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

Google Instant Search Released

google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 227 posts

Re: Google Instant Search Released

#181

Post by dedward »

edanm wrote: post #168
mrshoe wrote: post #84

I'm sorry, but this is a solution to the wrong problem. I switched from AltaVista to Google back in 1998, not because their search engine returned results more quickly, but because their results were much more relevant . In the past few years, SEOs have set up micro-sites on just about any topic I could possibly search for and they've managed to rank highly for those topics. Am I the only one who's sick of being take…

"I don't need search results that update live as I type. I need to find what I'm looking for." You need to find what you're looking for faster. For you, that only means more relevant results, since (this is a guess) you're a quick typist. For slower typists, this kind of instant search could save a lot more than 500ms. It can save them 30 seconds, maybe even a minute. It might also help teach people how to search. Th…

Even for fast typists - speed and response time affects your perception of the site subconsciously. The faster and more realtime it seems the more you are going to like it, even if you aren't sure why, or don't even think about it. You may not even realize why if asked why you like it better - but the statistics and studies are there and are solid - so this is likely a very good move on google's part.

Re: Google Instant Search Released

#183

Post by keegangrayson »

contextfree wrote: post #157
btilly wrote: post #98

My opinion is that this is a challenge to Microsoft. "So you want to compete in search, well match this! See whether your server infrastructure can hold up!" Having used the feature for a while, what I've found is that I basically don't finish typing. I just stop when I have good enough results. At first I found it annoying, but after I got used to it I found it very nice. Now I find myself annoyed that it isn't buil…

Someone actually built a Bing-based instant search a while back: http://www.istartedsomething.com/livesearch/ It's not nearly as responsive, dunno to what extent that's imposed by MSFT's server infrastructure though.

But it doesn't predict what you are most likely going to search for...

Re: Google Instant Search Released

#184

Post by tolmasky »

mrshoe wrote: post #84

I'm sorry, but this is a solution to the wrong problem. I switched from AltaVista to Google back in 1998, not because their search engine returned results more quickly, but because their results were much more relevant . In the past few years, SEOs have set up micro-sites on just about any topic I could possibly search for and they've managed to rank highly for those topics. Am I the only one who's sick of being take…

Faster results may mean better results in an indirect way. If you accept that some searches will require multiple tries before getting what you want, then If you can see the quality of your search results as you type, you can get to what you want faster. Of course you may disagree with that premise.

Re: Google Instant Search Released

#186

Post by larsberg »

chaosmachine wrote: post #171
peterbe wrote: post #88

That is genuinely impressive. Never seen anything like it before on any other website. Not sure it's needed now with the great autocomplete but it sure looks really great.

I built something like it a few years ago: http://drupalmodules.com/module-finder No autocomplete, though.

As did I, back in mid-2003. Of course, it was just an excuse to try out the then-new "Google Web APIs" :-)

http://lars.com/tools/IncGoogleSearch/inc-google-search.jpg

Re: Google Instant Search Released

#188

Post by pjscott »

izendejas wrote: post #138
orangecat wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don't "need" it, but taking Google's stats at face value for the moment, it will save 350 million hours per year. That's not insignificant.

Yea, but at what cost? Are they using more power? I would think so as they not only auto-complete, but also generate countless search results in rapid-fire mode. For every query, how many more sets of results are returned? On average, it's easily more than one. It's only one when they predict your query.

If people like this and it makes search more server-intensive to run, that works in Google's favor by making it more expensive to compete with them on instant search. They're the champions when it comes to infrastructure, and they know it.

Re: Google Instant Search Released

#190

Post by dedward »

moron4hire wrote: post #160
mrshoe wrote: post #84

I'm sorry, but this is a solution to the wrong problem. I switched from AltaVista to Google back in 1998, not because their search engine returned results more quickly, but because their results were much more relevant . In the past few years, SEOs have set up micro-sites on just about any topic I could possibly search for and they've managed to rank highly for those topics. Am I the only one who's sick of being take…

Given that "optimization" has a positive connotation in tech fields, I suggest that we rename SEO to PRE: PageRank Exploitation.

Unless you're on the business end of things and most of your new customers come from search engines - in which case optimizing your site, which offers the products people are actually searching for, to the top of the list (and aren't cheating with giant link-farms....). Good SEO has a lower CPA than just about any other kind of marketing.

Now, if we're talking about SEO where people are link-farming to spam pages just to get ad-hits and get ad revenue and other spammy behavior of no real value to anyone but the person doing the SEO.....i'm all for hte new classification.

Post reply on HN