Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
25 Things I Hate About Google
blog.searchenginewatch.com — I don't but this guy does. Originally, this user's list was to be called "100 Things I Hate About Google." Interesting read.
digitalgopher- 733 diggs
- digg it
- kingkong118, on 10/12/2007, -10/+31I have to admit, as much as i like Google, that article has a fair few true points to it.
- digitalgopher, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3pksynths: good point. my bad on that.
- jonnyeh, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5I agree the most strongly with the gmail 'From:' field complaint
- xLiKx, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3i agree, some stuff he mentions is true. not a bad list
- matrixxx1, on 10/12/2007, -33/+3725 reasons why the author of the blog is an idiot...
1. your an idiot, you obviusly have NO idea how search engines work... try quoting your search terms.... idiot
2.Your an idiot, try using + and - in your searches..
3. So innovation testing is bad? Yes you are right... who needs a gas engine, when a horse n buggy work just fine!
4. Your an idiot, related searches would be a bad idea.... a lot of people use google to search stuff like SS numbers, names, address's, etc.... privacy issues would have google shut down in an hour.
5. your an idiot... thats why every web browser has a 'favorites' option... personally I FAR prefer a simple interface as they home page. fast loading, and low bandwidth.
6. Yes your sooooo right, everyone one of us speaks every language known in the world, and therefore should have universal search results.
7. google api, idiot... they ahve that feature.
8. WTF are u yappin bout?
9. Your an idiot... cached pages are great, because if i run a search for example "Sugar gliders in NV" and i see 15 pages of results. Theres a pretty good chacne that half the results wont be available anymore. due to server downtime, deletion, moving sites, etc.... by clicking 'cached link' i can clearly see exactly what I was looking for.
10. Your an idiot... all the tools and info you need are readily available on the site. perfect example... google sitemap
11. Google recieves BILLIONS of search hits per month... do you really wanna invest your time picking 12 million search terms? or jsut a few categories?
12. Pay per click is flawed in general, its nearly impossible to prove/disprove... you can only assume. I sure would loooove to see you even attempt to do any better.
13. Just because its confusing to you, doesnt mean anything but the fact that your an idiot.
14. arent you just as guilty with your diareah of the fingers typing away at this blog?
15. people that make crap sites, get crap hits.... its that simple.... if you tricked a user into going to your crap site, they wont click, and therefore u wont get paid.... if you have a real site.. for esxample a pet site, and ads for pet supplies popped up, and you have not pissed off your visitor yet... they are likely to click, and maybe even buy.
16. Go after myspace.com first, and then nearly any free site for people... they are all full of crap.... when there are idiots like you on the net... then of coarse, there will be crap... just look at your blog!
17. so your complaining that google is helping you to find PEOPLE that steal content (and based on your wirrttings, i cant possibly see a reason to steal YOUR content...) ?? Without google.. would you ever find that bad content?
18. again, your an idiot... learn how to configure things properly... replytoaddress buddy...
19. Labels, and filters.. learn them, use them... love them.
20. refer to the previuse one idiot.... there ARE fitlers... you just dont know how to use them.
21. google sitemap, try it out
22. I would love to see you setup a server that can handle billions of hits as quickly as they do, no matter what they release it gets overwhelmed, because they make good products.
23. So your saying google should be like every other company out there and rape its customers, just for the sake of charging them??
24. So blame google for the greeding recording people? k gotchta...
25. theres is better than 'im an idiot... let me post my comments on blogs everywhere'
Over all... i would say 99% of your issues with google is cause your an idiot, and didnt take the time to learn to use anything properly. - lerch, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7jkfan87, I feel Matrix is right...
This guy is just ranting because he cant fix a simple problem. Really, there is a way to fix every single thing on his list. - matrixxx1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4jkfan87:: the reason this guy 'ircked' me isnt cause im a google supporter, or anything like that. I get ircked by people that bitch and moan about non-existant problems. He is arrogantly screaming how bad something is, without even attempting to fix the issues, or exploring them. Yeah, granted... I could have worded my post better, hell, maybe even ran spell check... lol... But he is being a complete idiot and screaming to the world about his issues, when all he has to do is spend 10 seconds reading a help file or faq, and 24 out of 25 of his 'problems' would be solved.
- prh99, on 10/12/2007, -38/+26Another idiot with an axe to grind. With such short blurbs on each topic he can't possible expect to justice to the issue. For example, his complaint about Blogger and copyright infringement. Copyright law guarantees a certain amount of protection for works, there is no requirement that it takes less than 5 minutes to protect such works. I suspect if Google followed through with his suggest they'd have people abusing it even more than they already do. The reason they run for cover of the DMCA provision is because if someone makes a false claim, Google at least has some protection from liability under the DMCA. Of course no one would ever abuse the law to try and silence legit critics. *sarcasm Lists like this are prone to over simplification and often ignore possible and legit reasons for doing things a certain way.
I've read these guys stuff before and I just don't have a lot of respect for them.- pokercamgirl, on 10/12/2007, -20/+25Agreed. The blurbs are so short, there's barely any justification for him publishing that. Also, I find a few of his points to be completely made up or blown out of proportion.
- digitalgopher, on 10/12/2007, -6/+13so you discount this story because it has short blurbs? he made several VALID points in a succinct way. He's not bashing google, just pointing out a few issues.
- pksynths, on 10/12/2007, -4/+26You should look up who the author of the article is and than let's see if you can call him an idiot. Danny Sullivan is probably the most influential person in search engine marketing today and knows the ins and outs of almost all things related to search engines.
If you actually heard one of his lectures you'd understand the "sarcasm" in the article and the articles are short because they tend to be discussed in more detail in the forums.
And if you think he has an axe to grind why don't you look at his "25 Things He Loves about Google" (http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/060313-161501)
I'd wish the person that submitted this article would have also included the other part of it instead of making this a one sided battle. - MaxD, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8@pksynths
If he's influential in search engines, then why doesn't he have a FREAKIN' Clue. I mean seriously I lost _ALL_ respect for his opinion in his first gripe. He has NO CLUE whatsoever what he is talking about. Allow me to demonstrate:
Search on google for: Mars Landing Site - returns about 7,510,000 Sites, matching sites that contain the words Mars OR Landing OR Site with sites that have Mars AND Landing AND Site ranked higher.
Search on google for: Mars Landing Site Earth - returns about 13,900,000 Sites, matching sites that contain the words Mars OR Landing OR Site OR Earth with site that have Mars AND Landing AND Site And Earth ranked higher... I may be missing something here, but isn't the second search a subset of the first search?! Moron.
What I think he MEANT to say was:
Search on google for: "Mars Landing Site" - returns about 987 Sites, matching sites that contain the PHRASE "Mars Landing Site" as opposed to searching for
"Mars Landing Site" + Earth - which returns about 660 Sites, matching sites that contain the phrase "Mars Landing Site" AND the word Earth. Which _IS_ a subset of the first query and does give less results.
OH MY DEITY OF CHOICE! Google actually works like it says it does?
Oh, and google is irritating because it allows people to put pointless junk on the web? He's living proof that you don't need google to be able to do that.
Sheeesh.
- rm999, on 10/12/2007, -14/+27-Web search counts that make no sense - honestly, who cares?
-RSS feed for web search - useless
-Give us paid web search support - evil
-Let Gmail have customized blacklists - use filters
-Stop opening products to everyone, then getting overwhelmed - what's the point of offering a service if you only let some people use it? They already use invitations to slow the growth down a little. And how do you determine who can use it?
-Charge for things - stfu
My main complaint about google is they way they keep things in beta (ever used yahoo or msn local/maps? they are better than google local/maps now.) My other major complaint is that IMO they haven't come out with a really great product in a long time. gMail is the last thing they came out with that excited me. Everything else that I have seen them release in the last two years is crap.
Also, is it just me, or have their search results gotten worse in the last few years? Any time I search for a commercial computer product I get 5 pages of price aggregation websites and stores before I get the manufacturer's website.- northLite, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1yeah most of the stuff is pretty petty. I mean it would be good for google to tweak stuff a little bit according to his points but I probably wouldn't even notice if they did anyway. In fact I think the vast majority of people would see no noticable changes.
- automagically, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I hate getting fake results. Those keyword whoring sites that appear on the first page of results. Kinda like the ones domain registrars set up for you until you change the host. Like a full page listing of ads that are related to what you searched for. For example. Search for "osmap". The .com result is a fake one with nothing but ads. Thieves.
- bbqribs, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1yeah, web searches are becoming useless because assholes are turning the internet into a big ***** strip mall. To get useful results, you have to add -buy -sale and a whole bunch of other stuff.
- dannysullivan, on 10/12/2007, -9/+40Hey prh99, the short blurbs lead back to much longer discussions. Read those discussions, some of them going in to great depth, then decide if you still think I'm such an idiot.
These points don't come out of a vacuum. They come from having watched Google and reported on some of these issues for years. I can share your frustration with short bullet point complaints. That exactly why I backed up many of these with longer explanations.
I certainly don't have an axe to grind. If you really had read "these guys stuff before," you'd know that. I'm one of Google's biggest defenders on issues where I think they are in the right. That's also why I did the corresponding 25 things I love piece that went with this (and was linked from it).
Copyright law does not require Google to follow any DMCA complaint they get. Go back and read carefully what I wrote. Many of the copyright infringements on Blogger are self-evident. You can look at a site and see that it is crap, just pulling the work from many sources. Google could decide itself that such actions are a violation of its own terms and conditions (as I explained). Google is not required to publish anything. But the DMCA route could also remain for cases where the initial terms and condition review decided against removing material.
RM999, as for counts, who cares. Sure. If no one cares, stop reporting them. I'm simply sick of having to explain to people why the counts don't add up. I've had to do that for years. You do that for years, it would be one of your pet hates, too :)
Use filters for Gmail? Again, if you'd read what I posted (the extended material -- that's I put in the time for the links), you CANNOT use filters to setup blacklists if you POP download. I do. Many other do. But you have no ability to filter if you do so.
I actually almost added the endless beta as another point, but I've covered that in depth in the past, and they're actually getting better at it.
As for your search results getting worse, part of that is due to bad clustering which was on the list.
In the end, these are MY 25 pet hates. Doesn't mean I hate all of Google. I made a point of saying that from the very beginning, as well as the fact that I don't expect everyone to agree with them. But many of them were indeed documented in depth for anyone who wanted to read up on the issues more.- digitalgopher, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3nice! good of you to comment bro.
- xLiKx, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4straight from the horse's mouth, very cool :)
- snowballs, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Make that 26,
When you type "25 Things I Hate About Google Sullivan" (no quotes) into Google, your blog post doesn't show up. Only the one about censorship in China. - matrixxx1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Seriusly Danny, look up google help.. and for the love of christ... GET OFF AOL!!! its not a real isp!!!
- rm999, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1In all fairness, they say there are "about" 100,000,000 results. Of course, this doesn't mean much when there are actually 1000. I guess their search is still sort of in beta.
Sorry I didn't see the link where you further explained the black lists - I still haven't, but it's not possible to delete from the server and refuse a download? I agree a blacklist would be easier in any case. This again goes back to my main complaint - google's habit of never really totally finishing a product. None of their products are, IMO, at the point where they can't be improved (but search is the only thing they consitently work on). I see their competitors copying and then improving all the products google offers, and I wonder how long google can stay #1. All we need is a single competitor to come out with a single improvement that google does not have and creates buzz, and google still start losing market share for the first time in their existence. That could very well be a breaking point if this competitor does it right. I'm frankly waiting for the day because I think Google has gotten stale and bloated.
- rustybrick, on 10/12/2007, -9/+14You guys have no clue what you are saying.
(1) These are his personal thoughts.
(2) He has more experience with search then anyone living today. Look up the name Danny Sullivan before you comment.- tetro, on 10/12/2007, -7/+11Just because he has as good background in web searching, it doesn't mean he can't have unpopular opinions.
- zimm, on 10/12/2007, -12/+19Solution to all 25 "problems".
Dont use google.- scotty2012, on 10/12/2007, -11/+4exactly.
- Tommstein, on 10/12/2007, -8/+6Don't have to tell me twice. I've been using Yahoo for a while now, due to Google's lack of Linux support.
- mdshort, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Um, Lack of linux support? What planet are you from?
- Tommstein, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Um, the one where they don't release Linux versions of any of their programs or an email service that supports Konqueror (despite supporting the KHTML-based piece of faggotry known as Safari), despite billions sitting in the bank due to Linux? Are those things available on your planet? Maybe I should move there.
- jboi, on 10/12/2007, -8/+8Don't know if this is really the homepage of the CEO of google
http://ericschmidt.com/
If it is why on earth is he using yahoo for his mail? Scared of spam? :P- fitzdingus, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15you...must be retarded....
I'm so sorry.
- fitzdingus, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15you...must be retarded....
- hankyone, on 10/12/2007, -10/+1i will make my list too, 1,000,000,000 things i like about google
- pksynths, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11This isn't the complete article. "25 Things I Love about Google" should have also been submitted to Digg.
http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/060313-161501 - marcopon, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2No wait for someone to post a 25 Things I Love list! It's "par condicio" time!
- Kazrog, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8Google is messing up lately. They need this kind of criticism. I wish them the best, but they seem more like Microsoft than Apple to me in terms of their actions as of late.
- jonnyeh, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4For example...
- Tommstein, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1There's a difference between Microsoft and Apple, other than the relatively unused one wishing to be the other so that they can play dictator?
- volatilegx, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Well written and insightful, as usual, Danny.
Critics of this piece should understand that Danny is well respected in the search industry and his articles are taken seriously by SEOs and major search engines. - DisposableRob, on 10/12/2007, -2/+226. Fix Google News' Personalized Page. Clicking on News from the IG page brings me to the Standard news page, with a recommended feed, yet it says that it is the Personalized Feed. Clicking on Standard News from there brings me to the Standard News page with no Recommended feed. Clicking on Personalized News FINALLY brings me to my Personalized News page.
- SvMidtown, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1I personally love google, read it and i still love google. He def has some valid points, but the reasons i love google are that it is free and that it does do everything. I understand that it has its flaws and everything is in infinite beta, but i'd love to see them do even more. Yeah they have a few problems they need to fix, but all and all I
- Rice, on 10/12/2007, -11/+5Most of those points are crap, haha.
- Atomic1fire, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1crap the guy knows what hes talking about so before you say its crap look at his background
- fugazi, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5Did anyone bother to read this. For one his first complaint about Mars landing sites and mars landing sites earth. Hello it searches for the words and phrases. If you wanted the phrase specifically why didn't he put quotes around his search?
- LKBM, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1You misunderstand. He's saying a search for pages that include the terms 'mars' and 'landing' and 'sites' has FEWER results than a search for pages that include the terms 'mars' and 'landing' and 'sites' AND 'earth'. This makes no sense as any page that belongs in the second set of results obviously belogns in the first set as well. He knows it's not searching for phrases. That doesn't matter. Google does AND by default, not OR.
- brhad56, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1FTFA- "Meanwhile, [mars landing sites] gives 1,050,000 matches while [mars landing sites earth] gives nearly double that amount, 1,840,000 listings. It shouldn't. "
If it does an AND on each term, the subset should be smaller. It's obviously doing an OR in there somewhere though.
- briando, on 10/12/2007, -8/+7this guy's article if just for the sack of whining
- esen, on 10/12/2007, -15/+1This guy is dumb. I couldn't even read it till the end, because I became so nervous reading this nonsense.
- babelfishi, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2How do you get nervous reading that?
- obppr, on 10/12/2007, -12/+3What a load of crap.
-Jason
http://www.myspacegrill.com - sid333, on 10/12/2007, -11/+1I hate google too. Google Sucks!!
- meechp123, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2great points, great article.
- scotus, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8good for him being well-respected. i still think he's wrong on a lot of stuff, and he sounds like a litigious copyright maximalist that doesn't get the internet.
opt-in for caching? That is total crap. Caching is a great service to users and promotes the free flow of information. you can opt-out or you can deal. the internet has evolved its own norms that work pretty well. don't break the internet because you are greedy.
stop giving away blogger for free? cry more noob. splogs are a problem, but people are always going to find ways to do bad things with new technology. free blogger also enables a lot more people to blog and participate in the community. i'll take more speech over less speech any day.
act faster on copyright infringement? You already have the DMCA, which is a damn powerful piece of legislation that gives copyright holders a lot more power than i think they deserve. if you don't have time to fill out a DMCA takedown then your content must not be worth protecting. It really shouldn't be google's job to do your policing, and everyone elses. that's why we have laws, not vigilante justice. again, i'd rather err on the side of more speech than less speech.
charge for things? oh noes, google is actually giving users things they want with a different business model that is upsetting the traditional command and control concepts of yesterday. consumers like free stuff, and it's up to them whether to accept less support for free services. there are plenty of players competing with google, and when google stumbles there will be people to take advantage.
while some of his comments are reasonable, most seem like sour grapes that google helps people get the most out of the power of the internet, while he'd like a nice, tidy, boring controlled, monetized internet where you are charged for everything and content is locked-down.- citizensagainst, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2I agree with you. I gasped at some of the things he wrote because yes, he seems to desire a boring, controlled internet locked down by himself. So paid-for blogs are the only good ones? Should digg charge its members?
I do agree that Google will have to start charging, but more from a revenue/business standpoint, not to weed out trolls or spammers. Those will always be around--that's the nature of the freedom of the internet. And if he's so pissed about people "stealing" his content, ensure they are punished accordingly, not whine about it to Google about Blogger (which never should have been voted as the best blogging app by the Bloggie awards--it's awful). I better never hear him whine about DRM for music or anything the EFF would defend.
And what are all these different UIs he's talking about?? Google equals blue and white, across the board.
I do agree with a lot of things he says (Google should focus more, easier access to all Google tools, letting advertisers pick and choose...) but most of it will be proven wrong within a year I bet.
- citizensagainst, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2I agree with you. I gasped at some of the things he wrote because yes, he seems to desire a boring, controlled internet locked down by himself. So paid-for blogs are the only good ones? Should digg charge its members?
- mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -9/+8haha.. he wanted to have 100 complaints but could only think of a quarter of that.. and they are all lame.
- beezn, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4anyone else notice that "add to GOOGLE" button right next to #4?
- haochi, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2Don't Hate...My school's slogan.
Don't Hate, NV! (No Violence) - clickwir, on 10/12/2007, -7/+6I'm going to have to pretty much disagree with everything he says. Sounds like a Grade A moron. If he's so smart why doesn't he go try starting up his own company to compete with Google. Watch it fail cause his ideal sucks and then take it like the big boot up his ass that it is.
- shockingbird, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8Articles like this are great because it's pointing out some shortcomings of something that's growing bigger every day. If they're ignored, they'll grow as well. Good list Danny and very cool of you to post here.
In Danny's list of things he likes about Google is number 10:Giving things away for free
Picasa. Such a great image sorting and editing piece of software. It's really fast too. Photoshop's built-in photo thingy is slow and cumbersome. - capellathestar, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5Quick, someone call the wambulance for the dude!
- brandonhines, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3He brings up some valid points, yet some of them just seem like he's reaching for 25 reasons. Still a good read overall.
- Soccrmastr, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Google is drifting to a next-gen Microsoft. They better realize their faults now.
- Tommstein, on 10/12/2007, -7/+0Wow, what a dumbass. 25 things wrong with Google, and not a single mention of how they've made billions and billions on the work of Linux and yet won't spend 0.00001 billion supporting Linux users, from not porting any of their programs to Linux to not supporting Konqueror or any other Linux-only browser in Gmail and so forth. Yet they're all up Macintosh users' asses, despite them being behind Linux in desktop market share for years now. So in summary, what I'm saying is, ***** Google.
- brutalentropy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Please keep in mind i use Linux (at home and work), XP (at home and work), and OS X (at home).
Do you have a link to back up the claim you make that Linux has more desktop market share than OS X?
Because I really don't believe it. It may be true, and if you could provide a link from a reasonably valid source I'd be appreciative. - Tommstein, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0There's these, for example (yes, the first three are basically summaries of the same now-inaccessible Yahoo story; the fourth is a completely independent report):
http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=6013
http://blogs.zdnet.com/ITFacts/index.php?id=P723
http://www.neowin.net/index.php?act=view&id=17554
http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/35688.html
Many more could be found. Keep in mind that market share doesn't even include all the installations that were downloaded for free (like mine and those of everyone else I know that uses Linux, for instance), which probably outnumber the shipped installations by an enormous margin, so even these sales-/market share-based estimates were lowballing Linux big time. There are more people that pay for Linux than pay for Apple *****, and that is only a small subset of Linux use. I know, not the kind of news our local Apple asslickers want to hear, but you know what they say about Apple *****: "they're gay morons."
- brutalentropy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Please keep in mind i use Linux (at home and work), XP (at home and work), and OS X (at home).
- eppitek, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Personally, I don't agree with him. Everyone has their own opinions and that is fine but I believe their mission has been successful thusfar. The author complains that google does not charge for their stuff or that they are branching in too many directions. I like the innovation and freedom that google provides. The 20% rule is a great part of their company that has led to many useful things such as gmail. Hey, it's exactly what this author is complaining about that led to things like gmail. And regarding pay: They know what they are doing. Maybe some people don't like ads but I personally don't mind them. They are not intrusive especially when compared with other services and they don't even include an ad on the bottom of emails sent through gmail (like yahoo does).
But either way, this is my opinion and the author has his (I just don't agree with it for the most part). - thespace, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1CRACK
- CaughtThinking, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Finally. All the stuff I've been yelling about for while now. I love how a site I know to have 10K pages comes up as 420K.
- manonmars, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5Now here is my version of 25 things I hate about google.
1-25) I just wanted your attention cause everyone looks for "bashing google" article.- Darkone253, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Thank you.
- EiderDuck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Do you even have a clue? Have you actually done a search and then added another term so you'd get MORE results? Of course not. You added another term to whittle down the results.
- Habemus, on 10/12/2007, -7/+7This is dumb. If "Danny Sullivan is probably the most influential person in search engine marketing today and knows the ins and outs of almost all things related to search engines" then search engine marketing is full of people who don't know squat about search engines.
Look at the first complaint: "Meanwhile, [mars landing sites] gives 1,050,000 matches while [mars landing sites earth] gives nearly double that amount, 1,840,000 listings. It shouldn't. Adding that extra word should give you a subset of the original query. It should come back with less results, not more." He's clueless about just what he is doing. When he inputs [mars landing sites] he is actually inputting [mars OR landing OR sites]. Adding [earth] to that only increases the number of hits as he is now requesting all of those as OR terms and then is adding another OR term [OR earth]. If he really wanted to test his theory out properly he should have input [+mars +landing +sites] which is like saying [mars AND landing AND sites]. The example [mars landing sites] returns 3 million hits (operating as an OR search remember) and adding [OR earth] returns 7 million hits. Doing it properly with the + marks like this [+mars +landing +sites] returns 3 million hits (operating as an AND search) and adding the [+earth] search term reduces that to 2 million hits just like it is supposed to and just like he says it doesn't (quote: "Adding that extra word should give you a subset of the original"). It does. He's clueless -- and yet he's supposed to be the expert not me here in my pajamas.
And this is just his FIRST complaint. I didn't even look at the others.- crash331, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4That is exactly what I was going to point out. Seems like a grade-A dumbass to me.
- DaveMN, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Umm, no. Google ANDs terms together by default:
http://www.google.com/help/basics.html#and - LKBM, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Google does AND, not OR. Try it: http://www.google.com/search?q=google%20and%20microsoft
- milenko, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0............
- maddog, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Google cache, has saved over 3000 hrs of work.
so when he says "Stop caching pages",
he doesn't know what he's talking about.
It is a lifesaver for some people. - conorryan, on 10/12/2007, -8/+5Sounds like the guy that wrote it is the same guy that got his Gmail Account deleted the other day
- spacebar14, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4LOLLLL
- redtetrahedron, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Regarding his points about the number of results returned depending on location, what is needed is to make sure you have all results limiting preferences turned off. When I set Google to return results in any language, with safe search turned off and personalized results turned off, I get 25,270,000,000 hits for * * at www.google.com and for www.google.co.uk.
- redtetrahedron, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1This was meant to refer to the scobleizer blog linked from his article...
- vanik, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4how about gmail's uptime? (which as i write this, the server is down.. grr)
that's my major gripe- spacebar14, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2ya its down now :(
first i've ever seen that and i've been using them for months.
- spacebar14, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2ya its down now :(
- black|math, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5 There are plenty of great reasons to complain about google. This seems like a very finicky list, most of these are unimportant and just plain demanding.
- macewan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2In one window I'mv reading this article, in another I'm placing this comment and in another I'm greated with the following while trying to check my gmail:
Server Error
Gmail is temporarily unavailable. Cross your fingers and try again in a few minutes. We're sorry for the inconvenience.- Darkone253, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0You know, I have never ever had Gmail be down to me. I check my mail at least twice a day, once in the morning and once in the evening. Maybe get Thunderbird?
- babelfishi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2You know what's funny? On the left bar, there is a lovely bar that saids "Add to Google".
- LKBM, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0People need to learn the difference between 'Here's a list of things they should fix' and 'I hate them in every way possible!' He also wrote '25 Things I Hate About Google': http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/060313-161501
- wmtrader, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Great!
An open honest review of Goggle on Digg!
Finally someone says it like it is.
The Goggle glow is finally fading, people are starting to look at Google more objectively, and Digg’s Goggle Fan Boys are up in arms.
Bring more objective reviews of Google and Apple to Digg. - bpinard, on 10/12/2007, -0/+49. Stop caching pages: I was all for opt-out with cached pages until a court gave you far more right to reprint anything than anyone could have expected. Now you've got to make it opt-in. You helped create the caching mess by just assuming it was legal to reprint web pages online without asking, using opt-out as your cover. Now you've had that backed up legally, but that doesn't make it less evil.
---robots.txt, anyone?- LKBM, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Good point (re: robots.txt), but a way to say 'index but don't cache' seems like a reasonable option to offer.
- ekso, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3yeah, from being a "search engine guru" this guy is pretty dumb. robots.txt is quite basic search engine lore.
- jsnelgrove, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Sometimes you want a page indexed, but not cached. Sure, there might not be many times you want this, but there certainly are a few.
- count_z, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0There are a lot of times that you'd want for a page to be indexed but not cached. If you have subscriber content that you want indexed you might allow the googlebot access to your subscription section so that it's indexed (i.e. people know that you have the information that they want), but not cached so that you don't need to subscribe to get said information.
Maybe before calling people dumbasses some people ought to try to thinking a little harder (or at all). You might not understand someone's argument (at least not immediately), but that doesn't mean that their argument is dumb.
- Darkone253, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Personally, I think some of his points can be stretched to the point of actually being good, but other than that it's just alot of complaining.
- dudme, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2A word springs to mind; trolling. Then another one; unprofessional. And; slander....
Oh well, there are many more words, but you get the idea.- dannysullivan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0How about these words:
"If it helps, I've been pinging people about several of these. It actually helps to have some of these thoughts called out by someone else so that I can point to it."
That's GoogleGuy, a well-known Google employee commenting on the list here, http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showpost.php?p=76152&postcount=4
- dannysullivan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0How about these words:
- everfalling, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0is this link not working for anyone else?
- Emperor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4His points are terrible. Just Bad. Like yes, it is a negative review; except it comes from such a slanted angle. Most of the "reasons" involve solutions worse than the answers.
The one I particularly hated was the enitre Mars landing bit where the addition of "earth" created more such results.
This makes complete sense if you think about what Google is about, and the reasons they have been successful. They give you what you were actually looking for rather than what the words dictate. If for instance, people were searching for mars landing earth; and the most people really wanted a site where the best search parameters were mars earth. Then the best results aren't exclusive but inclusive is an idea that uses extra information to make a better search which cannot be a bad thing. It should make sense why a larger set of hits were found. Also arguments like charge for their software due to a lack of support is simply a bussiness decision. They think it is in their best interest to not charge; rely on popularity and advertising to try and squash the competition. They have succeeded in making many great products which have stole massive amounts of bussiness from "pay" sites which now have increased their offerings to try to compete with Googles. If that isn't capitalism and increase of return on technology I've never seen it. It has created better products from people who will service their customers.
May the best Idea win. If Google does in fact need to change, they will. They have proven to live on the cusp of customer feedback and its correlation to their services. I have no doubt that if it comes to the point where they have to change because their services are prooving unprofitable then they will change.
Most of the reasons listed; are in my opinion a reason to love Google. Sure, the guy who lost his gmail account is pissed, but seriously, they don't make any strange claims on their software, just provide great services. Custom service in ideas, not relationships is their game. Let them see if it works. - noelsusman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6"Charge for things!"
Why? I would rather have to look at a few text ads that can actually be relevant sometimes than pay for some of the amazing services that google offers.
This guy does not back anything up and most of his gripes are just lame and dumb. I have to agree with him on a few things though. Google is getting in way over their head. They don't seem to have any organization or plan. They just keep releasing half ass attempts at random crap. It never seems like they put all of their resources into one thing and bring a well developed, usable service. The last time they did that was with gmail, and it turned out to be one of the best (if not THE best) email services of all time. Ever since then it seems like they assign a few guys to a billion different projects and they figure "hey it might work, but it might not. Who cares?" That is going to be the downfall of google. They need to slow down and actually put all of their resources into one quality project- DeadlyHunter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2True, three words => Firefox, Adblock, Customizegoogle
-
Show 51 - 87 of 87 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by