We Need Viable Search Engine Competition
1–10 of 146 posts
Re: We Need Viable Search Engine Competition
#2duckduckgo.com
Re: We Need Viable Search Engine Competition
#3Last year i wrote this: https://medium.com/surveillance-state/32ba2b38c219 - and got a proper dollop of hate from certain segments in the webmaster community. They claimed it was 'sour grapes' - I have 140k visitors a day, am doing great, better than great. The monopoly is bad for all of us, even though I'm benefiting as it is.
This Google thing is WAY out of control.
Re: We Need Viable Search Engine Competition
#4duckduckgo.com
I use it but for many queries it still isn't good enough.
Re: We Need Viable Search Engine Competition
#5Part of the problem is that Google's PageRank algorithm is patented and the patent won't expire until 2017.
Google insists that its current search mix is based on a lot more than just PageRank, but it seems that PageRank probably contributes the foundation of their business. I don't see a way of competing with Google's results unless we are allowed to use something like PageRank, which we can't do unless we pay royalties or wait until it expires.
I'm not saying that PageRank is the be all end all of search algorithms, and certainly someone somewhere could come up with a different method of ranking superior to Google's. Ranking pages by how many other pages cite them seems like a pretty fundamental insight, and where I would start with any new search engine.
Re: We Need Viable Search Engine Competition
#6duckduckgo.com
I use it but for many queries it still isn't good enough.
DDG is just not good enough - it's sloppy.
We need an open-source, or decentralised (i wish) solution. That is as close as you can get to a pipe-dream at the moment. Doesn't mean we won't get there eventually though.
EDIT: early days open src p2p search: http://yacy.net/en/index.html
Re: We Need Viable Search Engine Competition
#7Part of the problem is that Google's PageRank algorithm is patented and the patent won't expire until 2017. Google insists that its current search mix is based on a lot more than just PageRank, but it seems that PageRank probably contributes the foundation of their business. I don't see a way of competing with Google's results unless we are allowed to use something like PageRank, which we can't do unless we pay royal…
I didn't realise this. Is this really enforceable? One of the tools that Moz sells is their PR proxy, opensiteexplorer. I wonder how they're able to replicate PR without running afoul of this?
Also, is PR really the best, only way to do this? Seems like there are all kinds of better (more modern) signals we could use other than links, which were kind of the only game in town 10ish years ago.
Re: We Need Viable Search Engine Competition
#8I wish more people would use and/or improve YaCy[0]. It's a decentralized search engine. Client is written in java. With the power of decentralisation hardware shouldn't really be an issue. It's just that the search result somewhat sucked the last time I tried it.
But I guess now is a good time to install it again, help scraping the internet, and maybe hack at the code.
Re: We Need Viable Search Engine Competition
#9Part of the problem is that Google's PageRank algorithm is patented and the patent won't expire until 2017. Google insists that its current search mix is based on a lot more than just PageRank, but it seems that PageRank probably contributes the foundation of their business. I don't see a way of competing with Google's results unless we are allowed to use something like PageRank, which we can't do unless we pay royal…
I didn't realise this. Is this really enforceable? One of the tools that Moz sells is their PR proxy, opensiteexplorer. I wonder how they're able to replicate PR without running afoul of this? Also, is PR really the best, only way to do this? Seems like there are all kinds of better (more modern) signals we could use other than links, which were kind of the only game in town 10ish years ago.
Google pays Mozilla hundreds of millions a year to keep its default status in the search bar. Perhaps being able to use PR was part of the deal, or perhaps Mozilla is rich enough to pay royalties to Stanford. Or perhaps Google doesn't mind because Mozilla doesn't seek to directly compete with Google on text search.
Edit: Woops. So none of this is true.
Re: We Need Viable Search Engine Competition
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn't realise this. Is this really enforceable? One of the tools that Moz sells is their PR proxy, opensiteexplorer. I wonder how they're able to replicate PR without running afoul of this? Also, is PR really the best, only way to do this? Seems like there are all kinds of better (more modern) signals we could use other than links, which were kind of the only game in town 10ish years ago.
Google pays Mozilla hundreds of millions a year to keep its default status in the search bar. Perhaps being able to use PR was part of the deal, or perhaps Mozilla is rich enough to pay royalties to Stanford. Or perhaps Google doesn't mind because Mozilla doesn't seek to directly compete with Google on text search. Edit: Woops. So none of this is true.
Moz (formerly: SeoMoz) != Mozilla