Comments on: Yahoo's search slider interface for weeding out commercial stuff.

Yahoo's search slider interface for weeding out commercial stuff.

Tlogmer — Sun, 29 May 2005 17:48:24 -0800

By: j.p. Hung

j.p. Hung — Sun, 29 May 2005 17:58:56 -0800

By: vacapinta

vacapinta — Sun, 29 May 2005 17:59:55 -0800

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.

By: unsupervised

unsupervised — Sun, 29 May 2005 18:10:59 -0800

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...

By: MLIS

MLIS — Sun, 29 May 2005 18:23:12 -0800

It's [Yahoo Mindset] pretty similar to but more limited than Google Labs Personalized Search, which allows searchers to check boxes for their high level subject interests and then gives you a slider to reorder search results.

By: substrate

substrate — Sun, 29 May 2005 18:26:28 -0800

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.

By: NickDouglas

NickDouglas — Sun, 29 May 2005 18:36:06 -0800

Works wonders for book searches like Guns, Germs, and Steel.

By: boo_radley

boo_radley — Sun, 29 May 2005 18:52:11 -0800

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.

By: fenriq

fenriq — Sun, 29 May 2005 18:52:23 -0800

This is pretty cool!

By: BuddhaInABucket

BuddhaInABucket — Sun, 29 May 2005 19:01:17 -0800

I was about to complain about pepsi blue or something, but yeah, ditto fenriq- this IS pretty cool.

By: letitrain

letitrain — Sun, 29 May 2005 19:13:57 -0800

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.

By: spiderwire

spiderwire — Sun, 29 May 2005 19:26:52 -0800

Probably a stupid question, but can someone please explain the Pepsi Blue thing to me?

By: DirtyCreature

DirtyCreature — Sun, 29 May 2005 19:46:57 -0800

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.

By: interrobang

interrobang — Sun, 29 May 2005 19:47:05 -0800

The Wiki's currently a little fucked, but here's what it means, spiderwire.

By: pmurray63

pmurray63 — Sun, 29 May 2005 19:49:54 -0800

The Wiki is quite f'd. I guess we can add wikis to the list of things spammers are killing.

By: NickDouglas

NickDouglas — Sun, 29 May 2005 20:07:37 -0800

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.

By: BoringPostcards

BoringPostcards — Sun, 29 May 2005 20:17:28 -0800

That is GREAT.

By: juggernautco

juggernautco — Sun, 29 May 2005 20:21:20 -0800

Yahoo doesn't get enough credit? Agreed.

By: eatitlive

eatitlive — Sun, 29 May 2005 21:23:41 -0800

Shopping is the opposite of research. The internet suddenly makes sense to me now.

By: shmegegge

shmegegge — Sun, 29 May 2005 21:37:41 -0800

whatever, I still use hotbot, ye bastids.

By: DeepFriedTwinkies

DeepFriedTwinkies — Sun, 29 May 2005 21:58:19 -0800

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.

By: stavrosthewonderchicken

stavrosthewonderchicken — Sun, 29 May 2005 22:17:13 -0800

My (predictable) take. In a nutshell: nice idea, but way to piss on your own leg, there, Yahoo.

By: MLIS

MLIS — Sun, 29 May 2005 22:21:26 -0800

Search Engine Relationship Chart.

By: afu

afu — Sun, 29 May 2005 22:34:26 -0800

How is this any more useful than google scholar and froogle? I don't understand why this is a big deal

By: MLIS

MLIS — Sun, 29 May 2005 22:35:21 -0800

By: reflection

reflection — Mon, 30 May 2005 00:21:55 -0800

google did this a long time ago

By: stavrosthewonderchicken

stavrosthewonderchicken — Mon, 30 May 2005 02:24:30 -0800

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.

By: magodesky

magodesky — Mon, 30 May 2005 08:00:04 -0800

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.

By: mendel

mendel — Mon, 30 May 2005 14:00:22 -0800

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?

By: stavrosthewonderchicken

stavrosthewonderchicken — Mon, 30 May 2005 16:18:53 -0800

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.

By: stavrosthewonderchicken

stavrosthewonderchicken — Mon, 30 May 2005 16:21:13 -0800

And to that I'd like to add: fuckity fucksticks! (I need some coffee. It's too damn early.)

By: Dreamghost

Dreamghost — Mon, 30 May 2005 19:27:38 -0800

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...

By: Dreamghost

Dreamghost — Mon, 30 May 2005 19:29:28 -0800

On topic: This is pretty cool and targets one of the biggest problems i see with search engines today.

By: Laszlo

Laszlo — Wed, 01 Jun 2005 02:32:53 -0800

Engines across the board will be like this within the near future