can anyone help me substantiate the claim that acquisition in 2010 was part of dominance over ? or am I way off? !/

trying to tell a story about search-driven UIs being used to maintain platform model by hiding underlying technology, that search obscures imperfections in knowledge graph because search invokes expectation of imperfection rather than browsing which is like "this definitely should be here but it's not" or "this value of this property is incorrect"

nvm a lot more general than i thought it would be

From my recollection, Google's dominance was primarily due to their earlier efforts to reward "relevance" and they took the crown from AltaVista, who had become the search engine of choice for providing (much) better results than Yahoo! even earlier. Google locked in their crown through their early ad payment schemes which didn't just take money for placing ads but also paid dividends to third parties for promoting them. I forget the dates but as I recall in 2010 Yahoo! was fighting for its life and Google's only real competition was with the emerging Bing.

@mike THANK YOU! I mixed up my timelines and was using traffic (which yahoo still had a lot of at the time, presumably due to mail?) instead of search stats specifically to date the divergence. around 2010 it looks like they had ~half-ish search, and then effectively had crushed all others by mid 2010s. I had run into the ad story peripherally but no compared to other engines at the time, so thanks again. v helpful.

An interesting and ironic side story is that one of my co-workers at Netscape (a VP no less) used to hold the domain because he thought it could be a cool product name and Microsoft (our biggest enemy a decade earlier) snagged it up instantly when he intentionally let the registration lapse. Cheers.

@mike wow, you've got to believe there was some grudge there :p. I never get tired of hearing stories about the early browsers, so much drama.

@jonny Google owned search by the very early 2000s. I remember a couple of contenders which launched in the 2003--2005 timeframe, one of which was Cuil (pronounced "cool"). Those sank without a trace exceedingly quickly.

By 2010, it was all over.

So anything occurring in 2010 was not material to Google's dominance.

I definitely had my timing off, I was even around then but had just misread some visit counts as search counts and the brainworms multiplied. as I reconstruct it the knowledge graph stuff was more when Google started trying to like scoop up all other pages pre AMP starting with those info boxes going into general tool responses to queries like calculators/conversions/etc.

which feels like a separate phase of enclosure to me re: taking search interfaces to their logical exclusion to the point where young ppl don't know about the metaphor of location on a computer of the notion of a filesystem, etc.

@jonny The whole ambiguation of storage localisation thing is ... troubling, yes.

Sign in to participate in the conversation

A Fediverse instance for people interested in cooperative and collective projects.