I am relieved that Yahoo has rejected Microsoft's takeover offer, but I realize that this may not be the end of it. I am often amused by the search engine battles on the web. Google gets most of the search traffic, with Microsoft, Yahoo, and others lagging behind. So, theoretically, a merger is a good way to catch up.
There must be a better way. Google's ambitious goal to index the entire web is an impossible one, and I would argue that it is a stupid goal as well. Searching Google certainly gets lots of results, but so much of it is garbage. The same is true with Yahoo and Microsoft's Live Search. What we really need is an intelligent search engine that can distinguish between searches that appear to be identical.
For example, if I am searching for Juno, I think the reply from the search engine should be:
Select what you are looking for from this list: the movie, the Japanese model, the Juno Awards, Juno Records ...
When you click one of the terms, the search engine should add some search terms and construct a proper Boolean search, like: juno and (movie or film or theatrical release or motion picture). Most people have no idea how to construct a nested Boolean search, and only Yahoo supports it on the web anyway, but there are advanced search techniques in Google than can give you the same results.
The problem with search engines is that huge numbers of results come back at you, and research has proven that most people look only at the first two pages: the rest is irrelevant. I think we ought to be looking at smaller, better engines, like the human-powered Mahalo. It's database is slowly being compiled by humans. Don't run out an Mahalo yourself, because you won't be there, but you can add yourself. You might be a little underwhelmed at search results but I think, in time, search engines like this might prevail over the giants.
Oh, and the real reason I don't want Microsoft to take over Yahoo, is because then the evil empire will own Flickr, and that would be bad news.
