Trademark fail.

Suppose I want to find out which versions of .Net support IPv6. Type “.net ipv6” in google and…

Hmm, just what I was looking for!

Hmm, just what I was looking for!

Not very helpful result, is it? To an extent, it’s google’s fault as it seems insisting on dropping the . in .net, even if I search for “.net” (i.e. .net in quotes), but was it so hard to anticipate this problem when choosing the name for the new technology and, you know, choose something unique!

I work for a company whose name is a generic dictionary word, which looked rather nice in pre-Internet days, but these days it is certainly more preferable to have a name that isn’t a common word. And while the company I work for had its name chosen long before the Internet came around, .Net appeared in 2002!

Couldn’t they have just picked up some obscure island, too – like, I dunno, Sumatra? ASP.Sumatra – sounds kinda nice, doesn’t it?

OMG we’re so influential!

Less than a month ago we’ve complained about how unfriendly the Internet Explorer start page was. And behold:

Much better, but still no cigar.

Much better, but still no cigar.

This one is somewhat better, at least it give me an obvious direction what to do. It doesn’t address the most important problem, however: why on Earth I even have to think about a choice. Just gimme the search box, dammit!

Digg.com: your 2-letter words search sucks

Actually I have issues with Digg.com search in general. For example I always write my posts by myself. Whether they are good or bad, doesn’t matter, but they are always “original”. But when I submit something to Digg.com it is first “Digging through your submission” and then comes up with annoying message like “There are duplicates found” and gives me a list of posts with similar subject. When I submitted my post about Adobe HQ building, it showed me a long list of all Adobe-related posts found. Digg.com calls them “duplicates”. What a heck? Did you mean “related posts”? Do you see the difference between “duplicates” and “related” subjects? Then I have to click that stupid button “Totally original. I swear!”. Kinda “software implementation fail” workaround with some sort of humor.
Did You guys fail to design good search engine for yourselves? Or your “software back-end guy” quit in a middle of the project and left tons of unreadable code behind so no one could support it?

But back to the subject (“your 2-letter words search sucks”). Today I was searching Digg.com for the keyword “3D”. Please check out the results: “Your search string has disallowed characters in it, or is too short“:

2-letter words search sucks

2-letter words search sucks

Huh? How about group “U2”? Same result! WTF?
May be it is time for Digg.com to teach this “made in Asia” piece of software to start searching for common “2-letter-words”? Please do not tell me that I have to be more specific with search criteria, for example I have to type in “3D Display” or “3D Models”, or just go to Google. Well. Please, do not think for me, I would like to do the search and then decide what I want to read or not.

So I am waiting for the button @ Digg.com “That’s what I am f**king searching for! I swear!


Bookmark and Share