A new search engine • Hacker News Board

Re: A new search engine

#51

Post by drakaal » Sat, Apr 20, 2013, 7:33 AM UTC

orangethirty wrote: post #29

drakaal wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Summaries instead of Snippets. Document Type to Query Type Matching (looks like you are looking for a review we favor reviews, looks like you are looking for instructions we favor how to's)

I wonder why you decided to follow the same old search formula. There is so much to innovate in this area. For example, Nuuton uses #hashtags for trending results. Say you go and make a search. All related terms would appear as #hashtags somewhere in the page. These are created by the users and by the system. It also uses the / and the ! to filter results in different ways. Say: /Honda !modified, gets you pages of mo…

How do I teach 2nd graders, their 62 year old teacher, and my mom to do those things?

We are focused on making interfaces that are Zero Learning Curve. Our goal is to allow you to ask for what you want and get it with out having to know how to ask.

Re: A new search engine

#52

Post by drakaal » Sat, Apr 20, 2013, 7:35 AM UTC

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?

I need to look why you didn't get a message saying we don't do those kinds of searches.

Disabling ads is actually pretty hard. We had Adsense running until we got kicked for having results on "Jail Bait" those two words alone are not dirty. But I didn't focus on building long lists of dirty topics so we were returning results on that.

Re: A new search engine

#53

Post by drakaal » Sat, Apr 20, 2013, 7:37 AM UTC

saejox wrote: post #31

I find it funny that a Google competitor search engine using Google Analytics and AdSense.

Selling your own ads is hard. Especially at low volumes getting started. So your choices are basically Google and Microsoft. (Chitika doesn't pay anything)

Re: A new search engine

#54

Post by drakaal » Sat, Apr 20, 2013, 7:39 AM UTC

raulonkar wrote: post #45

how ur search engines index the site? how can i submit in it?

You don't have to submit we will find you. He have a bot, I apologize I don't recall the user Agent at the moment... It comes from a Google IP address since we are running on Google AppEngine. So we have less control over the bot's user agent than I would like.

Re: A new search engine

#55

Post by drakaal » Sat, Apr 20, 2013, 7:40 AM UTC

regal wrote: post #48

drakaal wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There is, but the bonus goes down as we get deep indexing. So if you check back in a minute most the time the spam will have moved down.

Re: A new search engine

#56

Post by joedevon » Sat, Apr 20, 2013, 7:42 AM UTC

danso wrote: post #38

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…

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…

"I'm skeptical you'll achieve what you aim for if you're way off the mark in understanding how Google is so successful."

Considering his comment drew out Matt Cutts, I'd bet he understands Google pretty well.

Re: A new search engine

#57

Post by DanBC » Sat, Apr 20, 2013, 7:43 AM UTC

danso wrote: post #50

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"

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 se…

Your Google link gives me "Searching for couk best ribs".

The 10 results give me:

2 hits for boat related stuff, with no food.

4 hits for restaurants, with no recipes.

1 hit about cervical ribs.

And then, in positions 5, 8, and 9 there are recipes.

So, even with all the smart people and computing power at Google this is still a very hard problem.

It's great to have different people trying different approaches.

Re: A new search engine

#58

Post by danso » Sat, Apr 20, 2013, 7:49 AM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #57

danso wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 se…

Your Google link gives me "Searching for couk best ribs ". The 10 results give me: 2 hits for boat related stuff, with no food. 4 hits for restaurants, with no recipes. 1 hit about cervical ribs. And then, in positions 5, 8, and 9 there are recipes. So, even with all the smart people and computing power at Google this is still a very hard problem. It's great to have different people trying different approaches.

That's strange, I get links from amazingribs.com and food.com, which is more or less what I expect

http://www.amazingribs.com/recipes/porknography/best_BBQ_rib...

Either way, it's a deliberately contrived example to show that Google was more sophisticated than the GP indicates...I have no comment on whether amazingribs.com really does have the best ribs preparation tips

Re: A new search engine

#59

Post by joedevon » Sat, Apr 20, 2013, 7:51 AM UTC

drakaal wrote: post #44

gibybo wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Well their move to semantic technologies e.g. Schema.org is a step in the direction of understanding these things better. Like if you mark up the page with http://schema.org/Review wouldn't you agree that they know it's a review?

Are you using semantic web btw?

Re: A new search engine

#60

Post by danso » Sat, Apr 20, 2013, 7:55 AM UTC

joedevon wrote: post #56

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…

"I'm skeptical you'll achieve what you aim for if you're way off the mark in understanding how Google is so successful." Considering his comment drew out Matt Cutts, I'd bet he understands Google pretty well.

Right, but the success of a technical product is often based on results that can be tested and verified, and less on arguments through authority, though if Cutts is willing to say something like. "Wow, the OP has created something that surpasses Google in [whatever metric]", I'd admit I'd take his word on it.

But the OP's claim stands on its own and makes assertions that can easily be verified. Are you arguing that Google's search engine is as simple and literal as the OP claims?