.com. So apparently Google has already been installed, not merely announced.

  • thought i was the only one who used this...googles lateness isn't a bug its a feature! seriously, i often get info on startups who have recently taken down their main page after getting funding this way. case in point: respond.com
  • Slashdot is just to cool to be ignored.
    Now if Hemos could just get those links right...
    :)

  • Phone, phone . . . real hackers don't have phones, they are way too analogue
  • No, that's mindless Linux advocacy.

    This is mindless linux bigotry:

    "NT based search engines suck! Microsoft sucks! Ha ha!"

    Note the subtle distinction. ;)
    --

  • It's hard to turn up a search page that isn't stuffed full of months-old and outdated pages sometimes.

    Have you tried the cached link? Most of the time, if a page is no longer out there, it's in Google's cache. Very useful.
    - - -

  • Wassup is that to make it into Google, your site has to be referenced by OTHER sites, preferably related to your content.
    That's why searches return mostly relevant sites and NO insert-lots-of-keywords-to-fool-you-into-looking-a t-my-xxx-ads trolling sites.
    - - -
  • It's odd that small sites (like mine) don't get listed by google. I've even seen the google engine crawling over my site in my web logs, but I'm not listed.

    Wassupwiddat??
  • It's now at ftp://archive:oldies@archive.netscape.com/archive/ index.html

    which is actually a http format page. LOTS of old stuff for many platforms. Leech while the leeching is good.. who knows how long it'll be maintained.

    I don't remember how I tripped over this archive in the first place, but I'm sure glad I bookmarked it :)


  • I am into Linux, and I think it's cool that Google's running on it, but thats not purely what makes it a great search engine. Google rocks because of the fact that you can actually find what you're looking for with it. No less than three times in the past week I have searched on Infoseek, not found what I want, then on Hotbot, and not found what I want, then on Google where it was in the first page of results. Google Rocks!

    Glyciren

  • Real Hackers search by randomly typing in URLs until they find what they're looking for.
  • Acrobat is already crap. The UI design is terrible - especially the rendering and the behaviour of the cursor keys. The only reason people use it is, they can't rely on their users having the latest browser with CSS and all.

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • I am just waiting for the inevitable "I use astalavista.box.sk, man, I am 133t, yeah d00dz!" post. It will probably be written by some drunken perturbed short person, too :)


    Tell a man that there are 400 Billion stars and he'll believe you

  • google isn't the only one. (Score:4)

    by underbider ( 63054 ) on Thursday June 24, 1999 @06:14AM (#1835270) Homepage
    Google is good, but as many has noted, it lacks comprehensiveness. The gut of Google is in its application of novel indexing technique first published by Kleinberg(http://www.cs.cornell.edu/home/kleinber/ kleinber.html) In a 1997 paper(http://www.cs.cornell.edu/home/kleinber/auth .ps). Google also benefits from a agressively engineered spidering/storage etc.

    But there is at least one other notable institution appying Kleinberg's technique. Take a look at NEC's inquirus: http://inquirus.nj.nec.com/
    Its slow... But it demonstrates some other Klienberg's Algorithm's properties and applications. Enjoy!

Slashdot Top Deals

Disclaimer: "These opinions are my own, though for a small fee they be yours too." -- Dave Haynie

Close