The Elite Forum
The Big Three Plus One => General Chat => Topic started by: octoinky on May 10, 2009, 10:54:00 pm
-
The internet has brought on a lot of incredible resources. Many have evolved, many have crashed. Essentially everything anybody ever does is on the internet today. Communication, medical records, shopping, research, entertainment, etc. I picked a few things that are most relevant to our community and hobbies, and ask which of these is the "best" or most influential website.
Google - Do you even remember what you used before Google? I don't. Outside of web query, Google has also pioneered.. well, a ton of cool @!#@.
Youtube - Not only can you waste hours on youtube, the technology has allowed individual users to embed video files in their own web-pages, and has exploded the online ease of use of videos.
Facebook - There's a reason everybody is constantly on facebook, but I'll be damned if I knew it. Maybe somebody else could vote for it.
Wikipedia - With nearly 1 million hits per day, this "can't-be-trusted" online resource is actually full of very good, very accurate information. My professors directly recommend it is a first resource in university. Additionally, user-run wiki's have become very easy to set up, and are popping up in nearly all online communities.
No "other" this week, sorry! I want to see what we think about THESE sites
-
it's a toss up between Facebook and Youtube, though i check Wikipedia fairly often (i run my search engine through "inquisitor," not google)
probably Facebook atm
-
I went with wikipedia. I don't really like youtube or facebook much, so it was between google and wiki. While google is awesome, I think their main product is available elsewhere that is still easily accessible, while the information on wikipedia would be much more cumbersome to find without that resource.
Plus, the first result on any google query is more often than not a link to wikipedia :P
-
If you're talking about Google as a company in general (including: maps [which includes satellite pics, 3D street view, etc], gmail, their search engine [including image search], google docs, etc) then Google wins by a country mile, in my opinion.
Without google, this poll is much more interesting, and would come down directly to Youtube/Wikipedia. Facebook is neat, but isn't even a clear leader in their own domain (Myspace/Twitter). Youtube as a technology is just mind-numbing; how they can handle that much pure data and bandwidth is unbelievable. And Wiki is amazing for obvious reasons. But the Google search engine by itself is probably more impressive than those two, since it actually made the internet usable... combining all their projects is not close.
If Google wasn't on that list, I'd probably vote for... eh. Wiki.
-
Google could be replaced easily... in fact Yahoo! is worth more money (apparently) and has a search engine.
I picked Wikipedia... it is completely changing the face of education. Poor buggers who didn't stand a chance before can learn more in a year than a whole university degree can teach. When people start giving it the credit it deserves, we will hopefully see a change in the attitude which says "You can only get a good job if your daddy had money and could send you through university." Wikipedia is the true world changer.
-
youtube has made the biggest impact i believe.
-
Google could be replaced easily... in fact Yahoo! is worth more money (apparently) and has a search engine.
I picked Wikipedia... it is completely changing the face of education. Poor buggers who didn't stand a chance before can learn more in a year than a whole university degree can teach. When people start giving it the credit it deserves, we will hopefully see a change in the attitude which says "You can only get a good job if your daddy had money and could send you through university." Wikipedia is the true world changer.
The difference is, Google has a search engine that actually works. Yahoo might be worth more because it does other things Google doesn't do (games, news, sports pools, etc), and those don't qualify as influential technologies, really, even if they are money-makers.
The actual research Google does is changing technology in ways Yahoo can't come close to matching (stuff like Street View and Google Docs, just to name two). And Google Ads is actually a very good way to put ads on a site that earn revenue and don't piss people off. Virtually everything Google does is either revolutionary, or done better than all their competitors.
Your choice of Wiki isn't bad or anything, but comparing Google to other sites with a search engine is a battle Google wins for free every time.
-
Well, I'd say that Google just reinvented the way we use internet. All the other "technologies" have their value on the internet evolution, but let's say we all end up in those by searching stuff on google (https://forums.the-elite.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ezboard.com%2Fintl%2Faenglish%2Fimages%2Femoticons%2Ftongue.gif&hash=7cfc888ebd66cf455a55fd5e124ee8267da91148)
If not google, I'd vote for wikipedia. It's a simple idea that I thought that would never work, but nowadays the ammount of information, and the way that this information is written (by a lot of different people, who think different and see things differently from each other), is simply amazing.
-
Google gets my vote
-
Are we talking just about the sites or the companies?
In any case, from an objective point of view, Google wins with ease.
-
Without reading others opinion, it's a clear win with google. It's changed the internet in so many ways.
Facebook is fun. That's about it.
Wiki is loaded with faqs and would be close with YouTube in this category.
Everyone would rather watch videos more then read through facts? MO anyway.
There is a reason googles stock was 700+...now climbing from 295...
I still think live anything with HD video will be the next big thing for the web. Instead of reading an article and
Clicking the link to read the write up - for news and sport, the link will take you to the video with the websites own news on it.
I'm sure there are sites like this but full HD and live reporting in (ones) area.(zip code)
Or if one wants region or world wide news sports etc. They can also get that. I digress google wins hands down
-
Google
-
Wiki is loaded with faqs and would be close with YouTube in this category.
Everyone would rather watch videos more then read through facts? MO anyway.
Depends on your intelligence level. I usually like looking up stuff on Wikipedia more than I like watching videos on Youtube. 99% of videos on Youtube are either shit, or I have no interest in them. Everything on Wikipedia is relevant.
-
They're all groundbreaking, but I went with the one I use the most.
-
Google
-
I will go with ytmnd.com.
-
Good topic...I didn't vote because I seriously can't decide.
But, I would probably eliminate Google, since there is Yahoo, and like Octo said, it often leads you to Wiki anyways. Maybe eliminate Facebook as well, since there is MySpace, although Facebook seems to pretty dominant there.
-
If we take the value of the brand as an indicator of its importance...
-
no support for youtube!
-
With those choices, Google in a landslide. Google can find anything the other sites feature, just in a broader search. The only thing wiki/youtube/facebook do is condense the info into one convenient place.
I mean, Google my name, and you get me. Just like Facebook.
Google any video, you'll find it. Just like Youtube.
Google any event in history, and oh my, it's just like wiki.
The tealdeer is with the choices given, Google wins hands down. Now if you only have the other three up there, it's a toss-up. People vandalize wiki, youtube is 99.9% utter garbage, and Facebook is pretty much a waste of time (but hey, I have time to waste).
-
This is obviously Google.
-
One thing Google can't compete with is eBay, which I would have probably voted had it replaced Youtube.
-
The original question: "which of these is the "best" or most influential website."
Only possible answer: Google
In short, everyone who answered otherwise is just plain wrong. This doesn't take away the fact that people have different opinions about what is most valuable to them, but that wasn't the question as far as I'm concerned. The other sites are pretty much linked to Google in one way or the other. How many hits do you think Wikipedia would have without Google? In fact, I'm only reading a Wiki article after googling it.
Certain sources have estimated the value of Google's brand on about $100 US billion. And if we assume that's right, it's the most valuable brand in the world right now (above GE, Microsoft, IBM, Coca Cola etc.). Of course this figure only says something about future cash flows and takes into account the company as a whole, but it's still a pretty good indication to show that the other 3 options in this poll are quite funny.
-
actually yeah, if google is including google video, then it totally wins
i just took google to be the search engine bit
-
PUNCH THE KEYS FOR GODS SAKE
-
Good point Max, but I counterargue.
What is Google? What does it own? What does it supply? A company like Wal-Mart will always be up top because it supplies the world with food, clothing, and everything else we need. Toyota or GM (yes, it will survive) are massive because everyone needs cars to go from place to place. Exxon-Mobil makes us energy... everyone needs energy.
Google is what? It's nothing. It's made of air. Yes it's great, but it has no foundation... no tangibility... it can fall just as quickly as it rose.
-
It will take a major change in technology for Google to become obsolete. However I agree, that technology change is going to happen much sooner than a brand like Walmart will go out of business. Until then, I'd rather work for Google (https://forums.the-elite.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ezboard.com%2Fintl%2Faenglish%2Fimages%2Femoticons%2Fhappy.gif&hash=7b9cd982f9a41f9aefcd7ea74682d5f1e4caf4c6)
-
Tangibility has nothing to do with the value of a brand. Although Wal-Mart might be considered as a more important company, because it supplies food which is essential in human life; it doesn't make the company unique. If Wal-Mart goes bankrupt I'm pretty sure there are stores who take over the consisting stores. Developing the amount of knowledge required to run Google is something different however.
Also pretty interesting to know that big food chains like Wal-Mart are essentially operating as banks, having a delayed payment as opposed to receivables. The profits they make by selling food isn't enough to keep those kinds of stores in business.
-
Wal-Mart didn't sell food until very recently Max.
-
Ah well, I knew it was a retail store, but thought it was primarily food. We don't have it here, so I wouldn't know.
In any case you have totally destroyed my points above with this error, good job Goosie.
-
I love the "pick out the point that wasn't actually the point" arguments that totally avoid what was trying to be said, but still look like you're winning an argument (https://forums.the-elite.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ezboard.com%2Fintl%2Faenglish%2Fimages%2Femoticons%2Fsmile.gif&hash=1adea417e08e9042f9ce1a5426616bf29f2ca20e)
Another common misconception about how businesses make money revolve around insurance companies. They don't make money off of denying you claims, or charging you way more than you'll need on average. In fact, economic theory and the way that actuaries price policies says the companies are charging exactly the expected value, assuming they have the right life table for you, etc. People think they're being ripped off, even in the long run, but here is how insurance companies make their money: You pay them now, they pay you later. Invest = profit (https://forums.the-elite.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ezboard.com%2Fintl%2Faenglish%2Fimages%2Femoticons%2Fsmile.gif&hash=1adea417e08e9042f9ce1a5426616bf29f2ca20e)
-
octo would make a great insurance company rep.
They don't make money off charging you way more than you'll need on average. This is wrong--The company I can't say since I don't know the numbers but the agent definitely makes more money from doing this because he gets a cut obv more $=more cut for that agent=few people have the "right life table". (which by the way if we're talking about life insurance--whole life is a total scam but since that's a company that issues that==profit obv)
The only way you're not ripped off is if you plan on not living very long with any life insurance policy imo. I think it's the biggest scam going. Most policies are complete ripoffs which is exactly why people think they're being ripped off lol.
Just make sure you don't get scammed yourself octo.
-
Wal-Mart didn't sell food until very recently Max.
Wal-Mart's around here have sold food forever!
-
Wheat - I learned what I said from an actuary class in uni, prof been in the business for quite some time! Though of course it is just the economic theory that the invisible hand pushes prices down to zero profits - we all know when there are only a few big companies for a product that certainly isn't the case!!
I think some insurances are more of a ripoff than others.
And personally yeah I don't like the idea of insurance, I'd rather take my chances. Even car insurance costs a ridic amount
-
Car insurance typically isn't worth the price of your car, depending on the car you have and how often you get in an accident that's your fault. I don't have collision on my car, and even if I crashed it tomorrow, I'm sure I've saved money than paying them collision for years, only for them to turn around and pay me $2000 for my car as a writeoff. You only get insurance so that if you kill a person, you're not going to be the one paying monetarily for it (ie, however many hundreds of thousands it would cost you). In the event that would happen, you'd save a ton of money by just paying insurance.
I don't think Google will ever become obsolete. They're the ones typically making the best new technology, not the ones being obsoleted by it. Plus, they have some insanely good people working there, and they have incredible financial backing (I was amazed to learn how much Google Ads makes). The odds of a new technology coming around that essentially replaces everything Google does (and does it better) is slim to none, unless Google itself is behind it.
Edit: Goose wrote: "Google is what? It's nothing. It's made of air. Yes it's great, but it has no foundation... no tangibility... it can fall just as quickly as it rose."
It's pretty silly to think that just because something is intangible, it has no value. The world has become a different place with the internet; information is just as valuable as many other things, especially at the speed the world operates today. Google has one of the most solid foundations possible, I think. It has basically a never-ending stream of revenue (ads, among other things), and its company name is now a complete synonym with "find this information for me". Sure, food/clothing/department stores will always be in business, because there is always a need for that type of thing. The same will apply to Google (or companies like it)... with the way the world is today, the need that Google and its projects satisfies is just as essential.
-
^ true
Just think about google going offline for a week. With all the others they'd have a great repercussion, but with google it'd be caos. And that talking about the search engine itself.. the company Google is way bigger than it.
-
Holding off on next poll as per Jon's request for something else!
Looks like 6-6-2-18 are the results, can' t see the #s (https://forums.the-elite.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ezboard.com%2Fintl%2Faenglish%2Fimages%2Femoticons%2Fsmile.gif&hash=1adea417e08e9042f9ce1a5426616bf29f2ca20e)
-
Car insurance is mandatory here in Colorado! Dealing with uninsured drivers sucks.