Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet

The Top 100 Alternative Search Engines 108

Posted by Hemos
ReadWriteWeb writes "Search Engine Optimizer (SEO) Charles S. Knight has compiled a list of the top 100 alternative search engines. The list includes Artificial Intelligence systems, Clustering engines, Recommendation Search engines, Metasearch, and many more hidden gems of search. People use four main search engines for 99.99% of their searches: Google, Yahoo!, MSN, and Ask.com (in that order). But Knight has discovered, via his work as an SEO, that in the other .01% lies a vast multitude of the most innovative and creative search engines around."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Top 100 Alternative Search Engines

Comments Filter:
  • Intranet Vs Internet (Score:5, Informative)

    by eldavojohn (898314) * <eldavojohn.gmail@com> on Monday January 29, 2007 @10:14AM (#17798990) Journal
    As with most lists, I've got some nitpicking to do.

    All the large companies I've worked for don't care about world wide web search engines. Those engines used by the populace with the revenue coming from ads or 'paid search' or some indirect service business model. Now, a lot of companies are interested in Enterprise Search Engines and would pay a lot of money directly to a search engine company to come in and set up the technology to do intranet searches.

    The engine we currently use at my fortune 500 company sucks. I mean it is the worst. I would rather have a blindfold on with stumps for hands trying to type in an estimation of the internal IP address than use our search engine. That said, I have been told that we investigated using "Google Technology" although my superiors soon found that it wasn't at all better than what we already had. And so I've heard of a few others that have doubted Google's ability to dominate in a closed domain. They are clearly the winners in an open domain internet search but I haven't seen anyone take advantage of it as well internally ... yet.

    So while the external market may be broken down 99.99 to 0.01, the internal enterprise search side isn't that lopsided.

    Two engines that I've used and found to be novel ideas are BrightPlanet's Deep Query Manager [brightplanet.com] and Collexis [collexis.us] (NIH demo [collexis.net]). DQM is able to extract data from databases that are available through search on the local page but are not indexed by Google. DQM has you create jobs since they take so long to run. Collexis can process raw text and fingerprint it, then compare that fingerprint to documents that have been fingerprinted quickly. Two ideas that Google, MSN & Yahoo! don't really cover. I find it odd that a site like Yoople (what appears to be a slow German Google) made it on this list but not DQM.
    • The engine we currently use at my fortune 500 company sucks. I mean it is the worst.

      Could be worse, you could be using Slashdot's search function!
    • by JehCt (879940) * on Monday January 29, 2007 @10:23AM (#17799110) Homepage Journal
      Could it be that your internal search sucks because your internal data is poorly organized, poorly written, and poorly tagged? Google isn't very good at finding stuff without the necessary clues. Search is only as good as the data stream. That's why SEOs always have lots of work - so many bad websites, so little time. If you know what you want, Google is great. If you don't know what you want (don't know the keywords), read Wikipedia to learn what to ask for.
      • by CastrTroy (595695)
        This is so true, in so many aspects. So often, people underestimate the importance of good data. You can have the perfect system, but if you don't have the data to put into the system, then the system is useless. Garbage in == Garbage out.
    • by Anonymous Coward

      Enterprise search is always difficult, companies like Fast Search and Transfer [fastsearch.com] specialize in it. They have all sorts of document filtering pipelines and customized database connectors to hook all sorts of data into their search system. It also scales quite will across a cluster.

      On the specific topic of this supposed top 100 list, I notice it is mostly a list of what is 'neat' as most high ranking non-top 4 search engines are not listed. Neilsen and most other traffic rating groups would definitely not

    • by mosel-saar-ruwer (732341) on Monday January 29, 2007 @11:41AM (#17800122)

      The engine we currently use at my fortune 500 company sucks. I mean it is the worst. I would rather have a blindfold on with stumps for hands trying to type in an estimation of the internal IP address than use our search engine. That said, I have been told that we investigated using "Google Technology" although my superiors soon found that it wasn't at all better than what we already had. And so I've heard of a few others that have doubted Google's ability to dominate in a closed domain. They are clearly the winners in an open domain internet search but I haven't seen anyone take advantage of it as well internally ... yet.

      Closed domains have this thing called "Access Rights" - typically governed by either Novell Directory Services, or Microsoft Active Directory.

      By and large, most enterprises don't want the janitor to be able to get on a kiosk terminal and surf the local search engine until he arrives at the document entitled FISCAL_YEAR_BRIBES_PAID_TO_MEMBERS_OF_THE_LOCAL_ZO NING_BOARD.DOC - that's the kind of thing that only the most elite of the grand poo-bahs are allowed to access.

      So a "closed domain" document spider is gonna have to be granted Administrator/Supervisory rights to the authentication infrastructure [which is a HUGE security risk in and of itself], and then it's gonna have to keep track of the pertinent access control lists before deciding whether or not individual users have the right to view search results.

      And if, as is typical, you've got four or five different authentication infrastructures in an enterprise [Novell Directory Services, Microsoft Active Directory, Sun iPlanet Directory Services, Oracle Internet Directory Services, etc etc etc], and if they aren't all tied together in some kinduva coherent LDAP framework, then that's just a massively complex project to even think about attempting to undertake.

    • by kv9 (697238)
      your comment doesnt make it quite clear, have you evaluated the GoogleSearchAppliance [google.com]?
    • >> I find it odd that a site like Yoople (what appears to be a slow German Google) made it on this list but not DQM Uhm Yoople! is not a slow german google...Yoople! is Collaborative Web Search! Unfortunately the address is wrong! The real Yoople! is at http://www.yoople.net/ [yoople.net]
  • by Stone Rhino (532581) <mparke&gmail,com> on Monday January 29, 2007 @10:15AM (#17799008) Homepage Journal
    I was expecting to see specialized search engines, rather than generalized ones that happen to use unusual algorithms. Things like Baidu Mp3 search or Astalavista; the ones that allow special-purpose searches that feeding them into google would just produce crap.
    • by defile (1059)

      Slifter.com [slifter.com], which is on the list, is pretty specialized. It's a mobile local product search. Its data comes from retailer inventory (not on the web) and it's meant to be run from a mobile device.

      (Yes, I work for them.)

      • by Aladrin (926209)
        Neat. It actually helped me find a potential source for something I've been trying to find local because I want to touch it before I buy it. (Intuos3 6x11)

        But it also returns results from websites... Buy.com is not 'local' for me. It needs an option to choose 'brick and mortar' only or it's a pretty major hassle to use.
    • by Odiumjunkie (926074) on Monday January 29, 2007 @10:31AM (#17799218) Journal
      I agree, I was expecting better - in my opinion there are a host of features that people have been talking about for years that haven't appeared in any search engine I've used.

      Things like:

      * searching by md5 hash to find where a random file on your hard drive came from

      * allowing the specifying of precise image size or dimensions to find a specific image - e.g., google indexes an image, you see the thumbnail, want to find it, but the original site is down - why can't google show me other images that match the original size and dimensions of that cached image, to help me find a mirror?

      * A search engine that rec0gn!s3s 4|_|_ 5p3c!4L cH4rAters

      * filtering search results by IP range

      * incorporating WHOIS details in search results (e.g foo +bar -foobar inurl:baz author:"J. Random Hacker")

      and so on, ideas that I hear mentioned occasionally but that never seem to go anywhere. Most of them would be fairly trivial to implement - perhaps file hashing would be too CPU intensive, but it could be limited to smaller files, or less acpu intensive algorithm could be used.

      Anyways, most of these I'd only use if they were added to Google - when it comes right down to it, database size is king with search engines - I'm happy to leave the meta/interactive/social/tagging side of things to the social bookmarking sites.
      • * A search engine that rec0gn!s3s 4|_|_ 5p3c!4L cH4rAters

        You do realize that t3h h4x0rz came up with 13375p34k in the first place just to avoid searches for "73h 600|) 57|_|ph" by the unwashed and undeserving masses.

        Any 14m3r can get ahold of LimeWire these days to search the joke that is Gnutella. The slightly more-dedicated will search for torrents on websites and via IRC. It's the real 1337 m4$t0rz amongst us who will Google-hack for open folders on servers and simply get our 1337 w4r3z shipped "ex

  • by gambit3 (463693) on Monday January 29, 2007 @10:17AM (#17799026) Homepage Journal
    .. I want "accurate"
    • Well, I guess that would make you a Google User.
    • Exactly. I type in "International News" into http://www.msdewey.com/ [msdewey.com] and I have to scroll down seriously to find the BBC. Meanwhile, I get shitty cnn and msnbc as the top results, as well as many unprofessional-looking sites. In addition to that, I have to do an additional click to mute the damn annoying chick while I'm scrolling through the list which is incredibly hard to read due to colour combinations.
  • zombo.com [zombo.com]

    when i go there, i simply forget what i was looking for. problem solved. because you can do anything at zombo.com
  • by Browzer (17971) on Monday January 29, 2007 @10:22AM (#17799086)
    a search engine?

    http://www.digg.com/about [digg.com]
    • Something like Digg, or Stumble Upon, is how many web users surf. It's the latest in Channel Hopping, and I think it's here to stay.

      The latest craze on the web is a 2000 Bloggers meme [abandonedstuff.com], where the photos of the blogmasters link to their website, giving people a random way to surf the blogosphere based on the looks of the author.
      • Yeah cus the first thing I think when I'm reading an article is what colour the authors' hair is. Seriously though, how would you find good content just by what people look like? I guess these kinds of people watch RocketBoom or whatever it's called to get their tech news.
        • by saskboy (600063)
          It's about random discovery (not content quality). Not quite like the Google I'm Feeling Lucky button, but close. And you know the blog isn't spam as it's been human added.
  • by 140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) on Monday January 29, 2007 @10:22AM (#17799090) Journal
    Does slashdot or Sourceforge have a decent search engine to look for source code, sample code for particular APIs ?
  • Do the wiki tiki. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by AlexanderDitto (972695) on Monday January 29, 2007 @10:24AM (#17799138)
    Ha, that's OK. I just use Google to find pages on Wikipedia. It's got all the information I'LL ever need from the internet.

    In all seriousness. There must be a reason why Google's floated to the top of the search engine love list, and I highly doubt it can be their (nonexistant) effective advertising campaign or their (also nonexistant) entertaining flashed-based website, because we all know people love those. No, I have to say that Google's got to have come up on top because they've been giving fairly accurate results. I know that if my search results were completely off, there would be almost nothing keeping me from switching to a new search; and, ironically, a search on Google for search engine brings up quite a few possibilities.

    I see no problem here... I'll just move right along.
    • by Not_Wiggins (686627) on Monday January 29, 2007 @10:50AM (#17799478) Journal
      No, I have to say that Google's got to have come up on top because they've been giving fairly accurate results.

      "Accurate" had nothing to do with it. In a time when having keywords was the way to get to the top of the popular search engines, Google implemented a social ranking system; it really wasn't about being accurate so much as it was about "if everyone thinks you're link worthy, then you're probably an authority on some subject."

      There's plenty of talk about community-supported information and social networks, but Google was the first serious attempt at utilizing that information way before such discussions were popular.
    • Maybe Google has become so popular because the dot com generation likes the trademark, "Google," which seems to be rapidly going generic, with its more and more frequent use as a verb (e.g. "Allow me to google that young lady from accounting. Methinks she has performed in many a racy film!").
    • by Sancho (17056) *
      There must be a reason why Google's floated to the top of the search engine love list

      Being popular doesn't mean anything. Look at Windows.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Thanatos69 (993924)
      I don't know about anyone else, I just find google really easy to type in my browser. The sad thing is, I open up a browser intending to go somewhere else, I will start typing www.goo right away... just habit? I really don't know.

      Looking at some of the other search engines in the link, I can see some of them being quite hideous to type. For instance, www.boxxet.com. I know, doesn't look hard but I have a hard time with x sometimes.

      Disclaimer: Some people would just say to use favorites.... I can
    • by turing_m (1030530)
      Unfortunately, for me it's mainly the convenience. I used dejanews either around or before the time I started using google. Then google bought them out. Combine an image search, news, and language tools, and you have the perfect home page, loads quick, no clutter.

      The social ranking thing, minimalist interface and deprioritization of ads got them there in the first place. The other stuff cemented their lead. (Although it seems now that clusty has got most of their features but without the usenet search.)

      The
  • Excite? Altavista? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) on Monday January 29, 2007 @10:26AM (#17799166)
    Just gotta ask: what happened to Excite and Altavista? Both of these guys still look up...
    • by Fry-kun (619632)
      they're now owned by the big guys. using them is pretty much pointless ever since google came out with a better algorithm. the big four (google/yahoo/msn/ask) use comparable quality algorithms, everyone else just leeches off them or uses much lower quality algorithms
  • Music map is interesting, but I needed to enable scripts in FireFox, I don't see reason why it uses scripts and all this animation instead simple results list.
    http://www.music-map.com/ [music-map.com]
  • by justthinkit (954982) <floyd@just-think-it.com> on Monday January 29, 2007 @10:40AM (#17799330) Homepage Journal
    I want a search engine like Google was before they bought into blogging and brought that bias into their search results. Search engines that bias results in favor of pages that are heavily linked to end up supporting the status quo over newer-but-better ideas/products/pages, the corporate bullies vs Hertz. This could be a great small business incubator. Does such an engine exist today?
    • by Raenex (947668)
      When did Google "buy into" blogging? Google has always been about being heavily linked to. That was the driving idea of their search engine.
      • In 2003 (the when) Google realized that it and blogs were perfect for each other [wired.com]. But I don't think they are perfect for end users. I think a definitive site on, for example, baby names [just-think-it.com] is more useful than the first ten (or even fifty) hits from Google combined. Compare: 1.5M names [just-think-it.com] vs about 50K names in the first ten links that Google suggests [google.com].

        What I am meaning when I say "Old school" is an engine that indexes content and lets the viewer decide what is important. Google no longer does this -- it give
        • by Raenex (947668)

          What I am meaning when I say "Old school" is an engine that indexes content and lets the viewer decide what is important.

          You know that Google has always used PageRank (link popularity) for this, and you admit it in your very next paragraph. Your point about "old school" makes no sense. Altavista was old school. Yahoo was old school. Google was never "old school".

          Quite simply, how does a new, useful _but_ not necessarily popular opinion make it to page one of Google today? I don't think it can, yet it

  • by Guppy06 (410832) on Monday January 29, 2007 @10:43AM (#17799368)
    are typosquatters?

    Find everything there is to know about "salshdot!"
    • by Joe Snipe (224958)
      Have you been to salshdot.org? It mirrors slashdot, but has a different cookie (possibly to harvest user/passes?). It was for sale awhile ago...
  • They are entirely right, many of the most revolutionary search engines out there are not mainstream. Did you know that the big four comprise less than half of the top 10 most innovative search engines?
  • "Search engine Spammer". There's no such thing as SEO.
  • "in the other .01% lies a vast multitude of the most innovative and creative search engines around" -- all looking to get bought by one of the top four.
  • Suspect source (Score:3, Insightful)

    by hcdejong (561314) <(ln.tensmx) (ta) (sebboh)> on Monday January 29, 2007 @11:22AM (#17799882)
    The article was written by an SEO. Who says he doesn't rank them by how easy they are for him to manipulate?
    • The article was written by an SEO. Who says he doesn't rank them by how easy they are for him to manipulate?

      If he's like any other SEO I've ever dealt with, he really only cares about manipulating page rank on Google, Yahoo and maybe MSN or Ask. Remember, those four engines are the 99%; The rest are toys to him. They are on his radar but not enough so he needs to care about them yet. (Again, remember why the SEO put out this PR piece; the point is to get you, the buyer of SEO services, to think that hi

  • "But Knight has discovered, via his work as an SEO, that in the other .01% lies a vast multitude of the most innovative and creative search engines around." I guess the problem I have with this statement is just how exactly 'innovative' and 'creative' are quantified? Specifics from the article: KartOO and Quintura are listed as being particularly innovative and creative. How so? Graphically, maybe, but the 'maps' that these search engines provide seem like a graphical gimmick at best, and downright anno
  • Yikes. If you have a graph with N nodes, it's N-dimensional. There are more than three websites. The difficulty is embedding the graph in two or three dimensional space. There are lots of algorithms for doing this, choosing the distance between nodes, and so on. Each necessarily discards some information, but choosing the right one could help. And maybe such a look at the web would be interesting, but it doesn't seem like it's always the most useful. You're probably interested in the big clusters, th
  • by PFI_Optix (936301) on Monday January 29, 2007 @11:34AM (#17800026) Journal
    Liveplasma links Transsiberian Orchestra with Iron Maiden. Yeah, I see so much in common there.
    • by Xanthian (714965)
      Perhaps because John Petrucci (formerly of TSO and Dream Theater), and Chris Caffery (of TSO and formerly of Savatage) have toured with Iron Maiden in the past? Many of the musicians with TSO have a background in neo-classical metal, as well. So, yeah, I can see that. Sort of.
  • innovative, but... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mnemonic_ (164550) <jamec@@@umich...edu> on Monday January 29, 2007 @11:38AM (#17800082) Homepage Journal
    "...lies a vast multitude of the most innovative and creative search engines..."
    They're innovative and creative, but nearly useless as well.
  • by cylcyl (144755) on Monday January 29, 2007 @11:41AM (#17800124)
    On the term "alternative search engine" and post the first 100 results as an article?
  • same old same old (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Not so long ago, you'd see such a list as everyone using Yahoo!, Altavista, Hotbot and Google was mentionned with the 1% also-rans.

    Time changes things, but not all that much. Some go up, some go down. I'd be willing to place a bet that some of their top-4 will dissappear in the next ten to twenty years while one of the also-rans will become a household name. *shrug*
  • The list is bad (Score:5, Informative)

    by Qbertino (265505) on Monday January 29, 2007 @11:52AM (#17800280)
    Vivisimo not among the top 100? This is silly. Vivisimo is the first I turn to when Google fails to deliver. And they cover Googles shortcomings very well.
    In my book (and that of many others) Vivisimo is SE #2. And for good reasons too.

    www.vivisimo.com
  • by Pigeon451 (958201) on Monday January 29, 2007 @11:53AM (#17800294)
    This list is junk.

    A9 uses MSN or Google, SimplyGoogle uses Google, Soople uses Google, etc, etc, etc. They just provide a new or innovate method of presenting the results, the result order is still the same.

    Also, Digg is listed? Del.icio.us? AOL???

    I'd rather have a top-10 list of REAL alternative search engines, not "portals" and such written by a SEO of a search engine optimization company.

    • This seems odd, but I was looking up some css, and javascript information. I couldn't find it on google, but I figured I'd search through digg. It worked. I've done this a couple times.

      Like the old yahoo and about.com, sometimes user selected content is better. Its different though because you depend on the description given to the article by the person submitting it.
      • Like a modern equivalent of usenet - because most questions will have been asked before, you can usually find the answer.
        Web forums should in theory have the same result, but I still find Google Groups ten times more focussed, because web forums are buried in ads, banners, spammers and kids chattering.
    • by CSKnight (1057158)
      Well, I'm sorry that you feel that my list is junk. One of the main points is just like you said, many of these Search Engines present the results in a different way, especially the cluster engines like www.kartoo.com and www.quintura.com. What do you think of ChaCha? It is the only one in the 100 that offers a free, live Guide to help you search. GoYams and Collarity and Yahoo! Mindset let you "Mix" the results - you DON'T get the same results. www.like.com is a true visual search engine, unlike Google
      • I enjoyed your list. It was refreshing and insightful. Your list wasn't junk. The search engines, however, are mostly junk. They run the spectrum from interesting/useful (like.com) to "why on earth would someone use a flash front end for a search engine, and why is it flirting with me"(Ms. Dewey). I heartily recommend yubnub to true techies as a command line way to access the internet. It is fast (usually), free, and very versatile. It has its nitch, but it isnt for everyone.
      • by Pigeon451 (958201)
        My apologies, I wish there was an edit function. Another user more precisely stated that the search engines are junk, while what you have is a comprehensive list of alternative methods of searching.

        I merely skimmed the list and saw a number of engines I consider poor, or are built off other engines. I don't have the time or motivation to go through each search engine to see which are good engines. Note that the article appears to be edited since I read it yesterday, and there are hyperlinks to all the sear

  • I decided to try searching for myself in some of these search engines, and though i might show up eventually on the page, I don't see them as being more accurate than Google... I mean, what about Ninja.com... that actually did turn out to be more accurate than Google... but some of these are linking me to the French musician by a similar name......
    • by CSKnight (1057158)
      The point is not that they are all more *accurate* than Google. Google has the largest index, the fastest speed, and the best algorithm. The Search Engines on this list show various things that Google cannot do. You can't hum into Google (www.nayio.com), and Google does not talk to you like Speeglebot. Google does not cluster their results like they should, see Quintura and Kartoo. Google Images is not a true visual seach, see www.like.com. Ms Dewey (www.msdewey.com) is a vastly different User Inerface
      • by Grinin (1050028)
        I can see your point... but I honestly have a much more difficult time using those search engines that clustered the results together in a web... I mean for the music and movies I thought that was very cool... but I don't know. Maybe we're just so used to hitting "I'm feeling lucky" to try anything new...
  • I don't see http://scirus.com/ [scirus.com] - scientific information search engine.
  • Part of this guy's research involved Googling "alternative search engines."
    • by CSKnight (1057158)
      Of course I Googled "Alternative Search Engines"!! I also set up a Google Alert for "Alternative Search Engines" which I check daily. I also have 40 Netvibe modules that constantly update the best Search Sites/Blogs out there. I'm afraid I don't see your point.
      • by drix (4602)
        I'm afraid I don't have one :-) I just thought it was funny, and perhaps mildly ironic. Although that's such a loaded term these days that who knows, really.
  • Does anyone know whether that "99.99%" figure is accurate, or was it pulled out of the author's nether regions? Because it sure doesn't smell right.
  • I typed Dreadful Snakes into the music search engine No results, Funny I have 2 of their Bluegrass albums
    • by CSKnight (1057158)
      Not flawed, NEW. Many of the search engines on my list launched recently, and it takes time for the SE to "learn" more about the subject matter. Note that many are still in Beta mode. The more that people use sites like Music Map and Live Plasm, the better the results will be.
  • Many of those are NOT search engines at all (at most sites with a search feature) and many fairly well known, useful and actual search engines are ignored - where is technorati [technorati.com]? where is boardtracker [boardtracker.com]? blogpulse [blogpulse.com]? sphere [sphere.com]?

    At least the 'author' could have done 5 mins research to find something actually relating to the title..

    • by CSKnight (1057158)
      Thank you for the suggested sites; I will check them out. This is not a static list, new discoveries (at least new to me) are added all the time, with somebody dropping out at the same time - that list of "also rans" is not always posted-perhaps yours didn't make the cut. Your snide attitude is a bit odd - does it make you feel good? Of course my research took closer to 50 hours, visiting not just every single one of these 100 SE, but dozens of other ones; ones in Stealth mode, mobile search engines, SE
    • You forget about such kind of sites like boardreader.com [boardreader.com] and nnseek.com [nnseek.com] which is search engines as well. The fist is forum search engine? the second mail news conferences search engine.
  • People use four main search engines for 99.99% of their searches: Google, Yahoo!, MSN, and Ask.com (in that order).

    Here China has over 130 million Internet users, and Baidu shares over half of the web search market. But the article claims the four big shares 99.99%, so we are not count as "people" according to it!?

    • by CSKnight (1057158)
      Of course you count as people. If I was writing about all of the Search Engines in the world it would be quite a different list. I think that most of my readers realize that I am an American writing about (mostly) American Search Engines - or at the very least, Search Engines in English. If you want to present all of the Search Engines in the world in order to include all the people in the world - go for it! I would love to see it.
  • Ehy Yoople! is in the list! Great news...unfortunately it's linked to a wrong address...and that's not great!eheheh Yoople! is http://www.yoople.net/ [yoople.net]

  • Usage stats for some of those can't be too good.

    Or maybe I'm wrong. But it seems like the big 2 or 3 would command 99.99% of all search traffic,
    leaving very little for these guys.

  • Wayback Search (Score:2, Interesting)

    I don't see that any of these "alternative" search engines offer fixes to Google's current shortcomings (or at least the ones I run into). Personally, I can't wait til there's the Wayback Machine's [archive.org] archives are searchable by text rather than just domain. Hell, I'd even be appreciative if you could search for parts of domains. I can't overstate how often I'm driven crazy by remembering something from a site I saw long ago and not being able to refresh my memory because the site either went down or fell out o
  • Our site Bessed [bessed.com] is a human-powered engine built on WordPress to allow for commenting on search results & adding new sites. Just launched in October so nowhere near comprehensive, but I think we pass the innovative test.
  • Metacrawler.com [metacrawler.com] was the original metasearch, and it's still my number one choice. I can't believe it didn't make the list. You can even (through a configurable cookie) choose which search engines you do and do not want to use, so if you dislike Google, for example, you don't have to use it.
  • Hi - I am Charles Knight, the creator and keeper of this list of the Top 100 Alternative Search Engines. I have *already* updated the list based up good feedback, which I shall continue to do all year long. If you would like a copy of the very latest version, just send me an email at: Charles@CharlesKnightSEO.com. The list you receive will have the revised Top 100, Search Engines not yet reviewed, Search Engines not yet released in Stealth Mode, Mobile Search Engines and the list of Search Engines that d

I judge a religion as being good or bad based on whether its adherents become better people as a result of practicing it. - Joe Mullally, computer salesman

Working...