What made Google so successfull, despite the failures of other dot.com's?
336193
It was a combination of two things in this order:\n1) They had an amazing marketing strategy: word of mouth and their "don't do evil" crap. They made people love them. What people don't realize is that are just another money hungry corporation.\n2) They concentrated on a few specific products and made them exceptional. Otherwise except for gmail and google search & maps if you take away all those products they got by buying out companies (google earth, picasa, groups, blogger etc) every other "cool" google produced product has been only O.K.\n3 bonus) They were not part of the "dot com"s.
1121953
dont lose hope yaar   just remember the google guru\nu can do it
36487
Yahoo is the best overall internet service because provides almost everything and mostly free. However, for search engine Google is still ahead.
839357
no software singly can make a good website \nusing many softwares u can make it applealing\nlike flash, frontpage, javasccript, gif images, and soo on
17994
Let's do a Pro and Con comparison with respect to Google:\n\nPros of Google:\n\nAs a seach engine, google has the best relevance and presents the results in a way that I find easy to decide what pages are best for me. Its the best in terms of researching information.\n\nFor makin money, a #1 on google is worth many times more than a #1 on yahoo. Yahoo! blocks the top of the SERPs with sponsored ads.\n\nGoogle also has a neat interface. Yahoo is not bad too, but its interface is not that neat. The reason for that being it to be a portal. I think a nice interface is very important since people will come back more often if so.\n\nThe relevance of search results make its 'Feeling Lucky' feature pretty useful. Firefox address bar by defaults goes to 1 site listed on your search results.\n\nGoogle has tried to stay away from Spam/ misleading sites better than other search engines.\n\nCons of Google:\n\nHowever, few problems with google, its web crawler dosen't capture hyperlinks from PDF files stored on net, a feature which Yahoo provides.\n\nAlso, Google at present does not provide an index for video aggregation through the web crawler, a feature which Altavista provided since 1999. The problems include accuracy of the media file. That is the reason for providing Google Videos where users have to submit videos.\n\nDue to a larger share of 'searching' community, Google has been targeted by bloggers by planting Google Bombs. Because most bloggers mention the word failure with President Bush's name, the #1 site on searching Failure is the website of President Bush.\n\nYahoo is doing pretty good research in Search Technologies, for example Grokker.\nhttp://www.grokker.com/grokker.html?query=Anirudh%20Koul&Yahoo=true&Daypop=true&numResults=250
23911
Count my vote for Google, buts lets first do some analysis:\n\nPros of Google:\n\nAs a seach engine, google has the best relevance and presents the results in a way that I find easy to decide what pages are best for me. Its the best in terms of researching information.\n\nFor makin money, a #1 on google is worth many times more than a #1 on yahoo. Yahoo! blocks the top of the SERPs with sponsored ads.\n\nGoogle also has a neat interface. Yahoo is not bad too, but its interface is not that neat. The reason for that being it to be a portal. I think a nice interface is very important since people will come back more often if so.\n\nThe relevance of search results make its 'Feeling Lucky' feature pretty useful. Firefox address bar by defaults goes to 1 site listed on your search results.\n\nGoogle has tried to stay away from Spam/ misleading sites better than other search engines.\n\nCons of Google:\n\nHowever, few problems with google, its web crawler dosen't capture hyperlinks from PDF files stored on net, a feature which Yahoo provides.\n\nAlso, Google at present does not provide an index for video aggregation through the web crawler, a feature which Altavista provided since 1999. The problems include accuracy of the media file. That is the reason for providing Google Videos where users have to submit videos.\n\nDue to a larger share of 'searching' community, Google has been targeted by bloggers by planting Google Bombs. Because most bloggers mention the word failure with President Bush's name, the #1 site on searching Failure is the website of President Bush.\n\nYahoo is doing pretty good research in Search Technologies, for example Grokker. : http://www.grokker.com/grokker.html?query=Anirudh%20Koul&Yahoo=true&Daypop=true&numResults=250
219397
Never. Google renowned for its creativity and innovation is struggling in the internet market with a strong competition from yahoo and MSN. \n\nIt looks like google will be bankrupt soon. Other than internet search engine all the other products launched by google are big failures.  \n\nGoogle is just competitor in micrsofts internet market. But microsft's whole marketing strategy is revolving around it Operating Sytem.  So until someone breaks the windows no one can enter microsofts market. \n\nGoogle has to do lot more things to defeat these giants.
112876
I think - Google puts up its results based on a "Page Ranking" system. Hence, there are more websites that associate failure with GWB, than failure with NE OTHER THING. \nMy guess, its the pagerank that is causing the failure to point to GWB bio.
946800
Not that I know of. Google was established by Stanford Phd students Larry Page and Sergey Brin as a research project. Both are worth 13 billion in their early 30s. \n\nGoogle just formed a partnership with Sun Microsystems though.
925033
Did you copy it wrong...or are you a non English speaker?  It almost makes sense.  If this is in an ESL school your teacher needs some help.  Ill sum up what happened in the Dot-Com times.\n\nThe dot-com sector was an interesting one.  Many tech companies like yahoo that had lots of potential value, but little actual value.  Their potential value was the amount of money that, if market conditions continued, they would provide in revenue.  The actual value came from the fact that many of these companies had little capital, land or resources.\n\nInvestors Bought into this idea.  A good model to make a market fail.  Soon the stocks became worth much more than they actually represented in capital or land.  When one card is removed from a house of cards they whole thing falls.  When the market began to decline investors all sold at the same time.  Stock prices went way low.  \n\nAfter that happened Tech companies, in an attempt to salvage profits, considered many ideas to cut costs.  One of which was exporting labor.
648311
Developing a search engine is not easy ... it needs lots of investment and lots of marketing, moreover ... you need to innovate something new that is doesn't exist now (which is so difficult) ... \n\nWe developed recently a new search engine that has three new ideas ... http://www.deepy.com but still we have a lot of work to do just to take 0.0003 % of Search Engine market.
658962
depends on how you set up the search criteria or the words or phrases you use.\n\nI'm still at a loss to understand why the search engines don't reference each other.  Like if you search for something on Google and can't find it, why won't Google give you a link to another search engine?\n\nBut, generally speaking, search engines are good! :)
40198
Okay, here I go:\n1) Studies show that the general public cannot discern the quality of the two search engines.  However, Yahoo! is still seen (Ad Age) as offering a wider variety of practical services and this would be the main 'thing' that Yahoo! is doing over Google.  Also, Yahoo! offers a direct link to a human-sorted directory, which many novice web users may find attractive.\n2. Google's mapping technology was for time regarded as superior.  It allowed for multi-point trips (for example, you could get the directions from your house, to the museum, then the symphony hall, then back all at once, not one leg at a time).  It also allowed users to plot things like service stations on a graphically superior topographic or satellite map.  However, Yahoo! Maps Beta now offers many of these features and may have been introduced in sufficient time to win back past users who may have been starting to switch to Google.  MapQuest also offers strong competition because of its percieved easy of use and easily accessible practical features.\n3. Many consumers have yet to discover a need for desktop search clients, as the average harddrive is relatively small (compared to, say for example, the Internet) and most consumers (Ad Age) would agree with the statement that they keep their primary files relatively maintained.  However, I would venture to say that Google Desktop has a slight advantage insofar that it is free and usually comes bundled with antivirus software, mapping programs and other freebies consumers want.  However, Windows Vista has a feature called Virtual Directories which are essentially constantly running searches.  I.E You would setup a Virtual Directory called 'Latin Spice!' and it would automatically display every Latin dance MP3 on your computer in the 'directory', regardless of where the files are actually located.  This may make desktop searching software essentially outdated, but it remains to be seen.\n4. Another issue is Google's notorious secrecy.  Although it was bemussing back when they were a 'garage corporation', now that their 'playing' with billions of investors dollars and not the family toolshed, investors want to know whats going on.  Of course there's going to need to be some secrecy lest they leak out ideas to competitors, but overall Google has been slammed for a lack of a definate business plan, and overall direction for the firm.  Case in point, it was speculated that Google would reveal as Google-PC running Google software at C3 this year.  Such wild speculations and twists leads to investor unease.  Also, they are entering into the video market.  I'm not quite sure what the motivation for this was, as they are (at the moment) clearly no match for iTunes powerful video database.  Also, Google fails to advertise these features to the public relying instead (and I believe too heavily at times) on gossip and internet chatter.  Such channels are insufficient for the casual internet user to take advantage of.  Case in point again, many users would be surprised to find out you can ask Google simple questions even over SMS on your cellphone without an Internet browser.  However, Google's AdSense program, though relatively new, gives Yahoo! Search Marketing (formerly Overture) quite a run for its money.  Yahoo! Search Marketing is seen as less attractive to the 'common man' wanting to go into online advertisement because (although they are optional costs) it makes it appear as though large setup fees and ongoing charges are required.  Google's AdSense seems to almost be tailored to small business and large alike, with only a $5 setup fee, more flexible use of what they call 'campains' and an arguably larger viewer base.  Also, Google makes it easier to exapand the AdSense viewing public by allowing even runners of small or personal sites to display the ads, whereas Yahoo! Search Marketing has a more rigourous site requirement
5774
Google is easy to use and it usually provides on topic responses.\n\nIf it wasn't for google I wouldn't know where the internet begins (it's not like i'm going to type in a random URL)
815032
google....google has everything!!
60666
I'll talk about the Google search engine. In my opinion, because:\n1-the search page has a simple and clear design (people get crazy with complicated designs)\n2-answers layout looks like answers (not much publicity)\n3-the pagerank algorythm is decently good
431266
To determine the best your need to set some criteria.\n\nIn my opinion, any major search engines qualifies a one of the best websites. \n\nI like google but I thinks that more to do with the type of stuff I tend to search for and the keywords I use. \n\nfor example, I founded the following \n\nsearch: best websites