Why must people who know absolutely nothing about search write articles about search engines? A recent Zacks article by Steve Harmon states "In my opinion Google has replaced Yahoo (YHOO already. More people use a search box than want to use a `directory` style hierarchy that Yahoo built."
Where has this guy been? Has he not seen Yahoo branding its search product? Their directory is more of a novelty now. When you go to Yahoo its Yahoo Search they are pushing, not the Yahoo directory.
Also has this guy failed to notice Yahoo gobbling up 3 of the 5 biggest crawler based search engines and the number one pay per click engine?
Google may be ahead, but it is certainly not because of Yahoo promoting its directory.
Later he asks "Remember Netscape?" - building a competitive search engine for the entire world knowledge database is most likely a tad bit harder than building a browser.
Then he states "Best bet is for Yahoo and Google to merge and take on Microsoft before Microsoft`s next version of Windows -- nicknamed Longhorn -- debuts with search and other features built in everywhere."
It does not matter if they make search accessible everywhere...it is the quality of the search the led people to Google. If nothing else, pushing MSN search on people will cause more negative press from people critical of MSN.
Another couple good entries about the subject are done by Da' Tmeister and Andrew Goodman. Beyond those articles most of the activity has came from within the SEO forums. I must state that I have the utmost of respect for Danny Sullivan as he was one of the first people who linked into my article.
Most of the other people in the SEO field ignored the existence of my early article with the exception of the dubious website that had a generic article with an extremely similar name to my article...
Today many SEO websites still have dissatisfied customers and are now producing third rate rehash articles only citing a few of the above sources.