<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" 
      xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">
  <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/google_vulnerable_features.php" />
  <link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/atom.xml" />
  <id>tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2011:/1/tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2008://1.5716-</id>
  <updated></updated>
  <title>Comments for Comment of the Day: Google Vulnerable, But Not From Lack of Features</title>
  
  <generator uri="http://www.sixapart.com/movabletype/">Movable Type 4.35-en</generator>
  <entry>
    <id>tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2008://1.5716</id>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/google_vulnerable_features.php" />
    <link rel="service.edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-atom.cgi/weblog/blog_id=1/entry_id=5716" title="Comment of the Day: Google Vulnerable, But Not From Lack of Features" />
    <published>2008-02-22T04:08:14Z</published>
    <updated>2008-02-22T04:29:31Z</updated>
    <title>Comment of the Day: Google Vulnerable, But Not From Lack of Features</title>
    <summary>We had a lot of great comments today, but the winner is from our post How Vulnerable is Google on Search?. The premise was that Google hasn&apos;t changed search in 7 or 8 years, so they are vulnerable to search innovators - like the companies profiled at AltSearchEngines. Gabe Morris agreed with the premise, but...</summary>
    <author>
      <name>Richard MacManus</name>
      <uri>http://www.readwriteweb.com</uri>
    </author>
    
    <category term="Contests" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.readwriteweb.com/">
      <![CDATA[<p><img src="http://www.readwriteweb.com/images/comments_comp_gold_star.jpg" />We had a lot of great comments today, but the winner is from our post <a href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/how_vulverable_is_google_on_se.php">How Vulnerable is Google on Search?</a>. The premise was that Google hasn't changed search in 7 or 8 years, so they are vulnerable to search innovators - like the companies profiled at <a href="http://altsearchengines.com">AltSearchEngines</a>. Gabe Morris agreed with the premise, but he argued that it has little to do with Google's lack of features. Well done Gabe, you've won a $30 Amazon voucher - courtesy of our competition sponsors AdaptiveBlue and their <a href="http://www.adaptiveblue.com/widgets_auto.html?section=amz&name=Your%20Wish%20List">Amazon WishList Widget</a>. Here is Gabe's <a href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/how_vulverable_is_google_on_se.php#comment-47342">full comment</a>:</p>
]]>
      <![CDATA[<blockquote><p><img src="http://www.readwriteweb.com/images/google150.jpg" align="right" />"Marshall - <br />
I agree with your overall point.<br />
Google is vulnerable in search.<br />
Every technology-based company is vulnerable. It's a truism (albeit one that needs to be repeated whenever overwrought fears surface related to the Borg Du Jour)...<br />
There's a reason the best performing stock over the last 50 years is, I believe, Phillip Morris/Altria, makers of a product whose technology has remained virtually unchanged over that time period.</p>

<p>So while I agree with you about the overall vulnerability of Google, I don't agree with Doc Searls' rant at all.</p>

<p>"There are so many ways search can be improved... There's so many ways to granulate search and make it conditional and do a much better job."</p>

<p>I think a chapter in "Getting Real" serves as a good riposte to that (excerpted at length below).</p>

<p>Finally, to respond more practically to Mr. Searls, I think that in the future Google will continue to expand the Google Custom Search product to precisely enable "the many ways to granulate search and make it conditional".</p>

<p>---<br />
<a href="http://gettingreal.37signals.com/ch04_Make_Opinionated_Software.php" rel="nofollow">http://gettingreal.37signals.com/ch04_Make_Opinionated_Software.php</a></p>

<p>"Some people argue software should be agnostic. They say it's arrogant for developers to limit features or ignore feature requests. They say software should always be as flexible as possible.</p>

<p>We think that's bullshit. The best software has a vision. The best software takes sides. When someone uses software, they're not just looking for features, they're looking for an approach. They're looking for a vision. Decide what your vision is and run with it.</p>

<p>And remember, if they don't like your vision there are plenty of other visions out there for people. Don't go chasing people you'll never make happy."</p>

<p>I could have thrown a dart at any chapter in Getting Real and it would have been just as relevant to exposing the weakness in DS's rant."</p>
</blockquote>]]>
    </content>
  </entry>

</feed>
