Google did the same with Myspace in 2006, much to the chagrin of Microsoft, who was engaged in a fierce bidding war for the site’s favors. They were beat that time, but the recent merger with Facebook could prove to be highly profitable in the long run. Facebook membership and usage is on the rise, while Myspace is experiencing slower growth. Of course, Google has had difficulty making money from the Myspace deal, so it’s possible Microsoft will have similar trouble with Facebook. Google attributes its failures to the general difficulty of generating revenue on a social site; if Microsoft succeeds where the online giant failed, Google’s theory will be pretty much destroyed.

It could be that short term revenue gain isn’t what Microsoft is after. Some signs point to the deal being an angle by which Microsoft can wrangle more search shares. They’re undoubtedly eager to expand their Live search, even going so far as to offer compensation for users of their search engine, so temporary loss for future gain is a possible plan.

By Erik C.

Techcrunch has a video detailing exactly how the new search interface will work. In addition to the rating system, users will be given the option of adding comments to the search results and their username link to a public profile, thus giving the search engine sheen of social networking power that has worked so well for Digg (which, coincidentally, is being bid on by both Microsoft and Google).

It’s an interesting concept, and perhaps even an enticing one with its promise of an exciting integration of two hitherto separate online models. It is a more intimate version of Google’s original search premise, which ranks search results based on the quantity of links available. The new interface will give users the power to rank results for themselves, independent of Google’s algorithm - in essence, make a personalized Google Bomb with every click.

Despite the gee-whiz-coolness of the new interface, Google’s potential model is striking more for its general insidiousness. Most troublesome is the way a search result ranked negatively disappears from the search results, regardless of its relevance to the search term. Though one would hope that users wouldn’t simply prune search results to suit their own viewpoints, the system is so wide open to abuse that it’s unlikely users would not be tempted to snip out websites that evoke their ire.

But it’s worse than that: by giving users the opportunity to trim the Internet to fit their own world view, Google is encouraging a myopia which deprives citizens of information and breeds apathy and isolation. Similarly handing over the power of ranking to the masses might ruin the way the Internet gives under-heard and under-represented subcultures to define themselves without the instant judgment of the masses. If a user can simply remove results he or she doesn’t like, how does that contribute to a free thinking, tolerant society that acknowledges the validity of all forms of thought, culture, and output?

Once people start to surround themselves with themselves, they are on the road to the kind of derangement that can destroy nations. Google was roundly criticized when it capitulated to the Chinese government in keeping certain websites from the eyes of the Chinese people. By implementing a search model that gives the user the opportunity to insulate themselves from diverse opinions, how is this any different?

By Mariana M.

Icahn announced recently that he had been in private talks with Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer about re-opening negotiations with Yahoo, which Ballmer agreed to do, provided that Yahoo completely overhaul its board of directors. Though these backdoor conversations have people paying attention to Icahn again, it’s very unlikely Microsoft is still interested in purchasing Yahoo for its original offer. Why buy the cow, after all? But as Michael Arrington at TechCrunch wrote, ‘Microsoft may now be eager to merge with Yahoo, not in the interest of healthy competition in the search engine biz, but for the thrill of humiliating the board of directors that rebuked them in the first place.’ Talk about a jealous ex.

But Icahn, for all his bluster, hasn’t won the day just yet. Among his handpicked potential board of directors is Bill Miller of investment firm Leggs Mason. Miller has yet to commit fully to Icahn’s plan, telling a Reuters reporter that he would be more enthused if Icahn promised that Yahoo would not be sold for less $31 a share. In other words, simply selling the company to Microsoft is not good enough, considering the fact that a vindictive Microsoft will most certainly lowball Yahoo the second time around. Icahn has yet to deliver a concrete figure the board of directors can hang their gold plated hats on.

For Yahoo’s part, Jerry Yang has come out against the tactics employed by both Microsoft and Icahn, asserting that he can lead the company back to the stability that has been compromised by this merger fracas. Yang, however, has more pressing problems of his own: in three weeks time he’ll be facing a vote of confidence in front of the same beleaguered board of directors in question now.

Assailed on all fronts and bleeding executives, Yahoo is currently in a very precarious position. In a sense, the fate of Yahoo is the fate of the search engine model. Whether it is sold off piecemeal to Microsoft or wholesale to Google could determine what the new steps in search technology could be and who will dominate the next era in web development. Whatever happens, anyone even vaguely interested in Internet technology is glued to their RSS feed right about now.

By Mariana M.

As if dealing with testy shareholders, political intrigue, and departing executives wasn’t enough for the foundering company, it just got, like, totally dissed by Maxim Magazine. You know Maxim - that mag for post-adolescent, collar-popping guys everywhere. They’ve ditched Yahoo’s search engine in favor of Quintura’s semantic tag cloud search, which creates a tag cloud above the results. Users can refine the search by clicking various tags.

Remember when we talked up Quintura a few months back? The attractive new search engine had tons of potential, but was just launching its beta and still needed some supporters.

Quintura may have just replaced Yahoo as the primary search engine for Maxim.com; we’re just not totally convinced. The cloud is certainly attractive, and it can be useful, but refining the searches takes longer than pulling up Yahoo’s search results. Plus, final results through Quintura don’t seem markedly superior to Yahoo’s. From Maxim’s perspective, however, that just means searchers will spend even more time on their sites looking around, and more exposure is always a good thing.

Even for mags like Maxim.

By Erik C.

News has surfaced that Microsoft is continuing negotiations with Yahoo for a total buyout (off the record, naturally). Why Microsoft is swallowing its pride now, whereas before it probably would have crushed Yahoo like a fly remains a mystery. Our guess is that it’s because Microsoft recognizes that if it lets Yahoo get away, Google will eat them - and all other budding search companies - alive, with or without Yahoo’s help.

It’s very clear now that Microsoft is struggling in its third place position; its tactics make that obvious. But just because Yahoo is being batted around like a tennis ball doesn’t mean it’s going to end up on the winning team in the end. With their stock continuing to drop rapidly, the time is ripe for Yahoo to merge with anyone and Microsoft figures, Why not us?.

So why not Microsoft?

One major point working against Microsoft is the contractual language put forth in the Google-Yahoo agreement. If Microsoft attempts to purchase more than 35% of Yahoo, they will be forced to pay Google $250 million dollars. However, if they hover around 15%, Yahoo can terminate the deal and Google gets nothing. But why would Yahoo want to do that? Because their board of directors is in shambles? Because CEO Jerry Yang is still enamored with Google? Because Carl Icahn’s an asshat?

Ultimately the complicated chess playing going on between the 3 companies amounts to little in the normal world. The real question for the rest of us small-timey folks is how will Microsoft and Yahoo, if they do merge, even begin to compete with Google (which, after all, still has technology superior to both of theirs)? And if Yahoo and Microsoft do merge, how will Google manage with the newly emboldened behemoth it attempted to cut off at the knees with a search advertising offer?

One can only hope that after all the dust from this massive fracas has settled, the future of the search engine will still lie in the hands of developers on the ground and not in the heads of suits who hide behind boardroom doors and don’t even know what a semantic search is.

By Mariana M.

Most people with an Internet connection have had the disheartening experience of inputting a fairly simple search term into their search engine of choice and being rewarded with a list of totally irrelevant, completely useless results. Here is illustrated the great split between the way the human mind thinks and the way the Internet, as of now, has been coded to think. Whereas the human mind makes natural connections between words and phrases using cultural inference, the Internet only makes connections between disparate words and phrases if it has been manually instructed to by the use of tags, keywords, and hyperlinks. Think about it this way: Humans are like a thesaurus - endless catalogues of meaning assigned to one word; the Internet is like the dictionary - a list of strict definitions with no room for embellishment. We connote, it denotes. We traffic in essence; it is the world’s last literalist. We get the gist; it, well, can’t. So the semantic search has come to fill the gap.

But what is the semantic search? It’s one part linguistics, one part network theory, and one part Internet reconfiguration, but in short it’s a way of training the Internet to better reflect the processing power of the human brain. If at present search engines generate results based on the number of times a searched for word or phrase appears in a web document (or, in Google’s case, the number of links leading to a web document), the semantic search model will generate results by combing the web for meaning assigned to word or phrase, rather than just the word itself. Rather than viewing the Internet as a series of pages sewn together with hyperlinks, a semantic search catalogues the Internet as a number of resources connected by the implied meaning of a search phrase. Literally, a semantic search will get to the root of what you mean; it won’t be hung up on what you say. Michel Foucault would be stoked (by which I mean excited).

The implications of the semantic search engine are huge, should it come to fruition. All search technology is presently in its infancy, even though huge strides are being made daily. The beginning stages of a semantic search can be witnessed by running a routine Google search. When a user scrolls through the search results, Google offers links to a few related search terms that may narrow down the results based on what the user is looking for. However, Google as of yet cannot infer meaning from search phrases; it can only suggest a list of related search terms taken from searches that have already been run.

So why haven’t we got the super semantic search engine yet? We just don’t have the technology and Google will not risk its good reputation by fiddling with their already successful formula. Google also assumes, rightly or wrongly, that users are stupid and cannot be relied upon to even know what they’re looking for in the first place. It’s entirely possible that a new company will discover the technology to run a fully functioning semantic search engine and beat the God-like Google at their own game. Already companies such as Hakia are finding ways to move search engines away from the old model, though the process is slow. What is clear is that in ten years, we will most likely be looking back at the current era of search engines as primitive and lacking. That or we’ll all be slaves to the computer overlords who, having become more savvy at understanding humans than humans themselves, will take over the world with the power of language. Dude! Bummer.

By Mariana M.

As most people know by now, late yesterday afternoon Google and Yahoo! announced they would be forming a non-exclusive search agreement, allowing Yahoo! to access Google’s AdSense technology on their American and Canadian webpages. In addition both companies would begin working on making their respective messaging systems compatible with each other for better communication between users. On the official GoogleBlog, Senior Vice President of Global Sales and Development Omid Kordestani emphasized that this was not a merger in the traditional sense, but rather a move that would benefit both companies by streamlining the process of correlating advertising to search terms.

It was a rather anti-climactic announcement for denizens of the Web who not-so-secretly hoped Google and Yahoo! would combine powers and take out the Microsoft juggernaut in one afternoon, but those who are waiting for their Goohoo! homepages would be well advised to not hold their breath. It’s unlikely that Google is even interested in a blatant merger with Yahoo! as such a deal would almost certainly draw the attentions of the federal government - with a costly, lengthy antitrust lawsuit to follow (something Microsoft knows all about). But Google’s fear of the feds doesn’t mean it’s not sizing Yahoo! up for something more serious in the future.

Some Yahoo! fans have protested that using Google’s AdSense technology is counterproductive and will only give users another excuse to switch to Google. In his blog post, Kordestani explains that Google has similar contracts in place with AOL and Ask.com. For Google, sharing technology with Yahoo! doesn’t eliminate future competition; it makes it better. “The Internet is a healthy, competitive environment where content creators, advertisers and users come together to access information, communicate and create new business opportunities. We think this deal extends these benefits — it’s good for users, advertisers and publishers and good for the industry.” he writes.

In any case, Yahoo! must be breathing a sigh of relief to know that its largest Silicon Valley neighbor is at least pretending to be looking out for its interests after a humiliating encounter with Microsoft. And speaking of Microsoft, they have as of yet kept mum on the joint announcement, but it’s reasonable to assume that if they weren’t scared of Google before now, they now have reason to tremble.

By Mariana M.

That’s straight from Jimmy Wales, its creator, who says that, up until now, Wikia Search “pretty much sucked” and “has not been usable on a day to day basis.” Such brazen honesty is refreshing in this industry, but it’s pointless unless the service improves. Wales insists that it has, rolling out a ton of new editing features that allows users the same kind of freedom they enjoy on Wikipedia. Searchers can remove, reorder, add, rate, annotate, and comment on search results at their leisure. Everyone else can do the same too, which should make for some epic editing wars. As with Wikipedia, the Wikia Search community can collectively ban spammers from editing results.

The new interface lets users drag results around the page in real time, and hovering over a result brings up an editing menu on the right. Users can also add new search results; simply paste in the URL in the “Add to this result” box, and the new page will appear in any subsequent search results.

If you “annotate” a result, a window with the actual web page will open up. From there, anything you click on or highlight from the page - images, text, links - will appear in the Wikia Search results. You can also add comments to the results and annotations. All additions can be rated and commented on, or even deleted by other users.

Wales is counting on the Wikia community to maintain content quality and make the results the absolute best they can be. If a community doesn’t support it, users may as well just use Google or Yahoo for their searches. Indeed, if users aren’t quite satisfied with Wikia results, they can click on the conveniently located Google and Yahoo icons for results from those engines.

A Palo Alto-based startup is launching a product that should advance behind-the-firewall search tech considerably. Paglo has created a crawler that, rather than indexing documents, images, and media on the Internet, actually identifies IT resources within a corporate network and makes the information searchable for all users. IT departments simply have to install an open source program, provided by Paglo, that will send relevant data to Paglo’s servers. It takes mere minutes for a department to set up with Paglo, after which administrators can log in from anywhere to search their network.

Queries can be saved in graph, table, or list form, and displayed in an online dashboard. A built-in community allows users to share tips, advice, and resources with other IT guys from different networks.

Thus far, 800 companies have signed up for the free public beta. If Paglo delivers on its promises, expect that number to grow by leaps and bounds. Come September, Paglo will be available via subscription.

Microsoft is still a big name with consumers. While most people obviously go to Google for their searches, it’s not as if Microsoft is some unknown startup trying to gain support and market share. If the word spreads through enough outlets, as it undoubtedly will, Live Search CashBack could become attractive to the audience it’s seeking: the money-conscious segment of the public that does most of the shopping online. That’s not to say there aren’t risks. After all, Microsoft will be foregoing a lot of initial profit in its quest for search market share. Somehow, though, I think Microsoft can survive it. It’s not like they were generating tons of search revenue in the first place, so this is a risk worth taking.

Google’s got a huge lead in the search engine market, and Microsoft isn’t having any delusions of unseating them, but progress can — and should — be made.