Google Sucks

Everything sucks in some ways, and everything can have a sucks page. That's the point of a sucks page. To discuss the sucks issues. Google may suck in some ways and wiki may suck in some ways. That does not make them bad or one hundered percent suckage

Google Sucks because

A lot of OpenSource users rely on it and use it, yet Google is very closed.
GoogleAds?, Adwords, are taking over many personal websites and making them look like Ad Farms. Instead of seeing TV commercials every 15 minutes we now see ads while trying, to pay off the money to pay this, to pay more money for that, which makes somone more money, or lose more money, or something. It seems quite circular. Fight a Fight with a Fight.
A lot of people think it's free (in cost and speech in all aspects though?). In fact it's got advertising all over the site. Clowns recursively creating GoogleAds? pages which link to GoogleAds? pages, which link to more GoogleAds? pages from google results, sometimes even from GoogleAds? results.
Google doesn't suck as a search engine in all aspects. Nobody is doubting that. It's a good tool, but ClosedSource. OpenSource folk though, like on SlashDot or on forums talk about Google as if it's perfect.
OpenSource/GnuLinux People talk about Google because it's a good search engine for finding things, not because Google is not an open project. They can't fix it if it's broken like a kernel or software. They won't use MicroSoft to run their OS (the more extreme ones), but they will use Google to search every single day. Yet Google is ClosedSource and very restrictive. Google is not of the GnuLinux or MozillaLicense or other license philosophy really. Using Google every day even though it is proprietary might be clashing with a philosophy.
- I believe the justification is that Google provides services, not software. Users are not required to install non-free software to their computers in order use their search service, they just navigate to the page, and all the closed-off stuff happens on Google's own servers, restricting nobody's freedom (in the software sense at least). Some FreeSoftware people might take offense if Google was using obfuscated JavaScript on their site, since that is software that runs on their own computers, but otherwise when it comes to Google's software: it's not on my computer, no harm, no foul. Whether or not they'd use Google products for other reasons (advocacy for HTML5 DRM comes to mind) is a different question.
- Note: This is not an issue for people who do not know or agree with open licenses, so ignore above if you are they.
They've (all search engines) found an easy way to profit off content they don't own. Should they be paying you for your content? Or should we just start up an OpenSource engine instead, and forget about the whole payment scheme/patent/copyright malarky (FreeSoftware, FreePhilosophy?).
Gmail sucks, as a part of google, until Google makes Gmail accessible through a ThinClient or something similar. See discussion with Eliz. below.
Google Sucks because some pages get dropped out of their search engine and appear only as a URL in the search results. These pages are not banned from Google, Google just doesn't have enough space to index the pages (or some other reason), so it cuts them off. (More about this at http://www.google-watch.org/dying2.html.) But still, this doesn't suck as much has other engines who don't index as many pages in the first place. So Google still is a good engine in many ways.
Google sucks because they introduce cool new technologies that draw you in, but then they leave them half baked and unfinished. Yahoo is always painfully slow to catch up, but when they do they usually finish the drill.

So don't use them? Stop using them as a search engine and use the standard robots.txt arrangement to block them from indexing you. Case closed, problem solved.

Please re-read the above. They are a good search engine in many ways, as stated above. For finding results.. Doesn't mean there aren't alternatives to ponder, or projects to consider starting, k?

The rant up top has two "concerns" it is addressing: one, Google sucking, and two, the need for GoogleAlternatives?, preferably OpenSource. The "don't use them" paragraph addresses the first concern. The second concern is an entirely separate issue. :)

Perhaps the ranter should just acquire some FreeHardware (and FreeElectricity? and FreeLabor?) and create an open source Google alternative.
- Unfortunately, there are many people out there who think that "free software" means "people (and companies) should all be in the business of giving everything they have away, so I can do whatever I want and not be inconvenienced in the slightest by advertising, fees, or any other crass commercial concern." Such an belief, of course, is not the primary ethic of FreeSoftware (which is about freedom rather than prices)--but there seem to be a lot of folks, including the author of this rant, who have large senses of entitlement.
- Or he could aquire some FreeSoftware first to assist in the process recursively. But since there isn't any FreeSoftware out there, that isn't possible. Oh, wait, that can't be right.

Again, we're talking about two different concepts here - FreeAsInBeer and free as in FreeSpeech. While Google is FreeAsInBeer, being paid through advertising (which is only a very minor nuisance if indeed it is one), the source to Google and especially their AlgoRithm? for calculating GoogleJuice is a secret. While opening their source would tell spammers how to tune their efforts, it would also the community a chance to their defences against GoogleSpamming.

Opening the source to linux would also give the community a chance for people to write a virus for Linux. Linux would then get more virii than MicrosoftWindows. Oh, wait that can't be right.

Opening Google's source would also destroy one of their most important assets. If they can't keep their cleverness then, at best, the search engine market becomes even more of a commodity market. The company that is willing to operate on the lowest margins & spew forth the most advertising will get the biggest market share. At worst, Google dies because a closed source company develops more clever algorithms. Even if Google catches up they can't use their cleverness to their advantage.

Opening Linux's source would also destroy one of RedHat's most important assets. Oh, wait, no, that can't be right.

Read it again. The Linux source code doesn't distinguish RedHat from their competitors. They are already in a commodity market. That's why their margins are low and they advertise much more than Google.

We're not discussing linux and opening up google's source code. That would be like comparing StarOffice with OpenOffice. I don't expect google to open up it's source code. I expect people to talk about google sucks issues. And like all sucks pages, it's to be taken lightly - not so seriously. I'm not interested in talking about markets with you or margins. Take your corporate marketing buzzwords to the TSE or NYSE and purchase some stocks.

I didn't bring up Linux, you did. You can't discuss Linux and then say we aren't discussing Linux when someone uses words you don't want to think about. They aren't corporate marketing buzzwords, they are basic economic terms. Running Google (or an alternative to Google) costs money. You can't ignore the economics of that and be taken seriously.

What I meant was that we are not discussing Linux vs Google mainly or margins mainly. That's where the conversation seems to be headed. I brought up the fact that GnuLinux users use google. But I don't want to turn the conversation into a Linux versus Google, I want to discuss all sorts of GoogleSucks issues such as Gmail, GoogleAdwords?, etc. Running Anything "costs money" in todays world.. so it's boring to talk about on a sucks page, since everything "requires money". Margins, economics have very little to do with sp,e projects on the internet. Google is an exception. That's one of the sucks issues, but not the entire content of this page.

If you talk about how Google sucks, others will talk about why it is the way you think sucks. Your first statements seem entirely about selling advertising and using closed source. There are perfectly good reasons for that. They are the same reasons that no other search engine sucks less than Google and they have economics at their core.

Way off topic. Remember if this was about opening up sources, I would have mentioned OpenOffice and StarOffice too. I'm sure you are familiar with them. That's not what this page is about. It's just a page like XmlSucks or ViSucks or EmacsSucks? or SuckingOnALemonSucks. That's all.

Gmail sucks if you cannot use a mouse or are into ExtremeKeyboarding?. Many of the links in a Gmail page cannot be tabbed to because they're not true links. It seems Gmail uses JavaScript to determine x,y where you click your mouse pointer. Gmail sniffs your browser, and if it's a "supported" browser, your mail pages are automatically delivered in "Standard" mode (fake links require mousing or other pointer device). Gmail can also be used in "Basic HTML" mode (all links are real, therefore can be reached via tab key). But the link to take you to Basic mode is--guess what--a fake link that requires a mouse pointer! If you turn off JavaScript or launch an "unsupported" browser (wrong DocumentObjectModel) for Gmail, pages are automatically delivered in Basic HTML mode. But in Basic mode you cannot access or change your Settings, such as your password. Not being able to set something as basic as your password when in Basic mode is very sucky. (Gmail tested 2005-04-06 with its keyboard shortcuts turned off so as not to clash with MozillaFirefox's find-as-you-type.) -- ElizabethWiethoff

I agree, Gmail sucks because it is HTML-based and needs something like a ThinClient or ComponentBrowser or RemoteGuiProtocol.

Or use your own favorite, non-sucking client to connect to Gmail via POP3: http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1723553,00.asp (Or IMAP: http://mail.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=75725)

True, true. One could sign up for Gmail and just have it all downloaded to your own POP3 client. But besides the gazillion bytes of storage, isn't the whole point of Gmail to use the funky archiving and categorization facilities offered in "Standard" mode and think "Hey, this is the greatest!"? Oh, and while I'm at it, you cannot set Gmail up from an "unsupported" browser to deliver POP3 (can't get to the dang Settings). -- Eliz

Gmail also sucks because you cannot sort the messages by sender. This is just pure arrogance on Google's part. People have been begging for this feature. Their response is to do a search instead of a sort. No... if I wanted to do a search, I'd do a search. I want to sort dad-gum-it. One thing that I like to do with my email is sort the messages by recipient name so that I can delete huge chunks of old messages easily. Can't do that in Gmail. No.... we're a search company. We don't sort.

I know, right... I've been using MS Outlook for years, and the way it works, is that I double click on a message to open it. Not so in fancy-pantsy gmail! No no no, they insist that it be a single click. Well that's just not the way my brain works! I wrote them a strongly-worded letter insisting that they conform to my silly non-optimal whims. We'll see what they have to say for themselves. "Don't be evil", yeah, right.

PageRank (by popularity and not quality) sucks and therefore GoogleSucks

So claimed the pundits at http://www.google-watch.org/. However another viewpoint that is more sympathetic to Google exists at http://google-watch-watch.org/

CategoryRant CategorySucks CategoryInternet