google was the best serch engine.Now they are now only a commerce platform not a search engine.maybe well get another serchengine in the next year called earth/terra

There was a gut feeling that SES would work everything out –
However,there is something interesting on the WebmasterWorld Conference site

http://www.pubcon.com/

Looking at the keynote speakers list – every name has a Link a summary for their planned keynote – but now, one name has been DE-LINKED

Hmmm….

Not a big fan of the layout on the searchmob story pages.

The big, clickable link at the top of the page goes back to the same page. The link to the story looks like a link to the root page of the site the story is on. Maybe this is an SEO thing, but it’s a bit confusing.

To the second commentator, I do not think the headline meant what you interpreted. One of the current model to beat google is the following: You could find various meta-search engines but they are not google killers because they combine the intelligence of various search engines and in the end instead of getting the combined intelligence as the sum they get it as the average. If you combine Live Search with some XYZ search engine you don’t improve upon Live Search but you get something in between.

What John is trying to imply by the headline is the following model. Let there be specialized search engines for various verticals. Then one can possible combine these search engines to create a more intelligent meta-search engines.

Sometimes, I even wish that there be an IE plug-in to direct my queries to various search engines depending upon the context. For an example, for my scientific research type queries I find google quite useful. But if I am researching a consumer item, such as a camera, then I find Live Search more useful. Search-box in IE7 sends my queries to only one engine of my choice but does not yet let me make the choices dynamically depending upon my queries.

If there is a swarm of verticals, I am sure somebody will write such a plug-in. The plug-in will look at the query and send it to the appropriate search engine of my choice for that particular query.

The internet time capsule initiative from Yahoo is really commendable. I hope there is uniform contribution to this time capsule so that the future generations get a fair idea about the world in 2006. Since there are 250M+ users alone on Yahoo, I feel Yahoo should spread the word using that platform to participate in this event.

@ Fukuda

http://timecapsule.yahoo.com/capsule.php?l=jp&intl=us&logo=normal

There are 10 languages and 24 countries represented. Have fun.

I don’t think I believe the argument for Google video being no match for YouTube. Sure, when you compare raw traffic, YouTube has pulled ahead. But how much of that boost is due to copyrighted content? How much of that boost is people watching Daily Show clips, versus people watching “organic” video? What happens when YouTube is sold for some insane price, and the copyright holders crack down on the new owners? Is the YouTube that is left standing still better than GVideo?

The blogger claims “[YouTube] has a more involved community, more obscure videos, more interesting videos”. If true, this certainly supports the idea that YouTube still beats GVideo, even after the copyrighted material is gone. But then the numbers given in the rest of the post do not support this claim; instead they talk just about raw traffic.

How would one, I wonder, go about evaluating this claim, about one service having “a more involved community, more obscure videos, more interesting videos” than the other?