Live data from Hacker News

We Need Viable Search Engine Competition

peebs.org

11–20 of 146 posts

Re: We Need Viable Search Engine Competition

#11
post #5

Part 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…

[deleted]

Re: We Need Viable Search Engine Competition

#12
post #8

I 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. [0] http://yacy.net/en/

I love the idea of this stuff but I'm so scared things like this install a backdoor to our PCs. Is there any way to mitigate this? Run YaCy in a VM on VirtualBox?

Re: We Need Viable Search Engine Competition

#13
post #9
post #7

Earlier 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.

[deleted]

Re: We Need Viable Search Engine Competition

#14
post #9
post #7

Earlier 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.

[deleted]

Re: We Need Viable Search Engine Competition

#15
I would say that Bing already is a viable alternative. Having used it for several months now, there aren't too many queries that it doesn't handle well, and usually when I check Google's results for those queries, they are equally bad.

Re: We Need Viable Search Engine Competition

#16
My biggest concern with Google is the phenomenal amount of data they track and record about users. They have no self-restraint when it comes to tracking the online behaviour of users. Now they can track across devices (phone, desktop, tablet) giving them unprecedented knowledge of your online activity.

Companies are collecting more data about online behaviour than ever before. And no-one has the same online reach as Google. From analytics, to apps, to fonts to jquery - there's barely a site that doesn't link in one form or another back to Google in some way. Google's digital fingerprints reach into every corner of the web.

I've said this before, but I was hoping that 2014 would be the year we become more privacy-conscious, but I don't actually think that will be the case. Google get an incredibly easy ride on the subject of privacy and online tracking from the tech community. They're probably salivating at the prospect of capturing even more precise user behaviour through an OS (Chrome) that potentially captures everything you do online. Google aren't capturing this data anonymously either. The tech community's response to this seems largely to be - so what? For anyone who cares about privacy, that's pretty depressing.

Re: We Need Viable Search Engine Competition

#17
post #8

I 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. [0] http://yacy.net/en/

I love the idea of this stuff but I'm so scared things like this install a backdoor to our PCs. Is there any way to mitigate this? Run YaCy in a VM on VirtualBox?

[deleted]

Re: We Need Viable Search Engine Competition

#18
post #5

Part 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…

As you said the PageRank is just one of the many features used by the ranking algorithm. I highly doubt that there is any patent issue here (it's "just" an eigenvector computation), and there is a ton of literature and practical evidence that you can build very good web-search ranking technologies without PageRank. It would seem very surprising to me that one can patent a feature used in an algorithm for commercial purpose...

Re: We Need Viable Search Engine Competition

#19
post #2

duckduckgo.com

I use it but for many queries it still isn't good enough.

DDG is good enough most of the time: What's the formula for the volume of a tetrahedron? What's a "Cleveland Steamer"? When it's not, there's a Google link right at the bottom of the page, so you can turn on private browsing and click on that.

Re: We Need Viable Search Engine Competition

#20
I agree with the article. I wrote last week (http://markwatson.com/blog/2013-12/practical-internet-securi...) about using two browsers. Chrome with default security settings: used only for gmail, google search, facebook, and twitter; Firefox with ghostery: all normal web browsing, search using duckduckgo and bing.

My setup encourages me to at least use duckduckgo and/or bing when I am using firefox.

Post reply on HN