Oh No! More FAIL

[Dullstar]

I read on Slashdot that the Australian government is trying to make unhackable computers.

 http://www.lemmingsforums.com/Smileys/lemmings/party.gif" alt=":party:" title="Party Time!" class="smiley" />  Get your popcorn and press that refresh button, it'll probably fail.  I guess no matter where you go, that place's government's judgment can be an la-la-land.

[GuyPerfect]

What's so farfetched about the idea of an unhackable computer? Seal it in an air-tight metal box and don't let the user run their own software on it. It's about as secure as it gets.

[Dullstar]

And let's not forget to install an awkward, but secure OS.  Basically, one as secure as Linux, but VERY unknown.

[Dullstar]

I just remembered this one.  They partially fixed it, though, but it's still visible (see attached snapshots).

http://www.businesspundit.com/one-reason-to-hate-bing/" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">Oops, how did that happen?   A screenshot of failed search suggestions.
I found this snapshot, so I decided to test it.  At the time, it really worked.

[Chmera]

  Who on Earth chose the name 'Bing'? They ought to be taken out and shot, whoever they may be. It sounds ridiculous anyway, and it doesn't work as a search engine name - since there are few differences between engines beside names it can be said the name is everything.
  That's why I think Google succeeded. It sounds like 'goggle', 'ogle', 'agog' and other such words while remaining unique, so it sounds like searching for something while being different, so it easily got verbed - which is a disaster for some companies but perfect for a search engine.

  'Bing' just sounds like the bell on the door of a small and disreputable shop or, on a good day, a decrepit computer. Possibly punch-card operated.

[ccexplore]

That's why I think Google succeeded. It sounds like 'goggle', 'ogle', 'agog' and other such words while remaining unique, so it sounds like searching for something while being different, so it easily got verbed - which is a disaster for some companies but perfect for a search engine.

You should know that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google#The_Name" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">the origin of Google's name has nothing to do with your rationalization.  Also, if you actually check the dictionary, it's really a bit of stretch to go from the meaning of the words you listed above to the meaning of "search", except maybe in the specific context of a horny guy looking for Internet porn. http://www.lemmingsforums.com/Smileys/lemmings/tongue.gif" alt=":P" title="Tongue" class="smiley" /> Is that why Google succeeded?  I dare not speculate. http://www.lemmingsforums.com/Smileys/lemmings/wink.gif" alt=";)" title="Wink" class="smiley" />

Anyway, I think you got it the other way round.  The name "Google" became a household term because of the success of Google as a search engine (that is, enough people have found its search results to be good), not the other way around.

I just remembered this one.  They partially fixed it, though, but it's still visible (see attached snapshots).

http://www.businesspundit.com/one-reason-to-hate-bing/" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">Oops, how did that happen?   A screenshot of failed search suggestions.
I found this snapshot, so I decided to test it.  At the time, it really worked.

I don't know if you can really blame Microsoft for the fact that http://www.linux-xp.com/" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">someone out there actually decided to name something "Linux XP".  Maybe it helps to remember that Microsoft does not exactly have a monopoly over the acronym "XP".  http://www.lemmingsforums.com/Smileys/lemmings/wink.gif" alt=";)" title="Wink" class="smiley" /> It just refers to "experience".

[Dullstar]

Yes, but, [sarcasm] for as well known as Linux XP is, it makes sense to have it up there! [/sarcasm]

[ccexplore]

Well yeah, if this is a question of ranking, then I'm sure you can find plenty of examples where the search engine screws up in the way you referred to.  Even Google isn't perfect, so the other search engines that are even further behind will have their work cut out for them.

[Dullstar]

I didn't notice that, but isn't that smoke from a forest fire in the background image in those snapshots?

[Chmera]

You should know that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google#The_Name" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">the origin of Google's name has nothing to do with your rationalization.  Also, if you actually check the dictionary, it's really a bit of stretch to go from the meaning of the words you listed above to the meaning of "search", except maybe in the specific context of a horny guy looking for Internet porn. http://www.lemmingsforums.com/Smileys/lemmings/tongue.gif" alt=":P" title="Tongue" class="smiley" /> Is that why Google succeeded?  I dare not speculate. http://www.lemmingsforums.com/Smileys/lemmings/wink.gif" alt=";)" title="Wink" class="smiley" />

Anyway, I think you got it the other way round.  The name "Google" became a household term because of the success of Google as a search engine (that is, enough people have found its search results to be good), not the other way around.

  I do actually know the story of Google's name - I'm not talking about why they chose it, but why it ended up working. And if success is solely based on quality of results, flawed engines like Bing would not exist for very long at all.
  Think about it, though. Even if, say, Yahoo had become this successful, do you think it'd have managed to practically get into the dictionary? You'd feel a bit stupid saying you're going to yahoo something, even if it did do that well, because it simply wouldn't sound right.
  What I was getting at was that all those words are variations on 'look', so saying what sounds like another variation would feel fairly natural.
  In sum, even if it was the same caliber as Google, would you be happy to say "I'll bing it"?

[ccexplore]

Okay, I get your point that Google might be more amenable to being turned into a verb, but I still think you've put way too much weight on this contributing to Google's success.  I'm happy to change my mind if you can point me to actual research showing that's the case, but until then, I'd still say you reversed cause and effect here.

And if success is solely based on quality of results, flawed engines like Bing would not exist for very long at all.

That's a bad example--never underestimate the power of being backed by a company run by the richest man on the planet (or something like that), with two major software products penetrating 95+% of PC market shares (or something like that).

It also helps to remember that from a business perspective, the fact that people like or dislike a search engine isn't really the bottom line.  The bottom line is to attract enough people to support the necessary ad revenues.  Certainly this involves a lot more than just quality of results, but you can't deny that it's an important part of the equation.  You may notice that even Bing's ad campaign, whether rooted in fact or not, revolves around quality of search results.

Think about it, though. Even if, say, Yahoo had become this successful, do you think it'd have managed to practically get into the dictionary?  <snip>  In sum, even if it was the same caliber as Google, would you be happy to say "I'll bing it"?

I dunno, I think Microsoft is actually trying to make "bing" a verb, with catchphrases like "I bing.  You bing?" and stuff like that.

Yahoo is not a particularly good example because it is already a word in the dictionary before it became a company name.  And if it were to become a Google, it's likely that Yahoo would, maybe not become a verb, but could be part of some phrase that refers to Yahoo and search (possibly a phrase that comes straight out of an ad campaign, for example).  It would certainly become a household term (like it is already, just not for search).  Not being able to verb-ify the company name is hardly an obstacle for someone to use it.  Your brain is still perfectly capable of thinking "let me look it up on Yahoo" or something like that even if it can't take in "I'll Yahoo this".

And let's put your hypothetical in reverse.  If Google's search engine had gone by some other name, and Microsoft called "Bing" "Google" instead, you really think this would put Microsoft over the top? http://www.lemmingsforums.com/Smileys/lemmings/undecided.gif" alt=":-\" title="Undecided" class="smiley" />

[Dullstar]

Um, no.  MS Linux?  Are they kidding us?