Actually it is faster than anything I have seen. The unfluttered/uncluttered nature of their home page and search pages load extremely fast. The high text based content and lack of images are what accounts for this. Compare this to yahoo.com's portal of too much info... Not a rip, I tend to visit yahoo almost as much as google.
I normally don't point out when people are wrong, but this guy is spouting falsehoods with an attitude: Do you have any idea what a Computer Science curriculum is comprised of? Do you have any idea how many CS degrees work at Google, Yahoo or on MSN search? Obviously not. What exactly does "design computers" mean, anyway? I always thought that relevant search results is what people wanted. I don't think any search engine is easier to use than any other. In fact, they all have the same interface: enter keywords and push the button. Are you insinuating that G came before MSN? Sorry for flaming, but you shouldn't come on here and start blasting people when you only have 16 posts, and more importantly, you don't have your facts straight.
LOL, Fryman, get a life. Don't be so rude. PreviewSeek is decent. Why are you soo mean? Why are you soo loving of Google..IMO it is okay, but it still has a lot of developement time. So the next time you insult one of the better search sites, lets see your sites so we can se we bought that on ebay for $10. You get the picture?
Sorry for the late response, but I just found this. Of course not, as I'm not a Computer Scientist. Are you? Regardless, my point, which you missed, was that using "designed by computer scientists" to sell a search engine is like using "confirmed by AOL" to sell a virus hoax.
I suppose the degrees I have in CS would make me a Computer Scientist, so yes. Umm....ok. I don't see how saying "what people want is ease" has anything to do with their loyalty to a search engine...whatever. Maybe I did infer somethings from your post. Maybe you aren't good at communicating what you're trying to say. To be completely honest, I could care less about your opinions, the people at Google, cantufind, or any other search engine. The reason why I was compelled to respond was because you were flaming someone as one of your first posts, and you showed you have no idea what you're talking about. Let me show you: Saying that computer scientists don't design search engines when you clearly have no idea whether or not that is true is ignorant. Saying it in a demeaning way is ignorant and pompous. That's what I take issue with.
It's right here: "...the average user will use what they are familiar with, and not go looking for "more relevant" search engines..." The top search engines/directories are well known, and as far as the average user knows, are the best there is. They're the standards. For another take on this idea, ask a Linux user why most people use Windows. That's obvious by your need to comment on my post and follow up again. But I couldn't care less why you care so much. You've already stated that you think there's some reason that people should post a bunch (what, dozens? Hundreds? When do you think they're good to go?) of benign comments before posting their real reaction to someone's comments, and I've already stated that that has no meaning for me. Now THAT I do agree with. That's where you're absolutely correct: I'm ignorant of the current state of the field of Computer Science. I contemplated it in high school, but at the time, the field seemed only slighty more appealing to me than I imagined piecing my eyes with rusty needles would be. That was in the early 1980s. You, on the other hand, are obviously quite familiar with the field, having completed your degree in it. Now I understand why you're sensitive to comments about it; so sensitive that you're blind to the intended meaning of any comment that contains inaccurate representation of the field. I do apologise for any perceived insult to the field (save for my circa 1980 impression) as that was not my intent. OK, I agree that someone claiming to know about something and then getting up on a soapbox and proving he doesn't is pretty irritating. To the extent that I did that, I do apologise. However, I again point out that you're still ignoring the point I was trying to make (which some may consider a more definitive example of ignorance and pompousness), and clinging to the point you want to take, so you can take exception with it. And I don't think my impression/assumption that Computer Scientists have better things to do than design Yet Another Search Engine is in any way demeaning to Computer Scientists. I'm under the impression that someone with a CS degree can aspire to a much higher calling than that. Let's try to look at my point from another direction. Are you familiar with the cliché "it's not rocket science?" Do you see how that's not an insult but a compliment to the field of rocket science? As in, "it doesn't take a rocket scientist to [insert menial task here]." That's what I got from the original post: that the person who wrote the ad copy was using "Computer Scientists" as a buzzword in an attempt to make us believe that some new search engine would pose a threat to Google (who could hire as many Computer Scientists as they needed to combat such a threat if it were real). OK? No offense was intended to anyone but the people responsible for the marketing style of the original subject, and the guy who offensively (and ridiculously) attacked the huge competition to his own little search engine. (Of course there's an offensive edge in my defense from your flames, but that's to be expected, n'est pas?) Here's wishing you peace, respect, and really good beer.
Competition is not an issue for Google. They're a billion dollar company and way ahead of time. What is an issue is how do we as affiliates get back into Google's limelight after they just kicked a bunch of us out of their adwords for using landing pages and so forth?. Do you know?