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

A new search engine

samuru.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 107 posts

Re: A new search engine

#41

Post by danso »

drakaal wrote: post #16
valtron wrote: post #5

Doesn't work: http://www.samuru.com/?q=porn

Nope it doesn't. We decided that it was hard enough getting advertising without having "adult" search. We focus on text analysis so we aren't very good at porn searches.

Just curious, but why can't you simply disable ads on those kinds of searches? Also, having no results for this seems inexplicable:

http://www.samuru.com/?q=Sex

What is a casual user supposed to think when a new search engine claims that there are no results whatsoever for "Sex" on the Internet, period?

Re: A new search engine

#42

Post by gibybo »

drakaal wrote: post #40
danso wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Re: your portrayal of how Google works...An "over simplification"? It's just plain wrong. Google has, for quite awhile, not depended on sites containing all the words of a query...and natural language processing plays a huge part in analyzing intent of a query. I applaud this ambitious project but I'm skeptical you'll achieve what you aim for if you're way off the mark in understanding how Google is so successful...I…

So you think Google knows if a piece of content is instructional? Or know that it is a Review? (not just has a rating) And you have to have all the words or a synonym of the words. But more importantly Google doesn't know what kind of content something is. Or what questions the content answers. Our system knows "this document answers what do aardvarks eat"

>So you think Google knows if a piece of content is instructional?

Yes.

>Or know that it is a Review? (not just has a rating)

Yes.

>But more importantly Google doesn't know what kind of content something is.

You don't think Google knows how to classify content?

Re: A new search engine

#43

Post by raulonkar »

drakaal wrote: post #15

I didn't submit this. I didn't know anyone was submitting it. Or I would have written a post about why it is different than other search engines. Better is still up for grabs because it is new. Samuru doesn't use link authority, it analyzes pages and matches what you queried to the types of pages and picks the best matches. Let me give you an example. You search for "How to Make cupcakes" Google says give me the page…

I am more curious about traffic. does your search engines provide traffic like google to site?

Re: A new search engine

#44

Post by drakaal »

gibybo wrote: post #42
drakaal wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you think Google knows if a piece of content is instructional? Or know that it is a Review? (not just has a rating) And you have to have all the words or a synonym of the words. But more importantly Google doesn't know what kind of content something is. Or what questions the content answers. Our system knows "this document answers what do aardvarks eat"

>So you think Google knows if a piece of content is instructional? Yes. >Or know that it is a Review? (not just has a rating) Yes. >But more importantly Google doesn't know what kind of content something is. You don't think Google knows how to classify content?

Then you think wrong.

Google can't tell that something is instructions. That's not something they do. It may know that ehow has a lot of pages with How To on them, but it doesn't know if those are pages with step by steps for how to do something, nor does it know that Rotten Tomatoes has pages with Opinions and Points, and conclusions that make up a review.

Re: A new search engine

#47

Post by matiasb »

danso wrote: post #41
drakaal wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope it doesn't. We decided that it was hard enough getting advertising without having "adult" search. We focus on text analysis so we aren't very good at porn searches.

Just curious, but why can't you simply disable ads on those kinds of searches? Also, having no results for this seems inexplicable: http://www.samuru.com/?q=Sex What is a casual user supposed to think when a new search engine claims that there are no results whatsoever for "Sex" on the Internet, period?

you can still search 'women' and get some interesting results

Re: A new search engine

#48

Post by regal »

drakaal wrote: post #19
xaviel wrote: post #7

Their SEO engine is easy to game

In what way? Writing something the meets our qualifications for "what is a review" is much harder to game than Link spamming. You can game the system only by writing content that is useful to the user. The only easy to game part is that we give brands a pretty big bonus for themselves. Sony.com/playstation will always be the top hit for Sony PlayStation. Even if we should favor a .gov result that says they are recall…

There seems to be a strong emphasis in search results on domain name match, similar to Google several years back. e.g., search "dog training" and examine the results - there's a much higher mix of spammier content mixed in with helpful content than you'll see in the other big name search engines' results.

Anyway, keep cracking at it; I'm sure you'll get it sharper as you go.

Re: A new search engine

#49

Post by drakaal »

raulonkar wrote: post #43
drakaal wrote: post #15

I didn't submit this. I didn't know anyone was submitting it. Or I would have written a post about why it is different than other search engines. Better is still up for grabs because it is new. Samuru doesn't use link authority, it analyzes pages and matches what you queried to the types of pages and picks the best matches. Let me give you an example. You search for "How to Make cupcakes" Google says give me the page…

I am more curious about traffic. does your search engines provide traffic like google to site?

We will as more people use us. We think that because we provide a summary of your page rather than a snippet that we drive more traffic if you are deserving of it. Snippets don't really "sell" your content or your writing style. Summaries do. We think that by giving people more insight in to what to expect rather than part of a few sentences with the keywords you searched for in them, that we help users make better decisions about what to read.

Re: A new search engine

#50

Post by danso »

drakaal wrote: post #40
danso wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Re: your portrayal of how Google works...An "over simplification"? It's just plain wrong. Google has, for quite awhile, not depended on sites containing all the words of a query...and natural language processing plays a huge part in analyzing intent of a query. I applaud this ambitious project but I'm skeptical you'll achieve what you aim for if you're way off the mark in understanding how Google is so successful...I…

So you think Google knows if a piece of content is instructional? Or know that it is a Review? (not just has a rating) And you have to have all the words or a synonym of the words. But more importantly Google doesn't know what kind of content something is. Or what questions the content answers. Our system knows "this document answers what do aardvarks eat"

I will happily concede that you and your colleagues know more about search than I will ever know, and so I find it strange that we're having this argument...your perception of Google's limitations seems so far off that it's as if you've mistakenly referred to them instead of AltaVista.

To answer your questions, yes and yes, Google can derive the meaning of my search without relying on literal interpretation of the search terms. In fact, Google can return what I want even if I deliberately spell every word in the query incorrectly:

"couk besr ribz" instead of "cook best ribs" brings up recipes of how to do good ribs:

https://www.google.com/search?q=couk+besr+ribz

I'm willing to take you at your word, that there is a better way to interpret context and meaning from a search query than however Google does it...but if that is the entire raison d'etre for your search engine, can you come up with at least a few case examples where this is the case? The "cupcakes" you've contrived is clearly hypothetical (and not at all close to what happens in reality), and the ones that I've tried don't seem to show any improvement on human-friendly results. Which is not to say that samuru is a bad product...what you claim to do is incredibly difficult and is exactly the feature that makes Google such a useful, ubiquitous engine...I would love to be surprised but I'm skeptical that a new engine with a fraction of Google's processing power, nevermind the resources for test engineering and algorithm design, can compete with Google here...this isn't a "well, why hasn't anyone ranked search queries in this way before?" in the same way that PageRank/BackRub was 15 years ago...Search engines have been analyzing queries for intent, and their shortcomings in this area are due to it being a very hard problem, and not for lack of desire.

Post reply on HN