Skip

Yahoo's search slider interface for weeding out commercial stuff.
May 29, 2005 5:48 PM   Subscribe

Yahoo doesn't get enough credit.
posted by Tlogmer (33 comments total)

 
.
posted by j.p. Hung at 5:58 PM on May 29, 2005


If you type something like "flowers" you can see how it works.

I'll admit right here and now that I actually applied to work at Google last year. During my interview I pitched an idea exactly like this. I suggested that the search results themselves could be sorted according to context based on nothing more than the other words on that page and the searcher could then navigate that context. I suggested divisions such as: academic sites, government sites, personal pages etc. Short story: I didn't make it past the first interview.
posted by vacapinta at 5:59 PM on May 29, 2005


I tried "Disney" and then moved the slider fully over to research to see how well it would filter out the commercial sites. The second link, after the Yahoo! Directory of Disney sites, was for the Boycott Israel Campaign.

I guess a boycott isn't very commercial, but I don't think it's the best match...
posted by unsupervised at 6:10 PM on May 29, 2005




When I was in University Yahoo was as respected as google is now. They managed to squander a great deal of their respect though. They started embracing form over function, they chose morality wherever they thought it might increase market share and they bogged the place down with ads.

At the same time people were moving to actual search engines rather than directories. Alta Vista and other search engines came online and replaced Yahoo.
posted by substrate at 6:26 PM on May 29, 2005


Works wonders for book searches like Guns, Germs, and Steel.
posted by NickDouglas at 6:36 PM on May 29, 2005


ND: that's a good book.
Failed for a few particular searches -- Gourmet Gift Baskets at The Popcorn Factory® comes out in a research search.
posted by boo_radley at 6:52 PM on May 29, 2005


This is pretty cool!
posted by fenriq at 6:52 PM on May 29, 2005


I was about to complain about pepsi blue or something, but yeah, ditto fenriq- this IS pretty cool.
posted by BuddhaInABucket at 7:01 PM on May 29, 2005


Yahoo is doing a lot of good things lately. I hung around for their free fantasy sports games, but they've dramatically improved in just about every area. Still, Google is probably the motivation. For example, their web mail was at one or two megabytes before Google dropped the Gmail bomb.
posted by letitrain at 7:13 PM on May 29, 2005


Probably a stupid question, but can someone please explain the Pepsi Blue thing to me?
posted by spiderwire at 7:26 PM on May 29, 2005


While Google is spending its resources trying to boot perceived spammy sites out of its index and dictating to its users what it considers are useful results, Yahoo has invented the most useful piece of search functionality available in eight years.

I predict this functionality will be standard across all major engines in two years time.
posted by DirtyCreature at 7:46 PM on May 29, 2005


The Wiki's currently a little fucked, but here's what it means, spiderwire.
posted by interrobang at 7:47 PM on May 29, 2005


The Wiki is quite f'd. I guess we can add wikis to the list of things spammers are killing.
posted by pmurray63 at 7:49 PM on May 29, 2005


Okay, all you dirty bastards who mocked me for calling Yahoo the new Google...start licking my damn boots.

I wanna see my reflection when I look down.
posted by NickDouglas at 8:07 PM on May 29, 2005


That is GREAT.
posted by BoringPostcards at 8:17 PM on May 29, 2005


Yahoo doesn't get enough credit?

Agreed.
posted by juggernautco at 8:21 PM on May 29, 2005


Shopping is the opposite of research. The internet suddenly makes sense to me now.
posted by eatitlive at 9:23 PM on May 29, 2005


whatever, I still use hotbot, ye bastids.
posted by shmegegge at 9:37 PM on May 29, 2005


I wanna see my reflection when I look down.
posted by NickDouglas at 8:07 PM PST on May 29 [!]



Someone doesn't seem to be wearing underpants.
posted by DeepFriedTwinkies at 9:58 PM on May 29, 2005


My (predictable) take. In a nutshell: nice idea, but way to piss on your own leg, there, Yahoo.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 10:17 PM on May 29, 2005


Search Engine Relationship Chart.
posted by mlis at 10:21 PM on May 29, 2005


How is this any more useful than google scholar and froogle? I don't understand why this is a big deal
posted by afu at 10:34 PM on May 29, 2005 [1 favorite]


.
posted by mlis at 10:35 PM on May 29, 2005


google did this a long time ago
posted by reflection at 12:21 AM on May 30, 2005


That Search Engine Relationship Chart ® was interesting, MLIS, but this from the bottom of the page made me laugh.

Search Engine Relationship Chart ® - Please, please, please refrain from using "Search Engine Relationship Chart" on your web pages except as links to our site. This specific term is protected by an issued trademark - Registration Number 2,937,154. This trademark is protected by International Treaty (World Trade Organization) covering 123 countries (most of you). This chart is maintained free of charge and is available to all for personal use. There is no need to infringe this trademark, so please do not. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

Oh, bite me! I feel like embedding the phrase 'Search Engine Relationship Chart' in random places, just for fun, now.

But I probably won't.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 2:24 AM on May 30, 2005


That's kind of cool. I still like Clusty better, though, as there are usually more than two possible categories your search could fall under.
posted by magodesky at 8:00 AM on May 30, 2005


stavros: Start looking at the result labeled 1, and not the result ad labeled Sponsor Results.

afu: Well, it doesn't do what either of those do. On the shopping side, try searching Froogle for "motorcycle insurance", for instance. On the research side, it is nothing like Google Scholar at all; "research" is still a web search, the opposite of "shopping" here, not "published papers produced in academia". Did you even try it?
posted by mendel at 2:00 PM on May 30, 2005


mendel : bite me. I'm not an idiot. An ad is a goddamn ad. I can tell the difference, and the fact that the first 'real' result is numbered '1' doesn't make a fuck of a lot of difference to me. The top of the list is still more fucking shillery.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:18 PM on May 30, 2005


And to that I'd like to add: fuckity fucksticks!

(I need some coffee. It's too damn early.)
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:21 PM on May 30, 2005


Okay, all you dirty bastards who mocked me for calling Yahoo the new Google...start licking my damn boots.

How does this prove yahoo is the new google? which is a dumb statement to begin with. Please go outside and get some air, obviously your not getting quite enough...
posted by Dreamghost at 7:27 PM on May 30, 2005


On topic: This is pretty cool and targets one of the biggest problems i see with search engines today.
posted by Dreamghost at 7:29 PM on May 30, 2005


Engines across the board will be like this within the near future
posted by Laszlo at 2:32 AM on June 1, 2005


« Older Analyzing Records   |   yes, you would need a tv to care Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post