OOGLE is a prime example (sometimes even a role model) in various different contexts. However, Google is also known for its aggressive reach (otherwise appeal) to people who are not deservedly earned. The company has been accused of leading to ‘brain drain’ in the States, as well as disrupting operations in some companies. This was essentially caused by pulling of employees without prior notice. One notable embodiment of this behaviour is snatching of developers from Open Source projects that concern Google, e.g. Vinton Cerf, Andy Morton, and Greg Stein. There are several other VIP figures that serve as equally-valid examples.

There is no problem with this on the shallow level of principles. The developers have the will and the right to pursue their goals and follow their passions. But the snag comes at the end of my post.

Google has been thriving on three main choices/ideologies, in my opinion.

• One smart move was the use of Linux, which increased performance, contributed to secrecy, and raised stability while reducing running costs;
• Another was the use of new algorithms, which are very much like those you would find in academic trackers (e.g. publication farms like CiteSeer). Counting backlinks was not a hard idea to embrace or anything unprecedented, with the exception of Web search perhaps;
• Lastly, the famous mantra and general laid-back culture put an innocent face on a to-be behemoth.

Ultimately, you may find that Google’s continued success relied on technologies that were harnessed through acquisitions (compare with Microsoft). I am not at all fond of the direction our economy takes as it evolves. It kills startups (one could spot quite a few of these Google victims on eBay) and it shrinks the level of choice in industry. I am a strong advocate of diversity and co-existence, by means of reduced aggressiveness in human resources and management. When lawyers and investors take over a pool of intellect, alarm bells should be sounded.

Image of Googleplex in London (from ZDNet gallery)

AST night I had my 2^nd interview with google (a *nix systems administration position). What is noteowrthy is that I did not apply for a job. I was contacted by Google owing to my involvement and work on the Web. I am patiently waiting to hear their decision (should take several days), but I am pessimistic. Some questions were really hard and I needed hints. These questions were less analytical than I had expected.

The following screenshot, which I grabbed just moments ago, speaks for itself. Many thanks to T.J. from the search engine newsgroup for pointing that one out.

Google proposes Yahoo Search (it shiows up right below Yahoo
Mail) as a candidate for ‘therapy products’

Rarely can you find such ironic screenshots.

Would you like to make search engine tracking more efficient? If so, read on.

MOMG some nice Web-based tools for SEO, there exists a Google PageRank comparison tool. There are more such tools on the same site. They tend to automate probings that are intended for egocentric evaluations of site positions.

It is definitely worth a try if you are a Webmaster who seeks more attention (referrals) from search engines.

The magnitude of mind games has reached detrimental level. Microsoft have become overly obsessed with Google and they come up with deceiving public statements. Here’s one:

Ballmer said Thursday he doesn’t think the company is lagging its competitors, noting that Microsoft has strong technical expertise and a loyal online user base with products like its MSN Messenger.

Here’s another one (from Gates):

Bill Gates has promised to keep Google “honest” by pushing the internet rival to “to better” despite coming late to the internet services market with an unfinished offering.

And yet, most recent figures show:

MSN’s search market share dropped from 14 percent to 11 percent

Google and Yahoo increased their market share in the online search arena as Microsoft’s MSN slipped, according to Web research firm Nielsen//NetRatings.

Moreover, on a separate and important Web services front:

But Microsoft is shying away from the 10-year-old name and hoping to freshen up its image as services such as Google’s Gmail creep up on its market share.

In short, Google mail’s annual growth stands at 114%; Hotmail, despite expansion of the Net, only grew by 16% in the same period.

proposal for Google: This is probably a very long shot, but since Microsoft have invested so much money in the fight for Web services space (Google is a notable sufferer as a recent example shows) and even incorporated egocentric search bars in Windows Vista applications, would it not be sensible for Google to promote GNU/Linux in their SERP’s, much as they already do with Mozilla Firefox? Google even financially reward for Firefox downloads, among other things, so why not Linux?

While Windows users can download and use Firefox, this will not eradicate search bars altogether. The only way to weaken Microsoft is to cut them off at the main plug, making Windows (and Office at al.) obsolete. The missing step is that of porting all of Google’s applications to GNU/Linux. This appears to be work in progress. They released a Windows distribution in the past, but they still have Goobuntu ‘in house’.

If this ever becomes a reality, it will be a great contribution from a company that has exploited Linux for a long while and owes much of its success to its power, scalability, portability, and affordability. At present, Google are essentially bribed to deliver the adverse message by putting microsoft.com as a sponsored link at the top of the search results for ‘linux’ (more details here).

AVE you ever thought of an (electronic) article that you once saw or read? Could you find it easily after a few weeks, months, or years? How about if you bookmarked it? Would it always allow the article to be found again? And if so, how quickly can it be found?

Mozilla Firefox offers some good facilities for previously-browsed pages to be found. Both History and Bookmarks in Firefox have a ‘find as you type’ widget. However, this only contains and uses page titles.

What would make a better feature that is able to perform a more fuzzy and full-body search? The first option is to permit a search engine to spy on you and retain a record of pages that you follow. In turn, it will index these in isolation and allow your pages of choice to be searched cohesively. It is as though the knowledge conveyed in the index partly corresponds to what you already know. So, it is somewhat of a brain search, which makes the assumption that you carefully read every Web page you visited.

The option which exposes the user to a lesser privacy invasions is this: allow the Web browser to index a page whenever one is visited or only once at the end of the day. The index is of course cumulative and it permits the user to search just a ’subnet’ — that which he/she has already explored.