Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Programming The Internet IT Technology

How to Build a Search Engine 270

CowboyRobot writes "Three years ago, former Infoseek developer Matt Wells decided to go solo and build his own search engine, Gigablast. In this article, Infoseek founder Steve Kirsch interviews his former employee about the process and challenges of creating a modern, scalable search engine. From the article: 'Search is a fiercely competitive arena, even though there are really only five Web search companies today: Google, Yahoo (Altavista/AlltheWeb/Inktomi), Looksmart (Wisenut), AskJeeves (Teoma), and Gigablast. It's a tight little community, and a lot of the people know and watch each other. Microsoft is also coming to the party, and everyone's a little bit nervous to see what it's bringing.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

How to Build a Search Engine

Comments Filter:
  • Lol (Score:5, Funny)

    by SugoiMonkey ( 648879 ) on Saturday April 17, 2004 @10:32PM (#8895303) Homepage Journal
    "even though there are really only five Web search companies today: Google, Yahoo (Altavista/AlltheWeb/Inktomi), Looksmart (Wisenut), AskJeeves (Teoma), and Gigablast " Gigawho? You silly goose.
    • P2P? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by ron_ivi ( 607351 ) <sdotno@nOsPaM.cheapcomplexdevices.com> on Saturday April 17, 2004 @10:39PM (#8895340)
      I always thought P2P would be a good infrastructure for a search engine.

      That way, I could share the load with people with similar interests as myself.

      For example, I would like a search engine that was more up-to-date crawling the PR of my competitors, but couldn't care less about most other companies. If I were running my own node of a P2P engine, I could set my node to focus on that, and anyone else who shared my interests could tap into it.

      • Re:P2P? (Score:4, Informative)

        by lakeland ( 218447 ) <lakeland@acm.org> on Saturday April 17, 2004 @10:53PM (#8895407) Homepage
        There was one a while back. Everybody installed a program kinda like glimpse on your server and indexed your own web site and a few others. IIRC it would automatically work out by IP address any sites that were nearby and not already over-indexed. They all then kinda pooled the results.

        One benefit of it is that you can keep the index of your website up to the minute if you really want. I guess they just never got enough people running the indexing software.
      • Re:P2P? (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward
        how about an "open" search engine? any takers? post below....
      • Re:P2P? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by cgenman ( 325138 ) on Sunday April 18, 2004 @12:47AM (#8895755) Homepage
        The closest thing to what you're talking about is Grub [grub.org], which is run by Looksmart [looksmart.com] as a dead-link checker and also feeds to WiseNut [wisenut.com]. While it doesn't allow you to crawl sites that you don't have control over, it does allow you to crawl your own site.

        Personally, I've wanted a Google toolbar that indexes the sites that you surf, and adds additional positive weight to the sites that you linger on. It may not know what you liked there, but it knows that you liked it.

        Completely offtopic, but does anyone know of a screensaver on Windows that displays random (or spidered) web pages? I've been looking for an equivalent to the XWindows version for years.

        • Re:P2P? (Score:5, Interesting)

          by cgenman ( 325138 ) on Sunday April 18, 2004 @01:31AM (#8895867) Homepage
          ...Just answered my own question. Combining A+ Web Screensaver (nonfree) with a random web page URL (www.uroulette.com/visit.php) gets a random web page display on idle. Yay! Now I'll never know if I'm going to a polynesian community church or a poorly written Raiders fansite.

          Now if there were only a way to open said site and continue reading in non-screensaver mode...

      • Re:P2P? (Score:2, Informative)

        by toddler99 ( 626625 )
        there has been work in this direction already from lehigh university check it out here http://wume.cse.lehigh.edu/
    • Re:Lol (Score:5, Insightful)

      by SphericalCrusher ( 739397 ) on Saturday April 17, 2004 @10:49PM (#8895393) Journal
      That sounds a lot like self-advertisement to me. And there are A LOT more than just five companies! Take MetaCrawler and DogPile for instance -- they aren't on his list.
  • Gigablast... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by vosbert ( 544192 ) on Saturday April 17, 2004 @10:34PM (#8895318)
    Am I the only one who's never heard of Gigablast... but then not too many years ago, I remember a time when I've never heard of Google. Kinda makes one wonder how secure a lead from its competition any search engine ever hope to obtain, and what kind of chances Microsoft stand in usurping the search engine market.
    • Re:Gigablast... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Am I the only one who's never heard of Gigablast...


      i never heard of them either, but heard of all others there.


      what a load of shit, this guy works on one search engine, then compares his engine to the other top 4 competitor. What about alltheweb.com, for instance? I've at least heard of that one, it ain't there.


      It's like Linux One (remember them) claiming there are four main linux distibutions. red hat, debian, slackware, and linux one.

      • Re:Gigablast... (Score:2, Informative)

        by cliffy2000 ( 185461 )
        "Search is a fiercely competitive arena, even though there are really only five Web search companies today: Google, Yahoo (Altavista/AlltheWeb/Inktomi), Looksmart (Wisenut), AskJeeves (Teoma), and Gigablast."
        You don't even have to RTFA. Read the summary.
      • Even SearchKing [searchking.com] is better known than Gigablast... and SearchKing pretty much faded into obscurity after the Google/SearchKing problems a while back.
    • by mbauser2 ( 75424 ) on Sunday April 18, 2004 @04:21AM (#8896161) Homepage
      I have heard of Gigablast, but I've never been impressed by it. (I wrote a review [bauser.com] back in 2002.) Most search engine optimizers love Gigablast, however, because it's such an easy engine to game.

      It's a fairly old-school engine: indexes whatever it can and favors pages that are keyword-heavy. It's almost too easy to spam. I don't think there's anything PageRank-like in the algorithm, otherwise, it wouldn't be able to add pages to the index "instantly". (PageRank is too computationally intensive for that.) Gigablast still thinks meta-tags are a great idea! While the hardware setup might be innovative (I'll leave that to the hardware experts to decide), the engine software itself seems about ten years behind the times.

      Like many posters here, I doubt a one-man outfit is going to take down Google (although many search engine optimizers would like it to). Gigablast has had two years to make an impression, and it hasn't. A company on an acquisistion binge might be crazy enough to buy it, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 17, 2004 @10:35PM (#8895322)
    This will cover about 50% of your job:
    select * from internet where keywords like '%asian sex free pics%';
  • Hmmm.... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by elid ( 672471 ) <eli.ipod@gmailPERIOD.com minus punct> on Saturday April 17, 2004 @10:35PM (#8895323)
    Gigablast: "273,384,720 pages indexed"
    Google: "Searching 4,285,199,774 web pages" That's quite a big difference.
    • Re:Hmmm.... (Score:5, Informative)

      by ixplodestuff8 ( 699898 ) on Saturday April 17, 2004 @10:44PM (#8895368)
      I've never heard of gigablast either, but it seems to have some intresting features, it links to the wayback machine's page on the site so you can see past versions of the site. And it also says the most common phrases in which the search term was found. It also archives pages like google and goes as far as to link to OTHER search engines to help out your search
      • goes as far as to link to OTHER search engines to help out your search

        • goes as far as to link to OTHER search engines to help out your search

          How long before other search engines start considering this stealing? I mean, I could have a search engine running tomorrow, if all it did was link to Google and return hits to my own bannered page.

    • Re:Hmmm.... (Score:4, Funny)

      by Waffle Iron ( 339739 ) on Saturday April 17, 2004 @11:12PM (#8895469)
      Gigablast: "273,384,720 pages indexed"
      Google: "Searching 4,285,199,774 web pages" That's quite a big difference.

      At least this Gigablast name is closer to the truth. They are only exaggerating their page count by a factor of 3.7 : 1.

      By my math, Google comes up short by 2.3x10^90 : 1.

    • Re:Hmmm.... (Score:4, Informative)

      by trenton ( 53581 ) <trentonl.gmail@com> on Saturday April 17, 2004 @11:15PM (#8895478) Homepage
      Have you tried searching, though? Google pulls back more (quantity adn accuracy) than Gigablast for the same terms. For example, search for "larry wall interview" and get 77,300 [google.com] vs 9,759 [gigablast.com] . I'm certainly not saying Google doesn't have its share of problems (seems to steadily be declining in quality). And I do like the categories/tags that Gigablast provides, but overall quality I'll give to Google.
    • Did you read the article? Gigablast is one guy with eight computers. He thinks he can approach the size of Google's index (5 billion pages) this year if he invests all of his earnings into hardware and bandwidth. He's also well aware of the search engine spam problem and has built anti abuse features into it.

      Given that, plus the fact that he's spidered my worthless blog, I'm pretty impressed. Definately something to watch.

    • Gigablast: "273,384,720 pages indexed"
      Google: "Searching 4,285,199,774 web pages" That's quite a big difference.


      Yes, and noticeable to me. I tried to search for a site I know, and regardless how many terms I entered, it didn't spot it... In the end, the results was down to 2 hits (with only three common keywords) and it wasn't among the sites.

      Heck, it doesn't put www.slashdot.org first when searching for Slashdot. :-P Actually, I couldn't even find a link to the main page when searching for Slashdot.
  • by jonman_d ( 465049 ) <nemilar@optonlin e . net> on Saturday April 17, 2004 @10:36PM (#8895325) Homepage Journal
    I have to say, that list makes no sense. Maybe if you'd switch "Gigablast" with "MSN", you'd have a list of the some of the major search engines, but it sounds like this guy is just tooting his own horn (and without the proper credentials).
    • He said "search engine companies", not search engines. Companies which do other things don't qualify. MSN, for instance, is affiliated with some company that makes computer mice.
  • Whatever happened to (Score:5, Interesting)

    by nevek ( 196925 ) on Saturday April 17, 2004 @10:36PM (#8895326) Homepage
    Hotbot, Lycos, Mamma.com, Iwon.com, wisenut.com, looksmart,com teoma.com, alltheweb.com, deja.com, direchit.com, excite.com, go.com, infoseek.com, invisibleweb.com, flipper.com, messageking.com, magellan.com, nbci.com, snap.com, northernlight.com, openfind.com, webcrawler.com

    ahh the dotcomfallout

    at least www.cowboynealsproncollection.com is doing well
  • only 5? (Score:5, Informative)

    by micker ( 668555 ) on Saturday April 17, 2004 @10:38PM (#8895334) Homepage
    The poster left out vivisimo.... lately its been all I use...

    and to the post above this.. what does 2 trillion hits matter against 2 million if they cant get what you really need up onto the first page

    • and to the post above this.. what does 2 trillion hits matter against 2 million if they cant get what you really need up onto the first page

      It doesn't matter one bit. That is, until you want page 2 million + 1. Then, all of a sudden, having a few more billion pages to index is a good thing.
  • Humph (Score:5, Funny)

    by SlamMan ( 221834 ) <squigit&gmail,com> on Saturday April 17, 2004 @10:39PM (#8895336)
    "and everyone's a little bit nervous to see what it's bringing.'"

    Money. Lots and lots of money.
  • Microsoft at the party would probably look something like this [somethingawful.com]
    "Pass the dip, guys!"
  • I mean, I know they're different sites and all, but isn't the yahoo site just the google search bar with all those category links added?
  • Matt's a good guy (Score:3, Informative)

    by Thanatopsis ( 29786 ) <{despain.brian} {at} {gmail.com}> on Saturday April 17, 2004 @10:46PM (#8895378) Homepage
    We use Gigablast as a back fill for one of our search engines. His stuff is very speedy and he's good guy to work with.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 17, 2004 @10:47PM (#8895384)
    ...have a lot in common. Different search engines allow sites to "vote" on which ones are the most authoritative, and the best methods in one field can give insight into the best method in the other.

    For example, there is the Kemeny order (named after the same guy who came up with BASIC, John G. Kemeny). Using a version of ranked ballots and sorting websites by the mean Kemeny order gives you a method that is surprisingly good at putting authoritative sites at the top and spam sites at the bottom. For those of you who like in-depth analysis and don't mind math, the following is a good site:

    http://www10.org/cdrom/papers/577/
  • by GSPride ( 763993 )
    I know that other people must use search engines other then google, but who? And why? I could see netscape, because it's the default homepage for many browsers, and maybe Ask Jeeve due to the easy syntax, but why would people go out of their way to Gigablast or Looksmart. Who's even heard of those two?
  • by Kenja ( 541830 ) on Saturday April 17, 2004 @10:51PM (#8895398)
    In my opinion the best search engine is a Ford T-Block. Put that into a light weight steel frame and we can search them down and kill em in the street like wild animals.

    Whoa, hold on. Wrong site. Never mind.

  • BOOBLE! (Score:4, Funny)

    by the MaD HuNGaRIaN ( 311517 ) on Saturday April 17, 2004 @10:53PM (#8895404)
    What about BOOBLE [booble.com].
  • by Jtoxification ( 678057 ) on Saturday April 17, 2004 @11:05PM (#8895451) Homepage Journal
    We all win. With the increasing # of sites, content, web services, spam, popup attacks, and "please allow us to rape your computer" certificates to download, (that's the main reason I use Firefox when on Windows now: because you can't tell I.E. to not accept those damned installation certificates, nor block requests to change the homepage.) it becomes equally more difficult to find what you're looking for, especially when it's not something that everyone else looks for, via Google's site ranking technology [google.com]. Because they fight to be the best, we get cool things like ftp searches, grep and regexp searching of dmoz.org , video, image, and music searches, even linux [google.com] and bsd [google.com] search-specific pages. gMail [slashdot.org], Microsoft's entry, and now Gigablast are all rewards we get to reap from each company attempting to set its roots deeper into the Internet like weeds vying for the same piece of dirt. We are extremely lucky, but then I doubt more than a handful search engines will ever hold top ranks at one time, due to the fact that they are so specialized in what they do. Just hope Gigablast and Google don't decide to create new IM service, too.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    By placing this on /. he got:

    (("Slashdot serves 50 million pages per month [slashdot.org]"/(# users actually checking out this story))*number of searches tried) + a residual amount that might actually use this search engine more

    And what they might be interested in.
  • AV (Score:2, Informative)

    by TSNV ( 725282 )
    I like AV because it's the only one (that I know of) that supports advanced embedded Boolean. Many a time Google fails to produce, and a well-built AV search will pop out what I'm looking for - albeit from a smaller selection.
  • What about patents? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by enosys ( 705759 ) on Saturday April 17, 2004 @11:26PM (#8895508) Homepage
    What about patents? A lot of the stuff that goes into a search engine must be patented by now. I'm sure that if you create a search engine you'll end up infringing a bunch of these patents. Yes, I'm sure that in many cases it's obvious, and there's probably prior art, but I expect that the patents are still there and it's like a minefield of patents.

    So how do you make a search engine and not get sued for infringement, or at least be able to win in the lawsuits?

    • Yes and no. You can't patent "a search engine", only parts of it. Only specific techniques and algorithms are patentable (or at least that's how patents are supposed to work). Google's patented PageRank for example.
  • by whowho ( 706277 ) on Saturday April 17, 2004 @11:34PM (#8895530)

    just as I'm pulling an all-nighter at this moment trying to embed a custom search engine into an app for use on an intranet.

    Actually what is more interesting is Nutch [nutch.org] and Mozdex [mozdex.com], which seems to be based around Lucene [apache.org] (what I am using to build my own search engine embedded into a Horde [horde.org] framework app). Although probably a lot simpler than the industrial grade stuff, for someone who has been used to throwing a word at an input screen and magically getting back results, the insight into the inner workings of search engines is very interesting.

  • by no longer myself ( 741142 ) on Saturday April 17, 2004 @11:34PM (#8895533)
    Having a webserver hobby, I see the search engines crawl through my site daily. Of course in the beginning they hungrily tripped through the pages, taking in as much as could be found. Of course as time went on it seemed like some of the search engines had a new method of just grabbing a page or two every hour or so. I imagine this was to prevent over-taxing my box, but it made the first glance at my logs look artificially inflated as if people were visiting the site instead of just a crawler working its way through... slowly and painfully.

    I'd just prefer it if search engines would have enhanced rules for the robot.txt file so a webmaster could tell them more specifically how they want to be searched.

    Yes, I know you can put in a delay between page searches, and you can deny access to parts or all of the site, and you can even tell some or all crawlers to take a flying leap, but I'd like to tell them at the front door, "Search on Wednesday, make it fast, do a thorough job, and don't come back for a week."

    Too much to ask, right?

    • There are lists of the various bots used by search engines, and who's naughty/nice. (I've seen one list recently, just don't remember where it was.) You might want to see who the persistant ones belong to. There are also some that check for copyright/trademark violations, and their bots don't always behave.

      A few years ago, a number of Scientology-critical sites were getting hammered by bots from machoproducts.com, which seems like a weird link. (Rumours of a martial-arts cult, but no direct Hubbard connect

    • I'd like to know why robot.txt isn't protected from showing up in results from Google? Search for robot.txt [google.com] on Google and you get a load of actual robot.txt files, which seems to negate its usefulness.
  • Uhm No (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Tedium Unleased ( 764661 ) on Saturday April 17, 2004 @11:36PM (#8895540)
    Microsoft is also coming to the party, and everyone's a little bit nervous to see what it's bringing.

    Oh yeah real nervous. They're getting on the bandwagon late; too late to monopolize this particular free (as in shut the fuck up) service. If by some miracle they produce something 'threatening', it will be because it's good or because the others have slacked off.
    • Re:Uhm No (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      yeah! they only do well if they are first, you know, like with excel, and internet explorer, and a graphical user interface.
    • Re:Uhm No (Score:3, Insightful)

      If by some miracle they produce something 'threatening', it will be because it's good or because the others have slacked off.


      Usually they try to buy a competing company or hire the brains behind it.
    • Yeah, they're getting on the search bandwagon late the same way they got on the PC bandwagon late, the office suite bandwagon, the browser bandwagon, the input devices bandwagon, the server OS bandwagon, and the gaming system bandwagon. Obviously they have to hope.
  • Gigabooo (Score:2, Funny)

    by vinit79 ( 740464 )
    Gigablast sucks : Proof - I entered my name and Gigablast says "no results". Did u mean "something thats not my name". No thanx I did not

    Google : My site is the first !!!

    And of course I refuse to believr that anyone in the world would be interested in anything but my home page.
  • by jfengel ( 409917 ) on Sunday April 18, 2004 @12:03AM (#8895617) Homepage Journal
    The most interesting assertion in the article was that Pagerank was useless. He says Google's real win is its ability to cache a copy of the page and show you a summary including your search terms. I do use that a lot to quickly exclude irrelevant pages.

    He said that his internal tests at Infoseek showed that pagerank didn't substantially improve the value of searches over simpler link analysis algorithms. I find that interesting, because I've worked with that algorithm and I know it's a stone bitch to compute.

    He might well be right. I like Google over the other search engines because the interface is simple and clean, and I find it pleasant to use. I'm reminded of Donald Norman's book on Emotional Design, about how we can get really attached to things that work for us.

    Google sells itself on pagerank, but at the very least it's insufficient against "search engine spam". If pagerank is less important than speed and utility, maybe I'll have something else programmed in to my Firefox seach bar. But not today.
    1. Write program that crawls the web.
    2. Store text of web pages in Access Database
    3. Make web interface that allows text of pages to be searched in linear fashion.
    4. Host on a Pentium 2, On Personal Web Sever, on windows 98.
    5. ......
    6. Profit
  • by bakawally ( 637407 ) on Sunday April 18, 2004 @12:13AM (#8895653)
    I dunno. I better google it.
  • by JusTyler ( 707210 ) on Sunday April 18, 2004 @12:28AM (#8895695) Homepage
    Fave quote from that article..

    However, I think that search engines, if they index XML properly, will have a good shot at replacing SQL.

    Discuss.
  • by Nom du Keyboard ( 633989 ) on Sunday April 18, 2004 @12:43AM (#8895743)
    Microsoft is also coming to the party, and everyone's a little bit nervous to see what it's bringing.

    Everybody knows what Microsoft is bringing. Well almost everybody. Okay, I'll spell it out:

    1: Bring lots of money.
    2: Buy out a competitor.
    3: Rename it Microsoft Search.
    4: Attempt to trademark the word "Search".
    5: Bind it tightly into Windows as an essential service.
    6: Don't get it right until version 3.0.
    7: Profit!

  • less commercialism (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dj245 ( 732906 ) on Sunday April 18, 2004 @12:49AM (#8895759) Homepage
    I did a quick search on Gigablast for "Radio control speed controler". Now normally, on google, you would get a couple million pages of websites wanting to sell you a speed controller. On gigablast, however, The first 10 results were pretty much information about speed controllers, and/or battlebot sites that explained what you would need them for.

    I've noticed lately that Google seems to be filling up with websites wanting to sell you stuff (even if they don't use spamming techniques). Perhaps these little guys can put the pressure on Google to get some better algorithms. Or perhaps its time for Google to fade into the past like Altavista did a couple years ago and make way for the new.

    • by a.ameri ( 665846 )
      I actually was looking for some daily ISO snapshots of debian sid reopsitory. Nevr heard of Gigablast before, so give it a shot and search for 'daily sid snapshot iso'. Gigablast found no results, Google found 785, and looking at the first 10 results, I was easily able to find what I was looking for.

      C'mon, yes Google's interface is cool and stuff, Google's success isn't just it's interface. Their search algorithms are rock solid, their are continually improving them, and Google resturns the most relevant
  • by Nom du Keyboard ( 633989 ) on Sunday April 18, 2004 @01:04AM (#8895793)
    What I'd like to see in a search engine is a page kill or broken link feature to keep it current. If I click a link that is broken or vastly changed (e.g. the link to ancient Chinese pottery is now a porn site), that I could backup to the search results page and click a link to have them immediately re-crawl that page. I think it would make for better results, and am surprised that it's not already common.

    You my license my patent on this idea for reasonable terms in exchange for shares of your company's stock.

    • Well, I think the potential for abuse would just be too great.

      Respidering a website doesn't just take up bandwidth but also a lot of CPU cycles. That's especially true if you're running extensive algorithm-based computations (like Google does) and not just doing a quick-and-dirty instant-add to a database. It would also allow webmasters to cheat the system: temporarily mirror some relevant, high-traffic site, have it reindexed, change the contents (porn, spam, you name it). After a while, the bot will rein

    • If I click a link that is broken or vastly changed (e.g. the link to ancient Chinese pottery is now a porn site), that I could backup to the search results page and click a link to have them immediately re-crawl that page.

      The index is usually updated only once every couple of weeks. Recomputing PageRank (or whatever everybody else uses) takes its time. That's why more or less immediate updates are reserved only to the best-known sites.

      You can report 'false' results with the Dissatisfied? [google.com] link at the bott
  • by sydbarrett74 ( 74307 ) <sydbarrett74&gmail,com> on Sunday April 18, 2004 @02:44AM (#8896001)
    'In other news, Google announced the buy-out of Gigablast. The newly-formed company will be called Giggle.'
  • Only five? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by adriantam ( 566025 ) on Sunday April 18, 2004 @03:44AM (#8896092) Homepage
    Search is a fiercely competitive arena, even though there are really only five Web search companies today: Google, Yahoo (Altavista/AlltheWeb/Inktomi), Looksmart (Wisenut), AskJeeves (Teoma), and Gigablast.

    I am a Chinese speaker and the tradition of east asian writing is character-based and no alphabets. That means we don't separate words with blank spaces but rather dosomethinglikethis. The language we use is having this characteristic and caused many problem for search services because you never know you interpret that thing into dos ome thingli keth is is right or not. We have to introduce some dictionary into the search engine and it is different from many western languages. So I don't believe there is only five search engine providers in this world. At least I know a list of more search engines developed to support east asian languages.
  • I'm ready to change (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Andy_R ( 114137 ) on Sunday April 18, 2004 @05:40AM (#8896270) Homepage Journal
    Wonderful as Google is, I'm finding more and more searches don't produce useful results.

    I keep getting high rankings from sites like bizrate and kelkoo, which don't have any content whatsoever, but have convinced google to show pages that say "search for best prices on xxxx" where xxxx is my search term. Often the problem is so bad that I don't see any sites with content until page 2 of google.

    Another issue is with searches for song lyrics. There are dozens of identikit advert sites which drown a tiny (and often inaccurate) text payload is a swarm of adverts. Finding a site written by someone who cares about accuracy is getting impossible.

    What I want is sites ranked by volume of relvant content, with a negative ranking element for duplicate sites and a stronger negative ranking for multiple adverts.

    Oh, and what I would also find useful is a 'go (after blocking adservers)' button instead of a 'go' button.
    • I noticed the "kelkoo problem" too.
      I wonder if they pay to get these results, or if this is just a confusion of Google caused by the fact that kelkoo has similar sites in many different domains that all link to eachother.
      So, Google thinks there are lots of links to a certain page and thus gives a high ranking.
  • function search(){
    grep $1 < The_Internet
    }
  • by Pedrito ( 94783 ) on Sunday April 18, 2004 @07:44AM (#8896465)
    I liked this quote: "Now that the Internet is very large, it makes for some well-developed memory. I would suppose that the amount of information stored on the Internet is around the level of the adult human brain. Now we just need some higher-order functionality to really take advantage of it. At one point we may even discover the protocol used in the brain and extend it with an interface to an Internet search engine."

    The protocol used in the brain? That can't be a good direction to go. I mean, if it's anything like my memory and honestly, the memory of most people I know, it's definitely going to be a step backwards. Human brains can hold a lot of information, but retreival is definitely not its specialty. I can see it now. Type in my search terms and the engine comes back with, "ummm, it's right on the tip of my tongue. Okay, I don't have a tongue, but I just about remember it. Give me just a minute to think about it. umm... umm... Nope, it's gone. Nevermind."
  • by fizban ( 58094 ) <fizban@umich.edu> on Sunday April 18, 2004 @09:27AM (#8896870) Homepage
    1. Buy license for existing web search engine.
    2. ???
    3. Profit!
  • by squashed ( 664265 ) on Sunday April 18, 2004 @11:11AM (#8897395)
    Have a look at a9.com [a9.com], which is Amazon's new search entry. Aside from a good web search engine, it provides a "history" of your previous searches and other innovative features.

There are three kinds of people: men, women, and unix.

Working...