Thanks for the notes. I’m not sure what you refer to in the “q=?” syntax; http://google.com/q=something doesn’t seem to work. http://look.fo/something does. I guess you could type http://www.goog...rch?q=something, but this is a bit lengthier.

I could (and have been) using look.fo in IM conversations when telling friends to http://look.fo/...i-proxy-servers, for example, when asked a question about proxy servers, to avoid having to go find a link myself. I don’t imagine I would have written http://www.goog...i+proxy+servers; this is somewhat more tedious; at that point, I’d be better of telling someone to google the term or just googling it and sending someone the link.

I’m also not sure what you mean by ‘adds a step’ – look.fo is generated ‘on the fly’ – that is, you don’t need to go to the site to create a link on look.fo/your-search-term – just write it into IM/Twitter and it links directly.

Also, please elaborate on well-regarded with reference to the google link. look.fo uses Google Co-op CSE to generate search results.

My feeling is look.fo is best suited for people who use IM/twitter and send links often enough such that the time saved by creating on-the-fly look.fo links is worthwhile.

If you used tinyurl, you’ll actually have to go to their site as it assigns you a random string and you have no way to know

Seriously, you have to reply to the comments here in this thread. How is this ANY better than using q=?

-It’s not shorter
-It’s not easier
-It doesn’t take out a step, it adds one.

I’d even argue it’s much worse to send folks to look.fo rather than just provide a well-regarded google link.

Maybe you didn’t know you could do this with google? I’d say fess up or explain why we commenters just don’t get it.

Seriously, how it this newsworthy? With TC50 having just ended, one would think you would have a lot of QUALITY material to cover, no?