there is no more level playing field – want a great search engine – bring back Yahoo or Altavista or any other major player before there was PR AND ADD a “BAD RESULT” link Next To Each Result – When 20% click it – the spam is DEAD

all the results are from high pr or trusted (what a joke) sites – real time search – what the heck it that – the same results from 1000 different blogs and link sites like twittless and stumbleover

google will kill itself – virtualy all it’s advertisers are “trusted sites” – all are networked with many other sites in the same category (usually all owned by the same person (or business) – in any other industry except search this would be conflict of interest – anyway now usually only one or two at most paid results show up at top off google – these paid results virtually all already have pr and rank in google organically – so why buy advertising – simply – dogpile and others show more paid links from google and people click them – There basicaly are no more search engines – all there is is google and it’s affiliates – Bing bought Yahoo so there goes Yahoo – ask ect – DMOZ never updates

what will the Google Killer do – Rank websites – real websites with the content on the domain – make offlinks IRREVELANT – Inbound links MORE IRREVELANT – if more than 20% of uniq ip surfers after say 200 hits click “link is bad result” kill the domain – For Good

a good example of a huge site with all content on domain and no traffic – http://celebsfamous.com – this is a nude celebs site – and it’s mine – probably people will say this is spam and remove it or possibly not – anyway I can’t pay webhosting so the site will be gone soon anyway – but if you want an example of search engine failure this is it

nude celebs is one of the most popular search terms – just Google it and compare what comes up with mine – comapre the content and lack of – compare the blind links and lack of – compare what is being advertised – (a lot of adult sites are riping people off really bad)

anyway do this and you will see that my site has all the content on the domain – it’s really free – there are no blind links and no lies

am I implying the other sites lie – No I saying it outright

search is supposed to provide good results to the surfers – not spam for seo guys

I hate Google

You are right. Google is managing to stay on top by innovating AND by copying what smaller engines do. I won’t be surprised if Sergey’s recently-assembled team of engineers and execs tries to copy the innovations in Bing — yes, they are innovations. There are things that I can do on Bing that I’ve never been able to do on Google.
Also, is Google Wave an innovation? Certainly over regular email.

Mike, startups need to hire PhD guys who can invent original idea/s that has/have never been done before. That’s how game changer started (Brin & Page anyone?). Well, Facebook is no a game changer (technologically) in a sense of what game changer is, but I think it is a good application to develop, since millions of users want it. One can say that McDonald restaurant is a game changer (in the sense that it has millions of diners want to go there), but not necessary a revolutionary idea.

I see lots of startups that you frequently covered here at TC, which are actually not really revolutionary in a sense of my McDonald example (ie, lots of people want to use those apps, but not really new thing at all or otherwise we should call McDonald a cutting-edge company simply because there are millions choose to buy their products). When I read a startup coverage here at TC, I can immediately think of what’s behind the application (algorithms/technology-wise), even if I am not correct in my assumption/s,I am pretty much sure that the techniques that I think of (based on what I have seen in the computing literatures) are applicable or can be superior to the technology behind those startups. I take my hat off to startup founders, but my point here is that to be competitive in a crowded software market of today, you need people with brains (not necessarily the founders themselves but founders need to hire those brains), because they’re the potential for game changer. Ok, fine you need hackers as Paul Graham advocates for, but mind you that hackers don’t invent anything original in the context that something that scientists around the world have never thought of). Here is a quote from the Head of Computer Science Department at University of Auckland , New Zealand which I have cut & pasted from our local newspaper:

Prof. John Hosking quote:
———————
John Hosking, professor of applied computer science at the university and a driving forces behind Extenda, says one problem is that senior
technology staff in New Zealand businesses tend not to have post-graduate or often even degree qualifications. As a result, the companies they work for, while often successful at selling a single
idea, can struggle when it comes to continuing to grow through innovation.

“We’d like to open their eyes to what research can do to make companies grow quicker. Obviously we’d be interested in helping them do that
research – we’re quite open about that – but the name of the game is to raise a research culture within their companies, and allow them to grow
quicker, be more innovative and avoid this one-product wonder trap that
they get into.”

And this is fact. You can develop something that has never been available before (perhaps like Youtube, Twitter, etc,…) but they’re not going to survive long term in terms of innovations & competitiveness, which is exactly what Prof. Hosking meant in his comment. If you want to question what do I mean about that, then you should immediately think about Microsoft, IBM, Oracle, Google (still a young company but with continual innovations) and many other high tech companies, etc. They have been there for many decades and why they are still here? Think about it. The core mentality in those software titans is recruiting people with brains. The brains are the engine that keeps these companies competitive in the long run, since they’re not in the one-product wonder trap as Prof. Hosking mentioned.

I think that startups and whoever their financial backers are, should be encouraged to link up with various University R&D groups, just so that they know what is revolutionary in terms of cutting-edge technology. Why I encourage this. I do encourage startup founders should do this, since you can work on something you thought its revolutionary, but actually the founders don’t know that there is a better way (or more efficient or accurate) of doing it. They also don’t know that these methods have already been researched & published which eluded them, since they are not research-oriented types of people. WHY is it necessary? Because, a startup can develop something and achieve a market dominance immediately, but that is not a sure guarantee that this dominance will prolong. If you want example from a coverage here at TC lately? Yes, you covered Siri recently and from what I have seen in research publications, Siri is doing something that I have only seen in research only but not commercial. They (Siri) is a potential game changer and they’re different from other similar startups that you have covered here at TC. The other startups in the same domain as Siri (to the best of my understanding) are like the one that Prof. Hosking described in his comment, ie,

Although they [the technology managers] are bright and innovative, they haven’t been exposed to research methods as you would through doing a masters or PhD,

So, in my opinion , startup founders should be encouraged to seek help from the research communities early on, because they may be developing something they think its original but unbeknown to them that researchers have already been done on such techniques/methods and made available publicly in research journals that potentially anyone could stumble upon those concepts/technologies and develop them into a competing commercial applications that may have the capability to kill those startups.

Getting PhDs in the first place (or consult with those who are doing original researches at various tertiary institutions) is a potential winner. This is how the big software titans survive in the long term, since they (their own researchers) scan of what’s hot and what’s the potential game changer idea that frequently come up in research journals and attempt (on many occasions successfully) to recruited them. That’s why they have been there for many years because of their army of PhDs.

I’ll give an example. This PhD dude (Te-Ming Huang) who did his PhD here at University of Auckland here in New Zealand, went to Berkeley for a conference to present his paper there and an agent from Microsoft recruited him on the spot after his presentation. He came back to New Zealand to submit his PhD, but left shortly after to join the US Microsoft research. He has moved to Inrix, but Te-Ming Huang was recruited by Microsoft, because whoever at Microsoft Research did the recruitment already read Te-Ming Huang’s paper on the topic of semi-supervised learning (which is still relatively new topic), so they found out the he was to present a paper on the topic at a conference in the US, but perhaps it was a coincident some Microsoft researchers were participating as well in the same event. I know this because I talked with Te-Ming Huang’s advisor at the engineering robotics department recently .It is obvious that Microsoft (and others) do their recruitment in this way, ie, they have already read someone’s paper in some journals and decide to recruit someone in that specific domain (if possible), then if not approach the authors of those papers to see if they’re keen to join Microsoft Research. So, I believe that startup founders should hook up with Univesity R&Ds even for informal discussions so it ensure that they will get access to knowledge of what’s hot and what’s not.

I thought any publicity is good so long they can spell your name right!

For example if I search for Eminem videos, the best thing is to instantly watch the most relevant clips and flip through them if I wish (http://bit.ly/5aTNu)