In the book The Search, John Battelle compares Yahoo and Google:

"Yahoo makes no pretence of objectivity-it is clearly steering searchers toward its own editorial services, which it believes can satisfy the intent of the search. In effect, Yahoo is saying 'You're looking for stuff on Usher? We got stuff on Usher, and it's good stuff. Try what we suggest; we think it'll be worth your time."

"Apparent in that sentiment lies a key distinction between Google and Yahoo. Yahoo is far more willing to have overt editorial and commercial agendas, and to let humans intervene in search results so as to create media that supports those agendas. Google, on the other hand, is repelled by the idea of becoming a content- or editorially driven company…they approach the task with vastly different stances. Google sees the problem as one that can be solved mainly through technology-clever algorithms and sheer computational horsepower will prevail. Humans enter the search picture only when algorithms fail and then only grudgingly."

What Battelle makes is that Google's approach – using technology- 'the machine' and algorithm to solve indexing world's information. I tend to think of it as 'content based' search: index based on content text rather than the semantic meaning of it and search based on keyword appearances and PageRank to decide its weight.

On the other hand Yahoo is taking an editorial approach on searching. It integrates human to drive search, helping searchers force on search intention. 'What you are really looking for?' By typing search keyword 'Usher' do you mean music artist Usher's lyrics or buying an Usher' music CD?

In my opinion this intention based search is one step higher than content based search, though it intrinsically comes with scalability issue. How many people Yahoo needs to satisfy the world?

Here is where Web 2.0 cutting in. The essence of Web 2.0 is collaborate and share information. Build social network by interaction of surfers. Web users self-govern, actively participate in virtual communities, engaging with each other. Web users can also help each other on driving intent based search using new emerging technology like tagging: Reading something interesting/disgusting? Right click the mouse on the page and throw in a keyword, which is then stored in an indexing machine (may well be from Yahoo or Google) together with the URL. On the back of this, the index machine scan and sort the tag with other tags that already add to this article (URL) and apply some smart algorithm…

Technorati Tags: Web 2.0 Google Yahoo Intention Base Search

How does the news industry "cross the chasm" and survive in a search-driven world? I don't have a silver bullet, unfortunately, but it starts by opening up its sites and realizing that in a post-Web world, the model for news is no longer site driven. Sites that wall themselves off are becoming irrelevant, not because the writing or analysis is necessarily flawed, but rather because their business model is. In today's ecosystem of news, the greatest sin is to cut one-self off from the conversation. Both The Economist and the Wall Street Journal have done just that
...
Remarking how traditional subscription based online media would be benefit from open up deep linking - allowing search and linking to their walled assert - subscription protected content:

The goal is to make content that is worth pointing to. If you're feeding the conversation, the rest will then follow, including advertisers who want to be in the conversation that news stories are fostering.

from The Search, John Battelle

Janurary 25th 2006 Google branches out their search engines to China to provide a faster service.

When the search was done in the US before this move, Chinese users suffer a slow connection but there isn't restriction on Big Brotherbood.”

"Engaging in censorship is not our mission, but what also inconsistent with our mission is allow us being unavailable to Chinese users."

(add 05, August 2006)

On remarking Google making concession to China on self-censoring, Orville Schell, a China scholar and dean of the Graduate school of Journalism at the University of California, Berkley, quoting a Chinese expression, 'To want to be a prostitute and erect a memorial arch to feminine virtue at the same time.' (又要当婊子，又要立牌坊)

Google may not want to be evil, but this time, it becomes an accessory of evil.

Schell says, “What may be most important is not the single concessionary act to China, but the precedent that this act would set for Google, namely, that the level of censorship before entry in specific market will be negotiated on a case-by-case basis”.  “If China manages to wring out such concessions, why should not another country or even some large multinational corporation which does not like unflattering information about it flying around the Google search universe, complain-and expect concessions?”

Cited from the book The Search