4 ms·

There are really only TWO decisions that google made that made them successful. When something works, people like to go back and look at complicated things and

by jeb 16y ago

There are really only TWO decisions that google made that made them successful. When something works, people like to go back and look at complicated things and say that those are the reasons it worked. The reason that google beat the others were really very simple and they had to do with the front-end only: 1. They were the simplest to use at the time. All the other search engine things had a lot of frills and pages and ads and so on. Google was just very plain, and as a result, simple 2. By default, they included ALL the words you typed in. Competitors at the time were trying to maximise search results by searching for each word individually, which led to a lot of irrelevant results. Just by including all the words in the query, google had a much better hit rate All the rest was unimportant. Those two simply front-end decisions made the google search engine loved by the geeky anti-corporate people who ruled the web at the time (slashdot, linux advocates), and they recommended it to everyone who was joining the net. By appealing to the geeks, who then acted as the authority figures to the normals, google was able to take over the search market back then. It was really not that complicated.

lisper 16y ago
I beg to differ. First, it is simply not true that Google "included ALL the words you typed in". Google ignored "common" words like conjunctions and certain pronouns for a very long time. Second, I think it's fair to say that Google's speed and quality of results were significant contributors as well. Third, Larry's decision to make AdWords ads live immediately was, I think, one of the key factors in drawing users to AdWords. Fourth, ad syndication through AdSense was a significant contributor to Google's revenues. I could go on. I think it's nowhere near as simple as you say.
- jeb 16y ago
  Adwords came MUCH MUCH later, when Google dominated the landscape. Of course, by all words, I don't mean useless words like conjunctions. When people think back, they blur factors (like you are blurring adwords with googles initial success). I was there when Google took over, and it WAS as simple as I said. They first had a popular search engine, and they built a good business on top of that. The business building part was complex, probably, but getting the search engine to be popular was just a front-end thing. Googles speed was not relevant, Altavista and many other search engines prominently displayed how fast they were. There was a sort of speed competition at the time, so Google was not significantly faster than the others. Those other engines (like altavista) did not even have websites with lots of images or so, so it loaded just as fast as google. Picking the right user-interface has been the reason for success for many companies. People will come and overcomplicate it later, but in the end, it was just the user-interface that made them win.
  - lisper 16y ago
    > Adwards came MUCH MUCH later It's AdWords, not Adwards. And it launched in September of 2000, when Google absolutely did not "dominate the landscape." Do you even bother to check your facts, or do you just make shit up?
    - jeb 16y ago
      In September 2000, Google was already the most important search engine out there. It was already successful, and adwords had nothing to do with its success. It had 20million in the bank already. Please avoid the personal attacks, it's not good form.
      - lisper 16y ago
        In September 2000 Google had money in the bank only because it had closed a $25M VC round just over a year before. Its revenues were tiny. Its market share was tiny. It was not profitable. Its success was far from assured. By the time Google turned its first profit, the vast majority of its revenues came from AdWords. To say that AdWords had nothing to do with Google's success is akin to saying that Windows had nothing to do with Microsoft's success. And personal attacks are not nearly as bad a form as promulgating demonstrable falsehoods as if they were facts.
        jeb 16y ago
        It's market share was not tiny. It was growing rapidly, and was already dominating. I think I've had enough of this argument. People like you are never wrong - you are arguing absolutely orthogonal to me, and punctuating it with personal attacks.
        deleted 16y ago
        [deleted]
        lisper 16y ago
        Growing rapidly is not mutually exclusive with being small. In fact, it's much easier to grow rapidly when you're small than when you're big. Here's a reference in support of my position: http://searchenginewatch.com/2165081 http://searchenginewatch.com/2165081 This article is from October of 2002, two years later than the time frame in question. At that time, after two years of exponential growth, Google's market share was 30%. In September 2000, Google was still an upstart. Three months earlier the big news was that Google had beat out Inktomi for a contract with Yahoo: http://news.cnet.com/2100-1023-242392.html http://news.cnet.com/2100-1023-242392.html Google's overall market share at the time was so small that the press reports don't even mention it. Google didn't even register on anyone's radar as a major player. Can you cite any references to support your claim that Google was "already dominating"? No, you can't. Because they weren't. > I think I've had enough of this argument A common tactic from someone trying to defend an untenable position. > People like you Excuse me? Weren't you saying something earlier about personal attacks?

by jeb 16y ago

lisper 16y ago

I beg to differ. First, it is simply not true that Google "included ALL the words you typed in". Google ignored "common" words like conjunctions and certain pronouns for a very long time. Second, I think it's fair to say that Google's speed and quality of results were significant contributors as well. Third, Larry's decision to make AdWords ads live immediately was, I think, one of the key factors in drawing users to AdWords. Fourth, ad syndication through AdSense was a significant contributor to Google's revenues. I could go on. I think it's nowhere near as simple as you say.

jeb 16y ago
Adwords came MUCH MUCH later, when Google dominated the landscape. Of course, by all words, I don't mean useless words like conjunctions. When people think back, they blur factors (like you are blurring adwords with googles initial success). I was there when Google took over, and it WAS as simple as I said. They first had a popular search engine, and they built a good business on top of that. The business building part was complex, probably, but getting the search engine to be popular was just a front-end thing. Googles speed was not relevant, Altavista and many other search engines prominently displayed how fast they were. There was a sort of speed competition at the time, so Google was not significantly faster than the others. Those other engines (like altavista) did not even have websites with lots of images or so, so it loaded just as fast as google. Picking the right user-interface has been the reason for success for many companies. People will come and overcomplicate it later, but in the end, it was just the user-interface that made them win.
- lisper 16y ago
  > Adwards came MUCH MUCH later It's AdWords, not Adwards. And it launched in September of 2000, when Google absolutely did not "dominate the landscape." Do you even bother to check your facts, or do you just make shit up?
  - jeb 16y ago
    In September 2000, Google was already the most important search engine out there. It was already successful, and adwords had nothing to do with its success. It had 20million in the bank already. Please avoid the personal attacks, it's not good form.
    - lisper 16y ago
      In September 2000 Google had money in the bank only because it had closed a $25M VC round just over a year before. Its revenues were tiny. Its market share was tiny. It was not profitable. Its success was far from assured. By the time Google turned its first profit, the vast majority of its revenues came from AdWords. To say that AdWords had nothing to do with Google's success is akin to saying that Windows had nothing to do with Microsoft's success. And personal attacks are not nearly as bad a form as promulgating demonstrable falsehoods as if they were facts.
      - jeb 16y ago
        It's market share was not tiny. It was growing rapidly, and was already dominating. I think I've had enough of this argument. People like you are never wrong - you are arguing absolutely orthogonal to me, and punctuating it with personal attacks.
        deleted 16y ago
        [deleted]
        lisper 16y ago
        Growing rapidly is not mutually exclusive with being small. In fact, it's much easier to grow rapidly when you're small than when you're big. Here's a reference in support of my position: http://searchenginewatch.com/2165081 http://searchenginewatch.com/2165081 This article is from October of 2002, two years later than the time frame in question. At that time, after two years of exponential growth, Google's market share was 30%. In September 2000, Google was still an upstart. Three months earlier the big news was that Google had beat out Inktomi for a contract with Yahoo: http://news.cnet.com/2100-1023-242392.html http://news.cnet.com/2100-1023-242392.html Google's overall market share at the time was so small that the press reports don't even mention it. Google didn't even register on anyone's radar as a major player. Can you cite any references to support your claim that Google was "already dominating"? No, you can't. Because they weren't. > I think I've had enough of this argument A common tactic from someone trying to defend an untenable position. > People like you Excuse me? Weren't you saying something earlier about personal attacks?