I don't understand what it's referring to when you say submit a URL AND a search term. They're two separate forms. I submitted some URLs and they never show up with relevant searches.
Show HN: Didyougogo – An Altavista slayer
101–110 of 131 posts
Re: Show HN: Didyougogo – An Altavista slayer
#102Direct spike on Google hearth.
Re: Show HN: Didyougogo – An Altavista slayer
#103I searched for "Cnn" and got 0 results. I searched for "Amazon" and got a five random results, including the IMDB page for "Rambo, Part 2." If this were really like AltaVista, I'd get 3 trillion results and have to use advanced Boolean logic to cut that down to the most useful 7,000 - so I guess having no results is sort of easier...
Ideally the index would never have CNN, Amazon, Twitter, Snapchat, Facebook, WhatsApp, Walmart, NBC, ABC, Disney, MSNBC, Fox, Reddit, YouTube, Google, Yahoo and hundreds of other popular sites in it.
Stop and ponder that for a moment.
Re: Show HN: Didyougogo – An Altavista slayer
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
In addition to users submitting articles, is there a reason this doesn't have a spider of its own based off something like the Google zeitgeist to seed some topics? This project looks neat, I think first experiences with it would be much more improved if you could seed it with some content. Maybe this could run my search with other search engines to compare and gain insights.
"is there a reason this doesn't have a spider" Yes, server capacity. Once I have a better hosting situation I'll start crawling. Thank you, I've tried to be neat this time around. With regards to full-text search, the didyougogo search engine should be able to replace elasticsearch (which is laughable relevance-wise in my eyes) or solr, once the alpha-bugs are gone.
Why not let volunteers run the crawler on their own machines?
Perhaps HN members might offer some spare cpu cycles.
Re: Show HN: Didyougogo – An Altavista slayer
#105Going on another vertical, this reminds me how useful early usenet was. Reddit is too general and way less nerdy and mainstream to be a worthy usenet replacement. Wishlist: a usenet killer
I don't think you're wishing for a Usenet killer. We've already had plenty of those, we're just wishing for one that didn't suck.
Re: Show HN: Didyougogo – An Altavista slayer
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it’s a trade off. I think I’d rather have all my searches and traffic visible than all of my searches and traffic only visible to the company best in the world capable of storing forever and marketing to me. I’m not quite sure the exact privacy trade-off but for things that I consider non-sensitive, I certainly prefer non-https web.
https isn't just about something being sensitive or not. If there's no https then everyone can just inject stuff in the page and do whatever like your ISP showing ads and siphoning out your search history, a random person in a coffeeshop adding a malicious site to your search results,...
That’s what I mean by non-sensitive stuff. I don’t care if someone inserts ads or changes stuff. I’ll switch ISPs if they do that. If some intermediate network does it, I’ll route around them. For stuff like this, I don’t care.
There’s a whole class of traffic I don’t care about, like this guy’s prototype or your mom’s blog or whatever.
And I like segregating stuff I care about vs stuff I don’t.
Also note that with SSL, google can still do all this, but they have the same pressure my ISP does if they ever try it.
Re: Show HN: Didyougogo – An Altavista slayer
#107Please put a license on the source code. Right now, by default, it's "all rights reserved" so no one can use it or do anything with it.
i second this idea, though I disagree with the idea that someone can't do anything with it. there's nothing, say, physically stopping me, and since the intent is expressed on the page as open source, i really doubt the author would do anything to stop me either. beyond that, i doubt there are any other parties interested enough to prevent anyone from using it, so at this point i don't think it matters too much, especially when it's purposefully marketed as open source and such.
still, all that being said, i agree with the idea of erring on the side of safety. but either way, what you do in the privacy of your own device isn't really constrained by licenses, so of course there's no reason you couldn't just start working on it now if such were your desire and then worry about distribution and such when the license itself changes. sort of a "fair use" type thing imo
Re: Show HN: Didyougogo – An Altavista slayer
#108> marcuslager at the biggest email provider in the world * dot com.
?
Re: Show HN: Didyougogo – An Altavista slayer
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
https isn't just about something being sensitive or not. If there's no https then everyone can just inject stuff in the page and do whatever like your ISP showing ads and siphoning out your search history, a random person in a coffeeshop adding a malicious site to your search results,...
That’s what I mean by non-sensitive stuff. I don’t care if someone inserts ads or changes stuff. I’ll switch ISPs if they do that. If some intermediate network does it, I’ll route around them. For stuff like this, I don’t care. There’s a whole class of traffic I don’t care about, like this guy’s prototype or your mom’s blog or whatever. And I like segregating stuff I care about vs stuff I don’t. Also note that with S…
I don't totally understand your reasoning. There is no downside to using SSL encryption and its completely free for websites to install it.
On the other hand, there are downsides to not using it (which have been previously mentioned).
Re: Show HN: Didyougogo – An Altavista slayer
#110> marcuslager at the biggest email provider in the world * dot com. ?
I think he means gmail.