[deleted]
A New Search Engine
71–80 of 107 posts
Re: A New Search Engine
#72Do you (founders/employees) have any example queries that don’t work well with Google, and correspondingly what pages you think should be top ranked for those queries?
'sex chat'
currently, from my location, 'free chat now' has 2 of the top 3 results. 'i sexy chat' has 2 of the top ten results.
'chat i w ' is number 13, and has been top 10 for much of past couple / few years.. yet they are 'not an adult site' since they run GGL ads...
should be top 5 again.. sexchatsexchat.com has way more content and history..
there are many more sites I could suggest that actually have chat systems running (unlike the porn dood site which is a top 20 link list)
there are many good sites that aren't even in the results at all... these are being gamed by well connected linkers, not ranked by amount of content and length of time people would stay and enjoy.
imbo - in my biased opinion, I have more to add but wonder if it does any good.
a new engine that handles adult better, I would help with.. the other sites listed here do not do these results justice either.. again imbo, ymmv.
Re: A New Search Engine
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, they mention it, which is a good move regarding transparency, but they still don't answer the question as to why the finance them. They mostly push a narrative of privacy and censorship, when in the end the answer is probably close to "we want a piece of the pie" or "we want to be that monopoly".
[Disclaimer, I work at Cliqz] I cannot answer for the "true" motivation of the investors, but their pitch and actions so far are well align with the fight against monopolies narrative. Do they want to get return on investment (eventually)? I would assume so, and I believe it would be fair. I do not see them as mutually exclusive. Of course, this is my personal opinion.
It’s a good investment as a hedge in the case the EU regulators kick Google in the ass hard enough.
Re: A New Search Engine
#74They talk about using query logs to optimize their search results: >Queries performed by people, if associated to a web page, serve as even cleaner summaries than anchor text. This is because all the logic put in place by the search engine, who resolved the query with a list of web pages, and all human understanding and experience that led one to select the best page from the offered result list end up embedded in th…
[Disclaimer, I work at Cliqz] Your point is spot on. Old pages tend to have more association to seen queries, which does not play in favor for new pages. That said, however, there are a couple of things to consider: 1) seen queries is not the only way to create queries, we are pretty good creating synthetic queries based on the content, descriptions, etc. This queries are more noisy that the seen queries of course, b…
Why does Cliqz use an analytics domain with a typo in it to get around user tracker-blockers? That's incredibly scummy, given how much Cliqz has been shouting about privacy.
Re: A New Search Engine
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
[Disclaimer, I work at Cliqz] Your point is spot on. Old pages tend to have more association to seen queries, which does not play in favor for new pages. That said, however, there are a couple of things to consider: 1) seen queries is not the only way to create queries, we are pretty good creating synthetic queries based on the content, descriptions, etc. This queries are more noisy that the seen queries of course, b…
Why does Cliqz use an analytics domain with a typo in it to get around user tracker-blockers? That's incredibly scummy, given how much Cliqz has been shouting about privacy. https://anolysis.privacy.cliqz.com/
Seems like an excellent opportunity to apply Hanlon's Razor.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."
Re: A New Search Engine
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why does Cliqz use an analytics domain with a typo in it to get around user tracker-blockers? That's incredibly scummy, given how much Cliqz has been shouting about privacy. https://anolysis.privacy.cliqz.com/
Seems like an excellent opportunity to apply Hanlon's Razor. "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."
They've been doing it for two years at minimum:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15423936
Two years and three domains with the typo? It's malice.
Re: A New Search Engine
#77What I really want, is not another search engine for contextless queries. Except for really basic queries (which Google/etc already do a good job at), I'm trying to answer a question, perhaps open-ended, and it will take multiple queries to resolve. And it's not a linear process of narrowing down with + or - keywords. It's establishing a context: I'm searching for something relevant to "go" the language, not "go" the…
Agreed. tried replicating this with org mode, which required an extensive learning curve to meet the needs akin to what you listed. Although at some level it did the job, I could imagine a tool that does it better.
Re: A New Search Engine
#78I remember when Cuil launched about 10 years ago they suggested that 1% of the search market was worth a billion dollars so it's big money if you can get inroads. Of course search is probably less important now than it was back then, with discovery happening on social media more and more, but the internet as a whole is much larger than 10 years ago so I wouldn't be surprised if 1% is worth more now days.
Re: A New Search Engine
#79> The experts, who chose to answer, suggested that we should first start with crawling the whole web. We were told that this would take between 1 and 2 years to complete, and would cost a minimum of $1 billion Why are costs so high for crawling?
There is no way it costs near a billion dollars to do an effective crawl of the web. That's laughable. I do wonder how much Googlebot spends on bandwidth and servers though.
Re: A New Search Engine
#80Since the Cliqz devs are here, and this engine is based in Germany, a question: does your search engine have any mechanisms for reporting abusive URLs (doxxing, targeted harassment, revenge porn, etc) beyond right-to-be-forgotten, or are you more a lassiez-faire, everything-goes kind of search company?
I noticed that your engine ranks some of the nastier sites on the internet far higher than any other search engine I've looked into.