Comments on: One Button Costs Google $110 Million http://cybernetnews.com/2007/11/21/one-button-costs-google-110-million/ Technology News Sat, 05 Jul 2008 22:24:50 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Ashley http://cybernetnews.com/2007/11/21/one-button-costs-google-110-million/#comment-123918 Ashley Tue, 27 Nov 2007 00:44:40 +0000 http://cybernetnews.com/2007/11/21/one-button-costs-google-110-million/#comment-123918 [div id=commentquote]<a href="#comment-123509" rel="nofollow">JC wrote:</a><blockquote>I’m going to be a boring insufferable pedant and say that it doesn’t COST Google $100m to include the button. However, should they remove it , they could make up to an ADDITIONAL $100m. Anyway enough of this childish silliness! What I really want to say is ‘What an absolutely BRILLIANT website you have Cybernetnews! You are my first port of call every evening and the computer info you have available is simply excellent! Thank you and keep up the good work! Love, Light and Peace JC</blockquote>[/div] Thanks JC! :) JC wrote:
I’m going to be a boring insufferable pedant and say that it doesn’t COST Google $100m to include the button. However, should they remove it , they could make up to an ADDITIONAL $100m.
Anyway enough of this childish silliness! What I really want to say is ‘What an absolutely BRILLIANT website you have Cybernetnews! You are my first port of call every evening and the computer info you have available is simply excellent! Thank you and keep up the good work!

Love, Light and Peace

JC

Thanks JC! :)

]]> By: Ryan http://cybernetnews.com/2007/11/21/one-button-costs-google-110-million/#comment-123770 Ryan Sun, 25 Nov 2007 22:19:49 +0000 http://cybernetnews.com/2007/11/21/one-button-costs-google-110-million/#comment-123770 [div id=commentquote]<a href="#comment-123472" rel="nofollow">Mike wrote:</a><blockquote>So I had to look it up, and its “miserable failure” you type in google and press the “I’m feeling lucky button” but no longer works as of this year.</blockquote>[/div] I remember when Google posted saying that they had fixed that issue. They said that they tweaked the algorithm so that it wouldn't happen again, but then a week or two later someone found some other word that did something similar. I can't remember what it was. [div id=commentquote]<a href="#comment-123477" rel="nofollow">netster007x wrote:</a><blockquote>Here’s another funny Google search glitch. While the President one was around for a while, this one was taken down quickly. <a href="http://digg.com/offbeat_news/Google_She_invented_Result_Did_you_mean_He_invented" rel="nofollow">http://digg.com/offbeat_news/G.....e_invented</a></blockquote>[/div] That is definitely a classic as well. It makes you wonder what their algorithm was like that made it suggest that. Mike wrote:
So I had to look it up, and its “miserable failure” you type in google and press the “I’m feeling lucky button” but no longer works as of this year.

I remember when Google posted saying that they had fixed that issue. They said that they tweaked the algorithm so that it wouldn’t happen again, but then a week or two later someone found some other word that did something similar. I can’t remember what it was.

netster007x wrote:
Here’s another funny Google search glitch. While the President one was around for a while, this one was taken down quickly.
http://digg.com/offbeat_news/G.....e_invented

That is definitely a classic as well. It makes you wonder what their algorithm was like that made it suggest that.

]]> By: JC http://cybernetnews.com/2007/11/21/one-button-costs-google-110-million/#comment-123509 JC Thu, 22 Nov 2007 17:04:23 +0000 http://cybernetnews.com/2007/11/21/one-button-costs-google-110-million/#comment-123509 I'm going to be a boring insufferable pedant and say that it doesn't COST Google $100m to include the button. However, should they remove it , they could make up to an ADDITIONAL $100m. Anyway enough of this childish silliness! What I really want to say is 'What an absolutely BRILLIANT website you have Cybernetnews! You are my first port of call every evening and the computer info you have available is simply excellent! Thank you and keep up the good work! Love, Light and Peace JC I’m going to be a boring insufferable pedant and say that it doesn’t COST Google $100m to include the button. However, should they remove it , they could make up to an ADDITIONAL $100m.
Anyway enough of this childish silliness! What I really want to say is ‘What an absolutely BRILLIANT website you have Cybernetnews! You are my first port of call every evening and the computer info you have available is simply excellent! Thank you and keep up the good work!

Love, Light and Peace

JC

]]> By: Un piccolo pulsante che costa a Google 110 milioni di dollari | Generazione Internet http://cybernetnews.com/2007/11/21/one-button-costs-google-110-million/#comment-123493 Un piccolo pulsante che costa a Google 110 milioni di dollari | Generazione Internet Thu, 22 Nov 2007 12:16:32 +0000 http://cybernetnews.com/2007/11/21/one-button-costs-google-110-million/#comment-123493 [...] talvolta, direi spesso, non è il sito che stavamo cercando. Ebbene, questa mattina, leggendo CybernetNews, vengo a sapere che quel piccolo pulsante, utile solo in casi sporadici, ha un costo stimato di 110 [...] [...] talvolta, direi spesso, non è il sito che stavamo cercando. Ebbene, questa mattina, leggendo CybernetNews, vengo a sapere che quel piccolo pulsante, utile solo in casi sporadici, ha un costo stimato di 110 [...]

]]> By: netster007x http://cybernetnews.com/2007/11/21/one-button-costs-google-110-million/#comment-123477 netster007x Thu, 22 Nov 2007 04:36:43 +0000 http://cybernetnews.com/2007/11/21/one-button-costs-google-110-million/#comment-123477 Yeah, I remember just typing "failure" would do that. Here's another funny Google search glitch. While the President one was around for a while, this one was taken down quickly. http://digg.com/offbeat_news/Google_She_invented_Result_Did_you_mean_He_invented Yeah, I remember just typing “failure” would do that.

Here’s another funny Google search glitch. While the President one was around for a while, this one was taken down quickly.
http://digg.com/offbeat_news/G.....e_invented

]]> By: Mike http://cybernetnews.com/2007/11/21/one-button-costs-google-110-million/#comment-123472 Mike Thu, 22 Nov 2007 03:39:48 +0000 http://cybernetnews.com/2007/11/21/one-button-costs-google-110-million/#comment-123472 So I had to look it up, and its "miserable failure" you type in google and press the "I'm feeling lucky button" but no longer works as of this year. It was a plot by a blogger, tells you all about it here: http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/google.asp So I had to look it up, and its “miserable failure” you type in google and press the “I’m feeling lucky button” but no longer works as of this year.

It was a plot by a blogger, tells you all about it here:

http://www.snopes.com/politics.....google.asp

]]> By: netster007x http://cybernetnews.com/2007/11/21/one-button-costs-google-110-million/#comment-123471 netster007x Thu, 22 Nov 2007 03:34:44 +0000 http://cybernetnews.com/2007/11/21/one-button-costs-google-110-million/#comment-123471 Actually losing millions of dollars because of a button. Wow, never would have thought of that! However, I think people who use I'm feeling lucky would be less likely to click ads than other searchers, since they know what they want and won't be looking around the page much. Actually losing millions of dollars because of a button. Wow, never would have thought of that! However, I think people who use I’m feeling lucky would be less likely to click ads than other searchers, since they know what they want and won’t be looking around the page much.

]]> By: Mike http://cybernetnews.com/2007/11/21/one-button-costs-google-110-million/#comment-123470 Mike Thu, 22 Nov 2007 03:31:31 +0000 http://cybernetnews.com/2007/11/21/one-button-costs-google-110-million/#comment-123470 I only used it once, and that was when someone told me to type in "idiot" or "gullible" or something like that and it took you to George W. Bush's bio at the White House. People thought Google was taking the piss, but infact its how there search algorithm works, and they said they would not change it. Made a bit of a news article. I only used it once, and that was when someone told me to type in “idiot” or “gullible” or something like that and it took you to George W. Bush’s bio at the White House.

People thought Google was taking the piss, but infact its how there search algorithm works, and they said they would not change it. Made a bit of a news article.

]]> By: daddymcguire http://cybernetnews.com/2007/11/21/one-button-costs-google-110-million/#comment-123448 daddymcguire Wed, 21 Nov 2007 23:59:49 +0000 http://cybernetnews.com/2007/11/21/one-button-costs-google-110-million/#comment-123448 I only used the lucky button once to see what it was like, and I haven't tried it since. I only used the lucky button once to see what it was like, and I haven’t tried it since.

]]> By: natmaster http://cybernetnews.com/2007/11/21/one-button-costs-google-110-million/#comment-123443 natmaster Wed, 21 Nov 2007 23:19:05 +0000 http://cybernetnews.com/2007/11/21/one-button-costs-google-110-million/#comment-123443 They would probably lose more if they removed it... They would probably lose more if they removed it…

]]> By: Google http://cybernetnews.com/2007/11/21/one-button-costs-google-110-million/#comment-123435 Google Wed, 21 Nov 2007 22:01:54 +0000 http://cybernetnews.com/2007/11/21/one-button-costs-google-110-million/#comment-123435 That's my Google 8) That’s my Google 8)

]]>