World needs independent search engine

I fully agree with the sentiments in your article. Only, I'm even more negative. A pity, I used to be positive about Google. It used to be the startup, battling against the (then) biggies such as AltaVista and Northern Light.

Now however, Google is the "Microsoft" of search engines. No more innovation, and we are seeing questionable business practices creeping in. As you mention, Google has no news department, or any other type of information creation capability. It is simply an aggregator. This it also does as it's main function, that of search engine.

The problem with the search engine, is that one of the main elements of its rating system is that the number of links to a site determine the rating. This means that popular sites become more popular, and less popular sites become less so. This is completely contrary to the intent of the creatores (and most of the users) of the Internet. This mechanism is open to abuse, as you have mentioned several times already.

I'm not sure if this is happening (yet) but the possibility exists for even more insidious abuse, such as people paying for their sites to be higher rated, or paying for the competition to be lower rated, or not found at all. Currently, the creaters and owners of Google seem to be motivated less by money that by principle, but when Google goes public, this will all change.

Isn't it time for a new, impartial search engine, run by the w3c or the open source foundation?

Regards,
Maarten

Dear Inquirer newsdesk 'nStaff...

I read your article on Google, and while you do flash your dull axe-in-need-of-grinding, you don't take the next step. The problem as you have identified is that Google is NOT actually the be-all, end-all in information delivery which so many geeks want it to be. It can mechanically do more than a human when it comes to seeking out odd websites, but alas, not as well as a trained, thinking, discriminating human being...

So what is a poor netizen to do? If we cannot religiously count on Google to provide for us what we need to know, where will we go for our cutting edge information? Who DO we trust when we need to know where to go for our news? Well, back in the old days people were referred to other businesses or resources by... other businesses and resources. It's what we USED to call networking. ;)

So I ask of you, please refer us to other quality, non-competing sources for other news. I'm not going to ask you to send me to your direct competitors; I've chosen the Inq as my primary source of IT news because I've SEEN most of your competition. But surely there must be a resource like the Inq for say, Politics, Sports, Weather, etc... There are of course the usual suspects, but there MUST be a site or two with a real human or a human staff who filter the natter and give us the meat? If you sell the ability to be seen on the Inq as a preferred site, that is just advertising. I don't listen to the dollar much when it comes to advice. But if you keep one page with thumbnail descriptions of a useful Blog or newslist which you all personally recommend... that is advice I will follow, at least to check it out. I may not agree with your choices, but I'd like to see them.

I don't want a list of the most popular websites as I don't need or want to know any more about Brittney Spears. On the same level, I don't want a list of websites who are designed to be the best at being seen by Google's dumBots as that in itself is no guarantee that the site is worth MY time. I'm not a 'bot. (Rechecking personal history cache... nope, says right here, "I am not a 'bot.) I would LOVE to have a list of useful websites, recommended by professionals I trust.

Or even from the Inq staff, whatever. Better than the 'bots either way.

Michael Morelock

Dear staff,

Perhaps the Google news engine can weed out those articles with too many spelling errors and typos.

"It's" Google News engine...

... news wires that use the "INQUIIRER" don't seem...

..."dislosed" axe to grind.

...aggregator of everything "newworthy"...

Have I missed any? You know, a spell checker could have found three of those errors. Following my signature is the article as I saw it, in case you decide to fix the article.

Regards,
Jim Henderson

Apple and IBM and ThingiesP> Thanks for your reply(s) and thoughts, Mike.

I have to agree heartily that you guys cover a huge gamut of tech news, and that you do your best. I've been reading the Inq for a long time now and there's a reason I keep coming back for more.--because you guys do cover so much variety and because you do it with a sense of humor. I guess my achilles heel is that I am a very big fan of IBM and I just love what they've done with the G5 and are doing with the developing G6, and the Power 4 and Power 5 processors. I'm also beside myself with anticipation of getting an Apple dual processor G5 whenever they get around to announcing their dual 2.5 (or so) GHz tower. That should be soon. So, I guess since I do like the Inquirer so much and since I read so many articles at the Inquirer about Intel and AMD that I also want to see the Inq cover the IBM goodness now that it is here and on a roll. At the same time I have to understand if I think about it that the vast majority of your readers are Windows, Intel, and AMD users, and so those stories are naturally almost always going to have priority.

Regardless, I guess I did want to point out that both Ars Tech and the Register do have special features for Apple and IBM related news, and that they don't just occasionally cover such things. I can't help but wish that the Inq was similar in that regard, but I know every internet site has their own focus and goals. That might just not be something you ever want to do. Sometimes I do think you guys would be a little more Apple/IBM oriented simply because you occasionally give Microsoft and Intel some really strong teasing or biting sarcasm, and you do seem to cover the Linux stuff a fair amount.

Therefore, it seems like a little more IBM and Apple coverage would fit in that vein, but as an Apple user the Inquirer seems more like "other platforms' coverage" than my own. Perhaps other Mac users feel the same way?

Perhaps there is an untapped chance for the Inquirer to bridge over to another segment of readers, then? I'll put it this way -- I've learned that if I really want to check out recent IBM and Apple news from a multi-platform website, I head straight towards Ars Tech or the Register since they are marketing to include IBM and Apple related news.

They don't do anything fancy-shmancy, but there are prominent sections to click on and Mac forums to post on at both those sites. The same thing might not work at all for your demographic at the Inquirer, and/or you simply might not want to head in that direction. I can understand that.

When I want a quick summary of Windows/Intel/AMD news, the Inquirer does just as well for that as does Ars Tech and the Register. I just wanted to let you know that I am at least the Lone Inquirer Reader who would respond to more IBM/Apple news if you chose to cover that. I have 5 close buddies who are all in a variety of I.T. jobs who work on other platforms than Apple, but who come home to a Mac each night. One's a Windows programmer while also doing some Java. Another is all Java. Two of them run a predominantly Windows company I.T. department, while integrating Macs into that network (recently replacing 6 WIndows machines with 1 Apple Xserve server).

And another guy is an engineer who is a liaison between an engineering department and an I.T. department for a company. Interesting fellows with interesting jobs, all of them. Windows effects their daily lives, so they would like that part of the Inquirer, but they also want to read the IBM/Apple stuff.

Only one of them goes to the Inquirer as far as I know, while each and every one of them goes to the Register and Ars Tech. I HAVE to believe that that is because those last two sites are more "Mac-friendly" or "Mac-oriented" (although only SLIGHTLY so) than the Inquirer. I share those things with you because your site's focus is elsewhere, and maybe that might help in some way in the future. If you don't have many Mac readers right now then perhaps "if you build it, they will come." Mac users might be small in number comparatively, but they are an information seeking group, I've noticed. I go to a minimum of 36 sites every day and about 20 of those are tech sites (and number 4 from the top is the Inquirer!).

Well, I better run. Thanks for taking the time to read this if you've gotten this far. I'm afraid my desire to avoid some work caused me to indulge in typing so much.

John

Yamill document disappeared at Vole?

Mike,

In the light of yamhill etc. and the rumours that Microsoft delayed windows 64-bit so Intel can catch up (http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=13253 ) -> the only document that ever existed about yamhill on the Microsoft has disappeared ! In that document was actually the reason why MS decided to go with AMD64 (Jerry Sanders doing a good word…… understatement of the year actually). But all of a sudden it's gone. (IFD coming up……leaving all trails of AMD connections behind ?.......... whipping out any “yamhill” mention on the MS site ?) The original document was supposed to be here: http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/legal/apr02/04-16ntranscriptam.asp Now it gives a 404.

Luckily google gives up help ?:

http://www.google.nl/search?q=cache:2kcqKBbv-xQJ:www.microsoft.com/presspass/legal/apr02/04-16ntranscriptam.asp+&hl=nl&ie=UTF-8

Try a search on that page (with for example CTRL-F) on yamhill…java….etc… .. it gives a nice insight about how things work in microsoft land.

I think it's suspicious ……..very suspicious

Greetinx,

Arjen

Prescotland

In a move apparently intended to quiet the well-earned sarcastic remarks aimed at their inability to deliver Prescott on time, Intel recently introduced their Prescott chips in several speed grades. Introduction at this time, with perhaps a 2-month window of volume production before the upcoming socket change for the P4 line, doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. A more orderly and sensible schedule would have been to introduce Prescott with next quarter's Socket 775.

Actually, the late arrival of Prescott was an example of the usual problem when introducing something 'new and different', and earned no sarcasm. It can be taken as an established fact that it is almost impossible to avoid optimism in product introduction schedules. [On the other hand, sarcasm was certainly an 'earned' response to Intel's attempts to weasel-word their lateness with lame almost-monthly attempts to redefine the terms 'late' and 'launch', and their use of various pseudo-synonyms thereof.]

While the lower speed chips appear to be merely warm, the heat generated by the 3.2GHz Prescott chip is a direct threat to reasonable longevity of the customer's computer. The 'stock' Intel HSF is inadequate for the 3.2, and cannot effectively deal with the excessive heat generated by this chip. Alarming temperatures - some of them literally so - were regularly reported in reviews, not only for the Prescott chip itself, but for nearby components on the motherboard. Excessive environmental heat is a major cause of accelerated failure of electronic components.

I note that several vendors list "Boxed" 3.2GHz Prescotts for sale. If the HSF provided with these 'boxed' processors is the same inadequate HSF that Intel provided with the cpus to reviewers of the 3.2GHz Prescott, Intel would seem to be committed to selling a product that is an invitation to disaster for their customers.

The 3.2 GHz Prescott should be withdrawn from the market until such time as Intel either (1) provides an adequate HSF for it, or (2) implements internal design changes in the chip, hopefully via a 'stepping', that will allow the chip to operate with the current HSF without frying itself and any nearby electronic components.

Hopefully, by the time Socket 775 is introduced, Intel will have managed to cure at least part of the heat problem of the Prescott, and will have implemented that cure in a 'stepping' change.

As a further argument of the 'good sense' of delaying Prescott to coordinate its introduction with Socket 775, the Intel Socket 775 HSF is a much more robust product than their Socket 478 HSF, and will probably be able to deal with the heat of the current 3.2GHz Prescott with no problems, even if the assumed 'stepping' development has not been completed when S775 is introduced. Had Intel actually waited for S775 for the 3.2GHz Prescott, they would have avoided producing these 'frying toasters' as their belated homage to the famous flying toasters of days of yore.

John B