Froogle (http://froogle.google.com/) and Google (http://www.google.com/) are amazing.

The leading search engine goes not display a single magnifying glass on their home page!

Not a single drawing of Sherlock Holmes, the world's most famous detective!

Not a single image of a dog searching for his bone!

Not a single picture of a microscope!

What's the matter with the people at Froogle Google, don't they know that without these images on their web pages their business will never ever take off?

Or could it be that they have discovered something that lesser webbites refuse to see?

yeah - i can never see google taking off :D

lol :eek:

I've been wondering about that myself, on a serious vein. Why is it that Excite has to charge hundreds of dollars US per year and Lycos thousands for what Google gives webmasters for free? WUSSUPWITDAT?

That Froogle thing looks pretty cool too, except that it doesn't allow for international pricing yet (probably just something to be worked out).

What exactly is it? I was confuzzled.

Originally posted by TheGAME1264
I've been wondering about that myself, on a serious vein. Why is it that Excite has to charge hundreds of dollars US per year and Lycos thousands for what Google gives webmasters for free? WUSSUPWITDAT? Google makes tons of money on advertising listings -- AdWords and Premium Sponsorships -- and on syndicating results. They can make it that way because they provide the best, most relevant search results.

Excite and Lycos and others, while they might be thought of as similar to Google in purpose and function, really are quite different, with very different business models. Which approach is "right" from a business standpoint? It's really not easy to say -- just a couple of years ago there were a bunch of of free search engines taking the Google approach, and they've disappeared. So it's not as not as simple as it might look, again the key factor in their success has been that Google has done the best job technically; the best job of providing search results.

Originally posted by The Laughing Cow
What exactly is it? I was confuzzled. Sort of an adjunct to "regular" Google, that contains only product listings from online stores.

Google's success is primarily driven by the fact that it's product is just superior - better & more relevant results. That is what has made people use google more than lycos excite altavista etc

Then add on top of that - their advertising approach is a much better business model - keeping it clean and not filled with flashing ads. Just focused text based ads that are quite separate from the main results.

Andrew I agree completely. Google is the most effective search engine on the world wide web, it gets the job done and is quick at it.

Originally posted by JayC
Google makes tons of money on advertising listings -- AdWords and Premium Sponsorships -- and on syndicating results. They can make it that way because they provide the best, most relevant search results.

Excite and Lycos and others, while they might be thought of as similar to Google in purpose and function, really are quite different, with very different business models. Which approach is "right" from a business standpoint? It's really not easy to say -- just a couple of years ago there were a bunch of of free search engines taking the Google approach, and they've disappeared. So it's not as not as simple as it might look, again the key factor in their success has been that Google has done the best job technically; the best job of providing search results.

Actually, I wasn't referring to the search engine itself but to the search engine submission/spidering process. Excite no longer allows free listings, opting instead for the "We'll spider your site for XXX dollars" route. Lycos at least allows single-page free submission, but their site spidering service is significantly more expensive. Google offers site spidering for free. If they can do it, this means that it can be done. Easy? Obviously not, or everyone would be doing it. Possible? Yes, because someone is doing it.

I would personally not object to Excite/Lycos/others charging for rapid (48-72 hours) search engine spidering and paid inclusion, but not as much as they are. After all, it's the database of results that drives a search engine and the current setup of those two engines seems to punish sites that have more content rather than rewarding said sites. If there were a flat fee for paid submission/spidering/inclusion, this would make more sense. Excite and Lycos also make more money with complementary products/services than Google does. So why can't they offer this for a lower rate or free?

Originally posted by TheGAME1264
Actually, I wasn't referring to the search engine itself but to the search engine submission/spidering process.
[...]
Google offers site spidering for free. If they can do it, this means that it can be done. Easy? Obviously not, or everyone would be doing it. Possible? Yes, because someone is doing it.
[...]
it's the database of results that drives a search engine
That's one perspecive; and it's pretty much Googles (or so it would seem). It's not Excite's, or Lycos'; each of which have decided that it's paid advertising listings that will drive their search engines. They didn't make that decision because they can't spider the way Google does, or to the extent to which Google does, or because it's "not easy" (and in fact each of them used to spider extensively and used to accept free submissions); but because they've developed a different business model -- and have placed their priorities differently.

In short, you can't separate "the search engine itself" from the "submission/spidering" process. The latter defines the former.

Part of what's happened in the search engine environment in the past couple of years is that Google's dominance has caused other companies to shy away from competing directly with them. I agree with you (I think) that the decision has made those others less useful venues for searchers; but again they've decided that they'll be most viable as businesses by putting more priority on monetizing their services while accepting that they'll have fewer users than Google. Time hasn't yet proven whether that was the "right" decision or not. And whether "paying to play" with those others is the right decision for any given business or advertiser is still another question.