Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The next Google

dkb.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 561 posts

Re: The next Google

#361

Post by jthrowsitaway »

legohead wrote: post #98

I just went on a mini vacation to Vegas, and was thinking how nice it would be to just call up someone and ask for some simple advice. I did a bunch of online research before I booked things, but man was it painful. There are so many copy-cat blogs who just throw together a bunch of basic information with no real research done in order to get those clicks/adwords. For example: best hotel pool in vegas. Seems simple e…

If you don't mind staying on Fremont Street (I prefer it to the Strip), the Golden Nugget has a pretty nice pool setup (complete with waterslide) and is a "nice" place to stay.

Re: The next Google

#362

Post by ilrwbwrkhv »

abhinavsharma wrote: post #128

The problem with trying to replace Google is that you have to.. 1. Do (nearly) everything Google does as well as them AND 2. fix Google's weak spots (usually in subjective queries) AND 3. offer something new and exciting. It's hard to do (1) well given Google's data moat and how good that makes them at head queries. It's rare that people stick with one of these alternatives because they struggle to be as good in the…

I dont think that's true. To replace Google, you need genuine sources (Githubs and Wikipedias) and non seo content farm sources. Just these 2 would be enough to replace Google.

Re: The next Google

#363

Post by usr1106 »

Not an internationally good name. The io domain is ethicly questionable (although they are of course not alone using it).

DKB is a German bank. Shouldn't be unknown in expat circles because it used to be close to the only one accepting customers living abroad and actively marketing towards them. Not sure whether they still do so, but at least they haven't made any attempts to get rid of me (knocking on wood).

Offtopic background: International banking (for small customers) is a nightmare because of compliance issues even within the EU which is supposed to he a single market. Of course as soon as you have the US in the picture it gets completely hopeless (because of crazy rules for their own citizens and them acting world police, i.e. requesting others than their own citizens and businesses to comply).

Re: The next Google

#364

Post by ilrwbwrkhv »

cmarschner wrote: post #67

People don‘t understand that Google is in a game of user data: you can only win this game if you have the largest market share, plus a plethora of additional data sources like ads. Microsoft invested 10s of billions into bing to get to the level it is at. But more clicks and user behavior data means you would win against bing. The only company that could theoretically build a web search engine due to the amount of da…

Nope I think that is a popular myth heralded by large companies to make people think they are stronger than they are.

Re: The next Google

#365

Post by masswerk »

agencies wrote: post #359
masswerk wrote: post #277

I'd like my search engine to be not too intelligent. Sometimes, humans suppose to know what they are meaning. So - optional verbatim and prioritized terms (like Google once did it) - optional logical operators (and, or) - a separate input box for context (either, specific terms like "product", "shopping", "legal", or some assorted terms to indicate a field of meaning and/or associated concepts, time span, etc) It's t…

Can you describe how context would work differently than additional search terms?

I just think that a separation of intends may be suitable. One is the actual search term (optionally verbatim and using logical conjunctions), the other provides loose contextual information and/or categories specifying the source set. These are by no means the same.

(Compare the example given above. I don’t think that you can do a search like this with Google today. This should also help with issues like newer content masking established, older one.)

Edit: As it is, search engines return a quite diffuse field of information, which may not what you want, when you're looking for specific information. Some of this is related to the confusion of search terms and categorial and/or contextual information, while its also due to the eagerness to return any information at all (and as current as possible). Sometimes, this may be even worse than returning nothing. Also, this may lead to an eventual erosion of information in the long term.

For centuries, human knowledge (at least, in Western cultures) has been organized in terms of content and categories. In a classic library, a research like the one mentioned above would have been easy. As it is, this kind of structured concept doesn't work with search engines anymore, or, at least, not too well.

Re: The next Google

#366

Post by ilrwbwrkhv »

hubraumhugo wrote: post #37

Google won because they started early and had a right algorithm. They then had the scale to grow with the internet. It would be very hard to start a new general-purpose search engine now (capital, monopoly, tech) Nobody seems to have The Next Big Idea for a better search engine yet.

Nope I don't think this is true. People keep parroting this like some sort of truth where it clearly is not.

Re: The next Google

#367

Post by xnx »

mostlysimilar wrote: post #74
Barrin92 wrote: post #45

I think 'more customization' which is a theme with a lot of these alternatives is a fundamental dead end. I don't know where this persistent myth comes from that people love choice and tinkering, because they clearly don't. There's a huge cost associated with having to make choices, and one feature of successful modern apps is that they're frictionless. That's why TikTok is so successful. There's no login, no user ch…

> a simple box where you put a question in and it gives you answers Google is very good at this, but this is exactly what I _don't_ want in the "Next Google". I want a _search engine_ for the web, not an answers engine that tries to know what I want better than I do. Search the web. Give me links to websites. This seems obvious to me, but everyone is trying to be like Google. I'm convinced the death of the web and in…

> I'm convinced the death of the web and independent forum communities is largely the fault of Google's lousy search results no longer actually returning real web results.

I think you have the cause and effect reversed. (Though I disagree with the meme that Google's results have gotten worse. For me, it's more useful than it's ever been. I often find the information I need without even needing to click on a result.)

Re: The next Google

#368

Post by zw123456 »

I think the conundrum is people want a computer to read their minds to make things easier for them, but when it does, it creeps them out. The solution, IMHO, is less technical and more psychological. If I was trying to replace FAANG, that is the thing I would consider how to address.

Re: The next Google

#369

Post by luis8 »

I wonder how feasible would it be to index everything locally? I mean how far are we from having the cpu and storage space to allow a search within our computers?

Do we really need to store everything ? Maybe a local "ai magic" could select the specific information we regularly search for and sync from an open public index.

In the case we need results it could sync and/or request those bits we are not indexing locally.

Just thinking out loud

Re: The next Google

#370

Post by istjohn »

luis8 wrote: post #369

I wonder how feasible would it be to index everything locally? I mean how far are we from having the cpu and storage space to allow a search within our computers? Do we really need to store everything ? Maybe a local "ai magic" could select the specific information we regularly search for and sync from an open public index. In the case we need results it could sync and/or request those bits we are not indexing locall…

What problem would that solve?
Post reply on HN