151–160 of 735 posts
hmm, I dream of recipes search engine that punishes recipes pages with too much text. lol
But they do illustrate what this search engine needs to watch out of. If they rank more text higher and their search site becomes popular, won’t everyone just spam recipe site word salad, maybe even ai generated word salad.
But in the interval, until that day comes, they are going to have a very useful service.
Wow, that's awesome. Great work! For a simple test, I searched "fall of the roman empire". In your search engine, I got wikipedia, followed by academic talks, chapters of books, and long-form blogs. All extremely useful resources. When I search on google, I get wikipedia, followed by a listicle "8 Reasons Why Rome Fell", then the imdb page for a movie by the same name, and then two Amazon book links, which are totall…
However, when searching for "haskell type inference algorithm" I get completely useless results.
Fascinating. I studied an "obscure" group of insects. My go-to search term to test an engine is their family name as it is a rarely used word and I know most (all?) of the major data sources that have accumulated data on it. When Wolfram Alpha added species names, I checked with the name, boring, Duck Duck, boring, Google (well we know Google isn't for search anymore, it's absolutely horrible) boring, Bing, boring...…
> well we know Google isn't for search anymore Do you suggest anything better? As far as I can tell, all the other search engines are either repackaged Bing (ie: DuckDuck), or are just as bad.
Broad and longer Twitter lists maintained here: https://twitter.com/SearchEngineMap/lists
Fascinating. I studied an "obscure" group of insects. My go-to search term to test an engine is their family name as it is a rarely used word and I know most (all?) of the major data sources that have accumulated data on it. When Wolfram Alpha added species names, I checked with the name, boring, Duck Duck, boring, Google (well we know Google isn't for search anymore, it's absolutely horrible) boring, Bing, boring...…
> well we know Google isn't for search anymore Do you suggest anything better? As far as I can tell, all the other search engines are either repackaged Bing (ie: DuckDuck), or are just as bad.
Wow, that's awesome. Great work! For a simple test, I searched "fall of the roman empire". In your search engine, I got wikipedia, followed by academic talks, chapters of books, and long-form blogs. All extremely useful resources. When I search on google, I get wikipedia, followed by a listicle "8 Reasons Why Rome Fell", then the imdb page for a movie by the same name, and then two Amazon book links, which are totall…
I did a search for "George Washington" First result after Wikipedia: "Radiophone Transmitter on the U.S.S. George Washington (1920) In 1906, Reginald Fessenden contracted with General Electric to build the first alternator transmitter. G.E. continued to perfect alternator transmitter design, and at the time of this report, the Navy was operating one of G.E.'s 200 kilowatt alternators http://earlyradiohistory.us/1919w…
As for the results you linked, it's part of the zeitgeist to list other entities sharing the same name. Sure, they could use some subtle changes in ranking, but overall the returned links satisfy my curiosity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You want evidence? Search for a plumber/tradesperson in your area THEN try to find rational discourse about your options. There are literally 100s of results of websites remixing a small set of data, presenting it to you, and asking you to buy something to see more, when you know there is nothing behind the scenes. This type of engine would punish these sites, in theory, and may turn up a discussion in some forum, ne…
> Search for a plumber/tradesperson in your area THEN try to find rational discourse about your options. I searched "plumber Austin TX" in Google and got a map and list of company websites near me. There are a lot of "top x y in z" list sites, but the top results were still the most relevant. I don't know what "rational discourse" I'm expected to find, though, or why I should assume the discourse I would find through…
I think you could have done this historically in a Yellow Pages phone book. My OP used "boring". A list of plumbers is boring, been done on dead wood. I'm not saying boring != !useful.
> There are a lot of "top x y in z" list sites
This is an understatement. I actually want to know the top x in y, to do that I need "rational discourse". Rational discourse is recognizable as well written, insightful, humble, reflective, self-countering, anecdotal etc. By "search is terrible" I mean with respect to finding this.
> OP's project isn't optimized for relevance, it's optimized for nostalgia
Nostalgia is highly relevant if it's on topic, but agreeing with you as to what this engine is about.
Wow, that's awesome. Great work! For a simple test, I searched "fall of the roman empire". In your search engine, I got wikipedia, followed by academic talks, chapters of books, and long-form blogs. All extremely useful resources. When I search on google, I get wikipedia, followed by a listicle "8 Reasons Why Rome Fell", then the imdb page for a movie by the same name, and then two Amazon book links, which are totall…
As long as few people use it, it will be great. Rest assured that the moment it becomes popular, the people who want to game it will appear.
Still, the best way to break SEO is to have actual competition in the search space. As long as SEO remains focused on Google there is an opportunity for these companies to thrive by evading SEO braindamage.