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

451–460 of 561 posts

Re: The next Google

#451

Post by mech422 »

rschroed wrote: post #403
randmeerkat wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's also why "Google's search results are soo bad." They're not. For the bulk of Google's visitors, they're good enough. I’m sure that’s what Yahoo! used to think about Google before Google replaced it.

not us yahoo / Altavista / or whatever else was around at the time users. Google was so clearly better right out of the gate that I distinctly remember having conversations conveying the shock and awe at the quality of the results. Before Google everything was mediocre at best. I’d say the for the bulk of Google’s visitors the results aren’t merely good enough, they’re insanely great. Now, that said, the G monopoly i…

I had the opposite reaction...Google search was so 'generic' compared to how you could do laser focused searches with altavista...

What pushed Google over the top for me was the sheer size of their index...

Re: The next Google

#452

Post by mech422 »

redisman wrote: post #429
elwell wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can still visualize a memory from my high school library, when my friend showed me Google search for the first time. I think I had been using Dogpile.

I was a Altavista die-hard. Google was a great improvement. Honestly I think this is just asking the wrong question. In the world of walled gardens and industrial SEO I just don’t think a search engine will be the “next Google”

I loved altavista query language.. For me, the draw in to Google was just the sheer size of the index.

Re: The next Google

#453

Post by mech422 »

ezekg wrote: post #16
davidkunz wrote: post #9

> The next Google can’t just be an input box that spits out links. An input box that spits out links is _exactly_ what I want.

Exactly. Give me relevant links to my term, with no SEO spam. Don't correct my term, especially when I'm searching verbatim (which I almost always want). It'd also be nice to be able to downvote certain results.

>It'd also be nice to be able to downvote certain results.

When I'm researching stuff, I go thru a whole page of google result, and 'open in new tab'...90% of the time it's crap, and I really wish I could signal google 'this was useless'.

Re: The next Google

#454

Post by jusssi »

nmstoker wrote: post #381
tobyjsullivan wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"High barrier to entry" ie, only accessible to an elite class (1337, if you will) "Elitist" feels pejorative. Also a not-inaccurate way to describe a system which presents high barriers to entry.

What were these high barriers to entry? Not trying to be awkward, but even back in the early days of Netscape, it wasn't like you had to recall any arcane commands to use most search engines. Sure, they all had limitations then, such as not necessarily knowing similar word senses to create more nuanced searches, but that was a fairly level playing field. Is it simply that it was initially a bit obscure and not everyo…

> What were these high barriers to entry?

Cost was one. Hardware wasn't cheap and it would seem to have no practical use except to satisfy one's curiosity. A PC for the kids cost about half of our family's monthly gross income. A modem would be 10%. And the phone bill caused tourette's like symptoms more than once.

Re: The next Google

#455

Post by cdogl »

mulmen wrote: post #324
baxtr wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. People don't realize that the early web was elitist. Now, the entire population is online. And, as you said, most people simply don't care about the stuff we care about. That's also why "Google's search results are soo bad." They're not. For the bulk of Google's visitors, they're good enough.

Indeed. We live in the eternal September. But to be honest the internet is still the internet. The web still exists. Any lamentation at the loss of the "old" internet is that you don't have more angry uncles spewing political rhetoric on your motorcycle forum. Do you want the unwashed masses in your specialist forums? I certainly don't. Seems to me things are working pretty well. I do worry about the next generation…

Wonderfully put. I would add that we need to see things for their scale and proportion. Yes, the simple walled web is bigger than ever. So is the hacker community, and this website (so far as I can tell), Reddit (for all its faults), etc.

Re: The next Google

#456

Post by onion2k »

bamboozled wrote: post #312
baxtr wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. People don't realize that the early web was elitist. Now, the entire population is online. And, as you said, most people simply don't care about the stuff we care about. That's also why "Google's search results are soo bad." They're not. For the bulk of Google's visitors, they're good enough.

Er, isn’t the whole point of Google tracking you and knowing your mothers blood type so they can give you better search results tailored to you ?

so they can give you better search results tailored to you

That depends on whether or not you agree with Google's definition of "better". What is better for Google is a set of results that make you most likely to click on an advert. Failing that, they want you to click a link, see the site, and either click an ad there or quickly return to Google where you'll click on an ad. The worst outcome for Google is that you'll click a non-paid search result, like it, and stay on that website.

This is the fundamental problem with search engines - if they work well and give you exactly what you're searching for first time then they won't make any money. A lot of what Google does is subtly trying to give you results that look great but really aren't.

Re: The next Google

#458

Post by throwaway2037 »

smitty1e wrote: post #411
technothrasher wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Anyone I watch older than 50 years old Hey, now wait a second there, you young whipper-snapper. I'm sitting here reading HN while I install Debian on an XCP-ng VM, and I hear I can't understand whether Google results are good or not? There are plenty of us over 50 that actually lived the early internet and watched it first-hand transform into what it is today.

Indeed, there was a time when Slashdot was as tech-heavy and full of learning as HN.

What happened to Slashdot? Around 2000, I was a regular reader. Then, I fell away, but I cannot remember why.

Re: The next Google

#459

Post by throwaway2037 »

mulmen wrote: post #324
baxtr wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. People don't realize that the early web was elitist. Now, the entire population is online. And, as you said, most people simply don't care about the stuff we care about. That's also why "Google's search results are soo bad." They're not. For the bulk of Google's visitors, they're good enough.

Indeed. We live in the eternal September. But to be honest the internet is still the internet. The web still exists. Any lamentation at the loss of the "old" internet is that you don't have more angry uncles spewing political rhetoric on your motorcycle forum. Do you want the unwashed masses in your specialist forums? I certainly don't. Seems to me things are working pretty well. I do worry about the next generation…

FYI: Wiki says: >

Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_September

Re: The next Google

#460

Post by dmitrykan »

Thanks for the article, I've learnt new search engines despite spending a couple of years recently in web scale search. I think you may consider https://usearch.com/ as another dimension in web scale search, where query log is learnt from the data, making it quite unique.
Post reply on HN