4 ms·

Roll the clock back 9 years and "Don't build a search engine" would have been on the list. Surprised it is not there now. To me it seems it is the exceptions

Roll the clock back 9 years and "Don't build a search engine" would have been on the list. Surprised it is not there now. To me it seems it is the exceptions to the common knowledge that so often seem to exceed the rest. Off the cuff: Japanese cars are cheap (answer: Lexus), markets are efficient (answer: Buffett), VC's need home runs (answer: Y Combinator?). I wonder how is each item on the OP's list might be mistaken and why?

iron_ball 17y ago
It's not there because at this point, it's self-evident. There may be a path to profitability for niche engines, or engines which do something quite different from the big players, but it seems ever more unlikely that a new direct rival to Google/Microsoft/Yahoo will arise. I mean, I get your point. But there's a difference between the pre-Google world and now: before Google, search sucked, and everyone knew it. Now, search is awesome. It's not really a pain point.
- rfreytag 17y ago
  People were not aware of the potential for search before Google. They thought the market for search was over-supplied with options. Evidence is in some 10-year-old Red Herrings that mention: Alta Vista, Lycos, Web Crawler, DogPile, mySimon, etc., etc.. I was hard-pressed to make Google find anything 10-years-old+ from the web. And advanced search was no apparent help. Perhaps fodder for a rival? Clayton Christiansen might say that out of the niche of a rival which undermines Google's business model rises the Google-killer, or at least -queller.
- gridspy 17y ago
  Google themselves have identified ways to make search better. Why text based search? Why not explore searches in a more interactive way? How about searching based on your existing thoughts and ideas? How can we make search work if you don't have a browser? You don't need to compete with all of Google to succeed in the search arena. It is sufficient to capture 0.01% of their market to make a couple of startup founders successful.
ratsbane 17y ago
I remember saying, in the late '90s, shortly before I saw Google the first time, that it was probably pointless to build a search engine as Yahoo had pretty much said the last word on the subject. That was a reasonably common thought at the time and Google proved it was completely wrong. EVERYTHING on the OP's list is potentially wrong. Maybe he should have said "if you're going to build a {whatever} then don't just copy another's feature set - make sure you solve some problem that the market leader(s) failed to do."
- iamwil 17y ago
  While reading it, I remember thinking that posterous attacked blogging/microblog, which falls under the first section of stuff not to do, and they did pretty well.
  - NikkiA 17y ago
    posterous is mini-blogging though, of which the only real competition that existed was tumblr. micro-blogging and full blogging are pretty much over-competed though.
    - jasonlbaptiste 17y ago
      wait, theres a difference between mini and micro blogging?
      - ph0rque 17y ago
        By mini, it's probably meant milli; so yes, there's three orders of magnitude difference. Wait till we get to nano and pico blogging: your status in less than one character!
        DanielBMarkham 17y ago
        Y

iron_ball 17y ago

It's not there because at this point, it's self-evident. There may be a path to profitability for niche engines, or engines which do something quite different from the big players, but it seems ever more unlikely that a new direct rival to Google/Microsoft/Yahoo will arise. I mean, I get your point. But there's a difference between the pre-Google world and now: before Google, search sucked, and everyone knew it. Now, search is awesome. It's not really a pain point.

rfreytag 17y ago
People were not aware of the potential for search before Google. They thought the market for search was over-supplied with options. Evidence is in some 10-year-old Red Herrings that mention: Alta Vista, Lycos, Web Crawler, DogPile, mySimon, etc., etc.. I was hard-pressed to make Google find anything 10-years-old+ from the web. And advanced search was no apparent help. Perhaps fodder for a rival? Clayton Christiansen might say that out of the niche of a rival which undermines Google's business model rises the Google-killer, or at least -queller.
gridspy 17y ago
Google themselves have identified ways to make search better. Why text based search? Why not explore searches in a more interactive way? How about searching based on your existing thoughts and ideas? How can we make search work if you don't have a browser? You don't need to compete with all of Google to succeed in the search arena. It is sufficient to capture 0.01% of their market to make a couple of startup founders successful.

ratsbane 17y ago

I remember saying, in the late '90s, shortly before I saw Google the first time, that it was probably pointless to build a search engine as Yahoo had pretty much said the last word on the subject. That was a reasonably common thought at the time and Google proved it was completely wrong. EVERYTHING on the OP's list is potentially wrong. Maybe he should have said "if you're going to build a {whatever} then don't just copy another's feature set - make sure you solve some problem that the market leader(s) failed to do."

iamwil 17y ago
While reading it, I remember thinking that posterous attacked blogging/microblog, which falls under the first section of stuff not to do, and they did pretty well.
- NikkiA 17y ago
  posterous is mini-blogging though, of which the only real competition that existed was tumblr. micro-blogging and full blogging are pretty much over-competed though.
  - jasonlbaptiste 17y ago
    wait, theres a difference between mini and micro blogging?
    - ph0rque 17y ago
      By mini, it's probably meant milli; so yes, there's three orders of magnitude difference. Wait till we get to nano and pico blogging: your status in less than one character!
      - DanielBMarkham 17y ago
        Y