But no doubt the simple and elegant interface helped too, and has helped them stay ahead as the other search engines have caught up with their algorithm.
But no doubt the simple and elegant interface helped too, and has helped them stay ahead as the other search engines have caught up with their algorithm.
There were numerous well-understood PageRank alternatives available at the time (eg HITS was published in 1999[1]).
Google did lots of things right (good algorithm, good scaling, good UI, text-based advertising, spam handling, no portal etc), and to say it was "only PageRank" is just wrong.
http://www.slideshare.net/shatakirti/pagerank-and-hits
http://www.ijarcce.com/upload/2014/february/IJARCEE9J_a_pooj...
The first indicated PageRank has less disadvantages like spam. The second sums up the result here:
"page rank is more popular algorithm... due to the features like efficiency, feasibility, less query time cost, less susceptibility to localized links, etc which are absent in the HITS algorithm"
If that's true, then my claim would stand as HITS wouldn't have been good enough without a lot of modification. Google also got me better results than Ask that used HITS. If such claims are wrong, then you might be right. It would take more than a quick search to know.
Jerry Yang and Yahoo did not appreciate this and missed their oppurtunity to acquire Google early on. That said, Yahoo would have fumbled it even if they had pulled the trigger.