FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


TOS Ammendment





polly-gone
I think the TOS should be amended to include posts like "Google it." If I am asking on the forum, usually I have already Googled it. See my full explanation by Googling it. Oh wait.....

-Nick Cool Cool Cool

P.S. Don't google this.
rvec
Quote:
Did you mean: "I think the TOES should be amended to include posts like"


Forum Rules maybe... but then again, who reads those. The people who don't use google won't.
polly-gone
rvec wrote:
Quote:
Did you mean: "I think the TOES should be amended to include posts like"


Forum Rules maybe... but then again, who reads those. The people who don't use Google won't.


TOES? And yeah, I meant the forum rules. I saw someone asking for some Google software, and someone said Google it. That isn't going to tell you if a piece of software is reliable.

You will never see this:

Software Selling Website wrote:
Our software is junk! It sucks so much that it works about 20% of the time! BUY BUY BUY!


-Nick Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes
rvec
nah google would say it's still in beta for a couple of year.

TOES was the suggestion from google Razz

And I think that's already in the forum rules. I'd say it is as contributing as "lol" or "haha". So it would break rule 2.d .
polly-gone
You should add "Don't say google" to it. And lol, I am referenced in your little IRC thing.

-Nick Cool Cool Cool
LukeakaDanish
Hey...whats wrong with "google it!" - seriously some people ask questions that are stupid enough to be answered with "search google" - and if it helps them find their answer, I think its a perfectly acceptable reply...Smile
mathiaus
The overwhleming majority of "Google it n00b" posts that I have seen, are directed at questions that are very easily answered by a simple google search, and/or can be answered even better by doing so.

Whilst these replies aren't themselfs that helpful, these topics are likely to be locked/spammed anyway so it isn't of a great enough importance to include it in the rules. (IMO)
thadnation
google isn't the best, but answering some questions is a huge waste of time. how about "alta vista it" or "ask.com it" or even "all the web it"
LukeakaDanish
thadnation wrote:
google isn't the best, but answering some questions is a huge waste of time. how about "alta vista it" or "ask.com it" or even "all the web it"


Google is the best.

No...seriously, don't contend it. All other search engines s*ck compared to google.

Seriously...dude...altavista...WTF. (it searches using yahoo according to wikipedia btw)

Google it... Google IS the best.
thadnation
LukeakaDanish wrote:
thadnation wrote:
google isn't the best, but answering some questions is a huge waste of time. how about "alta vista it" or "ask.com it" or even "all the web it"


Google is the best.

No...seriously, don't contend it. All other search engines s*ck compared to google.

Seriously...dude...altavista...WTF. (it searches using yahoo according to wikipedia btw)

Google it... Google IS the best.


oh, somebody wants to get technical do they.

1. yes, it searches yahoo's collective database, as does all the web. that is because these companies are owned my one of yahoo's partners. HOWEVER, there limited database does not have anything to do with good search results; at least not much in this day & age.

2. according to PC Wold, both alta vista AND all the web are more accurate when used as keyword searches than google. the biggest is rarely the best.

your response?
garionw
thadnation wrote:
oh, somebody wants to get technical do they.

1. yes, it searches yahoo's collective database, as does all the web. that is because these companies are owned my one of yahoo's partners. HOWEVER, there limited database does not have anything to do with good search results; at least not much in this day & age.

2. according to PC Wold, both alta vista AND all the web are more accurate when used as keyword searches than google. the biggest is rarely the best.

your response?


Without getting too offtopic, AltaVista was bought out by Overture, which Yahoo then bought. Yahoo then changed the search engine program of AltaVista to Yahoo's. See this for more infomation:

Quote:
In 2002, it bought Inktomi, a "behind the scenes" or OEM search engine provider, whose results are shown on other companies' web sites and powered Yahoo! in its earlier days. In 2003, it bought Overture Services, Inc., which owned the AlltheWeb and AltaVista search engines. Initially, even though it owned multiple search engines, it didn't use them on the main Yahoo.com web site, but kept using Google's search engine for its results.

Starting in 2003, Yahoo! Search became its own web crawler-based search engine, with a reinvented crawler called Yahoo! Slurp. Yahoo! Search combined the capabilities of search engine companies it had acquired, with its existing research, and put them into a single search engine. Its new search engine results were included in all of Yahoo!'s sites that had a web search function. It also started to sell its search engine results to other companies, to show on their web sites. Its relationship with Google was terminated at that time, with the former partners becoming each other's main competitors.


Which is also AltaVista, hence, Altavista is powered by Yahoo's engine. Source Avaible [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahoo!_Search]here[/url]. I would also like to point out that you did not specify I link to this PC World reference, and because of that I believe you're point is invalid (but either way it is, as it's part of Yahoo's engine, so you could say Yahoo is the most accurate keyword based search engine.
LukeakaDanish
thadnation wrote:
oh, somebody wants to get technical do they.

1. yes, it searches yahoo's collective database, as does all the web. that is because these companies are owned my one of yahoo's partners. HOWEVER, there limited database does not have anything to do with good search results; at least not much in this day & age.

2. according to PC Wold, both alta vista AND all the web are more accurate when used as keyword searches than google. the biggest is rarely the best.

your response?


Same as what garionw says - gimme proof.

Also, google is primarely a keyword search engine, and for that its best in the world. On top of that it also remembers what kind of stuff you like AND helps you with spelling - both excellent features that help me many times every single day.
thadnation
LukeakaDanish wrote:
thadnation wrote:
oh, somebody wants to get technical do they.

1. yes, it searches yahoo's collective database, as does all the web. that is because these companies are owned my one of yahoo's partners. HOWEVER, there limited database does not have anything to do with good search results; at least not much in this day & age.

2. according to PC Wold, both alta vista AND all the web are more accurate when used as keyword searches than google. the biggest is rarely the best.

your response?


Same as what garionw says - gimme proof.

Also, google is primarely a keyword search engine, and for that its best in the world. On top of that it also remembers what kind of stuff you like AND helps you with spelling - both excellent features that help me many times every single day.


sure, gimme a day to search through my mag collection ad ill find it. the thing you guys seem stuck on is the database thing. any search engine could theoretically have every site in its database, but without a good algorithm, it's useless. alta vista and all the web take advantage of yahoo's database and "maximize" it, for lack of a better term. keep in mind this is a text search comparison. google images is still king. google unfortunately can't search for sound/mp3s, which makes alta vista all the better. catch you l8er, gotta find my article.
thadnation
garionw wrote:
thadnation wrote:
oh, somebody wants to get technical do they.

1. yes, it searches yahoo's collective database, as does all the web. that is because these companies are owned my one of yahoo's partners. HOWEVER, there limited database does not have anything to do with good search results; at least not much in this day & age.

2. according to PC Wold, both alta vista AND all the web are more accurate when used as keyword searches than google. the biggest is rarely the best.

your response?


Without getting too offtopic, AltaVista was bought out by Overture, which Yahoo then bought. Yahoo then changed the search engine program of AltaVista to Yahoo's. See this for more infomation:

Quote:
In 2002, it bought Inktomi, a "behind the scenes" or OEM search engine provider, whose results are shown on other companies' web sites and powered Yahoo! in its earlier days. In 2003, it bought Overture Services, Inc., which owned the AlltheWeb and AltaVista search engines. Initially, even though it owned multiple search engines, it didn't use them on the main Yahoo.com web site, but kept using Google's search engine for its results.

Starting in 2003, Yahoo! Search became its own web crawler-based search engine, with a reinvented crawler called Yahoo! Slurp. Yahoo! Search combined the capabilities of search engine companies it had acquired, with its existing research, and put them into a single search engine. Its new search engine results were included in all of Yahoo!'s sites that had a web search function. It also started to sell its search engine results to other companies, to show on their web sites. Its relationship with Google was terminated at that time, with the former partners becoming each other's main competitors.


Which is also AltaVista, hence, Altavista is powered by Yahoo's engine. Source Avaible [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahoo!_Search]here[/url]. I would also like to point out that you did not specify I link to this PC World reference, and because of that I believe you're point is invalid (but either way it is, as it's part of Yahoo's engine, so you could say Yahoo is the most accurate keyword based search engine.


alright sir, here's the final word. in the jun 2007 issue of pc world on pages 86-92, there i a detailed comparison between six services: altavista, alltheweb, google, yahoo, ms live, and ask.com.

their test was as follows: points were awarded as the average of three rouns of testing. in round one, a point was given if a link had the required information or provided a link to the requested information; 3 points if the arget response was #1, 2 if #2 or 3, and one if it was at least on the first page.

their combined databases 9altavista, alltheweb and yahoo) is equal only to about 1/3 of google's(*)
however, "these two services apply their own algorithms."

in text-only searches, alltheweb was ranked best and altavista second, with google and yahoo tied in third.(yahoo ened up in fourth for a crappy layout or something) google lost by several points.

in web video searches, google video owned aol and all the competitors got served. they didn't test alta vista, or alltheweb, but i will and ill provide the details on my site.

in maps, google scored just below live. while live's actual maps are pitiful, their directions are the most descriptive and fast, i've tried them all.

finally, altavista and google had more or less the same scores for news results, with google winnign ONLY BECAUSE OF ITS LARGER DATABASE.

I also prefer altavista's translator to any other major service. hands down, altavista wins, with alltheweb in my top 5.
LukeakaDanish
Hm...those test don't seem to take into account googles ability to remember what the user likes. That's good algorithm writing in my opinion. Also, in my opinion, the tests (well at least the first one, as that's the one that's really interesting) aren't really all that realistic. They should try something like 100 keywords on each search engine, and see what comes up. Then figure out the average winner.

Google knows that I almost always click wikipedia links if they come up in search results...so by now wikipedia links is almost always the number 1 or 2 result for anything i search for. Wikipedia almost always has the required information in my opinion...so for me google wins almost every time Smile

Image/video/maps/translator search aren't really that interesting in my opinion. But yea, I agree babelfish is good (although google translator allows longer text strings which is quite nice at times).

You definitely have a point about algorithm being more important than database size - I just believe that the reason google is number one user wise...is because it gives you the best results...and that is mostly because of its excellent page rank/spell check/personalize algorithms Smile
thadnation
LukeakaDanish wrote:
Hm...those test don't seem to take into account googles ability to remember what the user likes. That's good algorithm writing in my opinion. Also, in my opinion, the tests (well at least the first one, as that's the one that's really interesting) aren't really all that realistic. They should try something like 100 keywords on each search engine, and see what comes up. Then figure out the average winner.

Google knows that I almost always click wikipedia links if they come up in search results...so by now wikipedia links is almost always the number 1 or 2 result for anything i search for. Wikipedia almost always has the required information in my opinion...so for me google wins almost every time Smile

Image/video/maps/translator search aren't really that interesting in my opinion. But yea, I agree babelfish is good (although google translator allows longer text strings which is quite nice at times).

You definitely have a point about algorithm being more important than database size - I just believe that the reason google is number one user wise...is because it gives you the best results...and that is mostly because of its excellent page rank/spell check/personalize algorithms Smile


i'll take clicking on a link a bit further down the page if it means not giving my personal info to google. also the page rank (in my experience) is flawed and often inaccurate, plus it's based on popularity, and while wikipedia is a great source, I still trust infoplease more. the google translator i have found is less accurate (for spanish) than bablefish. finally, I have never seen a spellcheck feature. unless you mean the suggestions, which all searches have. as for the l;imited testing, ill be happy to do a more detailed evaluation.
garionw
anyway, I think we can sum up our discussion by asking that the TOS be ammended to stop users from saying "search for it", in help and support forums.

But, if that is all a post has said, wouldn't it make it a spam post?
Related topics
TOS is currently down
Términos del Servicio (TOS) de Frihost
Different web hosts, same TOS
An idea to stop people NOT reading TOS.
Just some suggestions for the TOS
Simpsons better known than First Ammendment
Directly related to Bondings.Requesting against TOS actions.
What counts as "any type of IRC"? - TOS question
TOS Question
Question: TOS vs MP3.. clarify please...
Isn't advertising Web Hosting Against the TOS?
A question about the TOS
Will I break the TOS if I...?
TOS changes
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> General -> Suggestions

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.