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

We Need Viable Search Engine Competition

peebs.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 146 posts

Re: We Need Viable Search Engine Competition

#51

Post by Dewie »

sigil wrote: post #44

Is PageRank really the indomitable tech of our generation? Nobody can do better algorithmically, or integrate some kind of crowd sourced feedback, or measure browsing time and habits, or simply hand tune some of the most competitive key phrases? I’m sure I’m oversimplifying, but I wonder if we haven’t all been hypnotised by the complexity, much of which is marketing hype... Actually, the tech is extremely complex, an…

> Thought experiment: what could that disruptive niche be?

Internal search engines could get a lot better. I don't know how people who make websites make them, what tech they use etc., if it's mostly incompetence that does this, but the fact that I'd rather use plain Google than an internal search most of the time tells me that Google is just too good.

Re: We Need Viable Search Engine Competition

#52

Post by Karunamon »

chestnut-tree wrote: post #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…

I didn't and still don't particularly care. The arguments to why this is bad always seem to be of the slippery slope / what if somebody does something untoward with the data variety.

The first one is a easily-dismissed fallacy, the second is not limited to Google or any other company. I have yet to see a convincing argument that Google is misusing this data or doing anything bad with it.

On the other hand, a service that knows you intimately enough can provide some very cool things that are otherwise impossible. The cards on Google Now, for instance, rely completely on the search history on your account and the location data from your phone. I get up in the morning and my usual route to work is plotted out with an ETA. I search for a nearby restaurant on my computer and the directions appear on the phone complete with ratings. Things like that.

My philosophy is to deal with any abuses if/when they occur (and mitigate the forseeable ones), instead of walling yourself off from the ever-more connected world. I'm starting to think there's a fundamental shift happening in what "privacy" is, why it's necessary, and what it means nowadays. And as usual, the choices are hop on, get out of the way, or get run over. For better or worse.

Re: We Need Viable Search Engine Competition

#53

Post by ForHackernews »

sigil wrote: post #44

Is PageRank really the indomitable tech of our generation? Nobody can do better algorithmically, or integrate some kind of crowd sourced feedback, or measure browsing time and habits, or simply hand tune some of the most competitive key phrases? I’m sure I’m oversimplifying, but I wonder if we haven’t all been hypnotised by the complexity, much of which is marketing hype... Actually, the tech is extremely complex, an…

> Even then, is DDG viable competition for Google?

I'd say "yes". I've switched to DDG as my primary search engine, and I'd say they return a good result about 80-90% of the time. They're definitely not as good as Google, but you can always add "g!" to redirect to Google results.

I'd say their best selling point is their focus on privacy, but oddly they don't seem to be touting it very loudly or trying to make hay from the recent NSA revelations.

Re: We Need Viable Search Engine Competition

#54

Post by andrenotgiant »

mark_l_watson wrote: post #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.

FYI: I would keep tabs on Ghostery, there's a for-profit company behind it that works with Ad Networks - They don't do anything bad now but experience shows that a massive user-base that you make zero revenue off can be a tempting fruit when profits start falling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghostery#Criticism

Re: We Need Viable Search Engine Competition

#56

Post by examsheart »

CombAce wrote: post #35

or: We need an inclusionist wikipedia - where every possible search term starts with an empty page/any possible search term would have an entry, even if it's just for redirecting a spelling mistake. Eventually every search term would grow its own little community of experts. Unfortunately, as pg said, "Deletionists rule Wikipedia."

Appreciate the lateral thinking. Several issues related to evil SEO-like behavior would need to be addressed as well:

* Blow away my competitor's links on the topic I'm related to

* Always put my links at the top on my topic page

* Sneak my link into other pages not directly related to my topic (viagra spam on comp.lang.*)

Re: We Need Viable Search Engine Competition

#57

Post by rogerbinns »

sigil wrote: post #44

Is PageRank really the indomitable tech of our generation? Nobody can do better algorithmically, or integrate some kind of crowd sourced feedback, or measure browsing time and habits, or simply hand tune some of the most competitive key phrases? I’m sure I’m oversimplifying, but I wonder if we haven’t all been hypnotised by the complexity, much of which is marketing hype... Actually, the tech is extremely complex, an…

> Even then, is DDG viable competition ...

An irritation for me with DDG is them formatting result URLs incorrectly, and then ignoring any feedback about it. Two examples are them adding spurious www. prefixes to Google code results, and leaving out slashes when creating Apple developer URLs.

DDG could distinguish themselves by playing bazaar to Google's cathedral, but they don't appear to. A search engine that uses crowd sourcing and feedback would be disruptive IMO.

The examples. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=apsw - note the second link is on google hosting and shows code.google.com/p/apsw/ but clicking on it gives page not found because it goes to WWW.code.google.com/p/apsw/. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=NSString and note infobox at top which goes to Apple developer but clicking gives an error. The link should have a slash between Reference and NSString at the end.

Post reply on HN