Search 2.0 vs. Traditional Search 187
ReadWriteWeb writes "Ebrahim Ezzy reviews 5 new third-generation search technologies — and how they compare to the big guns of Google, Yahoo and MSN. These so-called "search 2.0" companies are combining the scalability of existing internet search engines with new and improved relevancy models; they bring into the equation user preferences, collaboration, collective intelligence, a rich user experience, and many other specialized capabilities. The new search engines profiled are Swicki, Rollyo, Clusty, Wink and Lexxe." Note, as the article points out, that the author has developed yet another search engine, called Qube.
Not so stunning results for the "next generation" (Score:5, Funny)
I asked it a simple question. And it responded. Here is the efficient answer that must surely have Google quaking in its boots:
Re:Not so stunning results for the "next generatio (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Not so stunning results for the "next generatio (Score:3, Interesting)
Funny thing was, I did the search before non-subscribers could even see the story. If they're THAT weak, they're in a lot of trouble.
-Eric
Re:Not so stunning results for the "next generatio (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Not so stunning results for the "next generatio (Score:2)
Re:Not so stunning results for the "next generatio (Score:2)
How, exactly, do you expect a search engine to guess what you mean by "model" without the extra context? Maybe there are some cases where it fails, but it seems to me that searching for "model" does exactly what it should -- it's not a very good example.
Although that does give me an idea -- it
Re:Not so stunning results for the "next generatio (Score:2)
Although that does give me an idea -- it would be nice if the search engine could suggest ways to refine a search in order to find pages for the meaning you want. For instance, in the example of "model," it might give a list of choices that you might be interested in: "Did you want to search for modeling agencies? modeling tutorials? modeling clay? model rockets? UML?" etc. That would help in cases where it can be a little difficult to figure out the magic words you need to get the right set of results.
A
Re:Not so stunning results for the "next generatio (Score:2)
-Eric
Re:Not so stunning results for the "next generatio (Score:2)
I think he means the exact string "<<model>>"
-Eric
Re:Not so stunning results for the "next generatio (Score:2)
Interesting choice of names (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Interesting choice of names (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Interesting choice of names (Score:2)
I say! (Score:5, Funny)
Am I the only one who's getting tired of this trend of tagging on 2.0 to everything? It's stupid. Searching is still essentially the same way as before, it's not like a magic robot comes out of the screen or anything.
Re:I say! (Score:2)
Re:I say! (Score:2, Funny)
TummyFillr 2.0 beta
ToiletFillr 2.0 beta
Re:I say! (Score:2)
Re:I say! (Score:2)
It's not quite as annoying as the previous (and sadly still lurking around) trend of putting "e" in front of everything.
Hmmm, that gives me an idea. Maybe I could start a new company....... eSearch 2.0! Everyone will be all like, "whoa, forget Google, forget the boring old Search 2.0 companies, THIS guy's doing it electronically!"
Re:I say! (Score:2)
Re:I say! (Score:2)
Re:I say! (Score:2)
No, you're not.
Meet the new boss [insert Townsend guitar riff] - same as the old boss
Re:I say! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I say! (Score:5, Funny)
I know! I could create a Porn 2.0 website called fuckhr! Or fuckr. You post your own home-made amateur porn movies, and you tag them with tags like "hardcore", "bj", "cumshot", and "anal"! Then anyone could just search for specific tags and find some good (hopefully) amateur porn to fit their specific fetishes.
Y'know, this almost seems like a good idea...
Re:I say! (Score:2)
Re:I say! (Score:2, Funny)
I reply! (2.0 beta) (Score:2)
Re:I say! (Score:2, Funny)
Am I the only one who's getting tired of this trend of tagging on 2.0 to everything? It's stupid. Searching is still essentially the same way as before, it's not like a magic robot comes out of the screen or anything
iAgree
Re:I say! (Score:4, Insightful)
All the op said was the "2.0" tag was stupid, not the content. I happen to agree, what the hell does "search 2.0" mean? Or "web 2.0"? If you want to actually discuss a technology or approach then fine, but these terms are so vague they don't actually mean anything at all.
Its just marketing and hype.
Re:I say! (Score:4, Insightful)
As for throwing "2.0" at the end of everything, it will happen, and it will be inaccurate to the
As mush as we might hate to admit it, the business types that will use this term all the time are just as nessiary as the techies in advancing stuff.
Re:I say! (Score:2)
I think "Web 2.0" will get used in a similar way, to describe an idea where the scope is too great to be explained in concrete terms
I haven't heard anything about web 2.0 too great to be explained in concrete terms. It just seems to be a mashing together of AJAX, XML, web services, greater user interaction, social networking and possibly the semantic web and some other things. Most of it actually seems to be here now, and not actually be used.
I think the people not "in the know" will mostly never know
Web 2.0 is marketing BS (Score:2)
It really is just marketing bullshit and it is primarily for marketing Internet compa
I'll say the content was crap also. (Score:3, Insightful)
But in this case, so is the "content" of the article. Example:
So, that defines the current systems. That's a good start. So what makes these other systems "2.0"?
I don't care about the generations, explain what makes the new stuff "2.0" instead of "1.0". Instead he's covering what
Re:C'mon (Score:2)
Re:C'mon (Score:2)
Its all good (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Its all good (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Its all good (Score:2)
Freudian slip?
no one gives a fuck (Score:5, Insightful)
Keep it clean and keep it simple, that's all you need for a good interface in most cases.
Re:no one gives a fuck (Score:2)
Re:no one gives a fuck (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:no one gives a fuck (Score:2)
I agree with parent. Maddox had a rant a while back (that I can't seem to find) about how flashy interfaces suck.
Re:no one gives a fuck (Score:3, Insightful)
Here is something that he has never talked about but I consider a huge issue: people with disabilities cannot use a lot of this "2.0" crap. I have a hard enough time reading the skewed letters and
Re:no one gives a fuck (Score:2)
I have good timing. I it incredibly refreshing to see Google doing something to help those with severe disabilities.
Re:no one gives a fuck (Score:2)
Re:no one gives a fuck (Score:3, Informative)
Re:no one gives a fuck (Score:2)
Maybe I'm just a bit too negative, but I don't see how these search engines wont die out quickly and just be fads untill then. Because if they ever got big they'd be ad filled waste
Re:no one gives a fuck (Score:2)
Those *could* be useful features. Search is far from perfect at this point. But I envision google perfecting it before some company that needs to resort to using the term "web 2.0" to describe itself.
Re:no one gives a fuck (Score:2)
You remind me of Bill Gates in the early 90s saying the Internet is stupid, people want desktop apps! We already know how people use sear
From the makers of Web 2.0... (Score:4, Insightful)
...comes the new rage that's sweeping the Internet: Search 2.0! Yes, you've enjoyed Search 1.0 for years but now there's the new and improved Search 2.0! It does all the smae things, but different! No more time-consuming Googling for things -- with Search 2.0, you can have your results in about the same time and have them be remarkably similar!
If they think slapping a fancy title on it will spark everyone to transition to their new search products, they should think again. I suspect Google will simply roll out there 2.0 option at some point and kick everyone else's butt.
Re:From the makers of Web 2.0... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:From the makers of Web 2.0... (Score:3, Interesting)
None of the search engines use the term "Search 2.0." That's the author of the article. I agree it's stupid, but you're blaming the wrong party.
Re:From the makers of Web 2.0... (Score:2)
Crazily enough the article says they are third generation search, so really they should be Search 3.0, but that wouldn't sound as cool and as if it was connected to Web 2.0.
Re:From the makers of Web 2.0... (Score:2)
But it won't really become popular until Search 3.1
Re:From the makers of Web 2.0... (Score:2)
Re:From the makers of Web 2.0... (Score:2)
Buzzwords (Score:5, Insightful)
Apparently he's also working on Buzzword 2.0.
From the Qube home page: AdRoll program aims to enable a new medium that allows free, point based advertising in a proactive manner
With synergy! Concordantly!! Vis-a-vis!!!
Re:Buzzwords (Score:2)
Re:Buzzwords. 2.0. Also beta. (Score:2)
You know... (Score:5, Funny)
I dunno... (Score:2)
You have to trust an article... (Score:4, Insightful)
...written by someone who is actually working on the same technology for a rival company to the ones listed in the article. There's an unbiased piece of reporting for you!
Uh oh ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, right there's one of the warning phrases.
One of the big reasons for google's success is that it doesn't give you a "rich user experience". The main web page is utterly plain and simple. You type in a word or phrase. You get back a page with a lot more text, but its layout is again simple and obvious. Granted, you can click the "advanced search" and see something more complicated. But they've carefully hidden the "rich user interface" behind something that's simple and obvious.
Google's ads are an example of the same. No "rich" ads; just small, unobtrusive chunks of text. Nothing distracting and annoying, so people don't look for ways to turn them off.
I like wikipedia for the same reason. No flash or pizzazz; just simple, plain, easy to use, and informative.
When I see something touted with a phrase like "rich user experience", my natural reaction (after more than a decade of web use) is to shudder and go on to something that's more likely to be useful and informative.
Re:Uh oh ... (Score:3, Interesting)
Good point. The fact is, the state of web sites and web-driven applications is atrocious. People are taking the gaggle of new technologies available and abusing them, creating clunky interfaces, over-stuffed web pages, and garish sites where finding actual content is next to impossible. Google
Re:Uh oh ... (Score:2)
I've never used a Simpson'ss quote on Slashdot and I never shall, but damn one comes to mind right now.
Re:Uh oh ... (Score:2)
Categories, duh (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Categories, duh (Score:2)
Preferably with images.
SafeSearch is off [google.co.uk]
Re:Categories, duh (Score:2)
Lexxe is actually pretty good! (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Lexxe is actually pretty good! (Score:2)
Please mod the parent up Funny... because that is truly hilarious! Although it does show how mature their technology is if it wasn't written to boost itself over potential rivals.
Re:Lexxe is actually pretty good! (Score:2)
Loading... (Score:3, Funny)
"Lexxe (alpha version) has just encountered a system or internal connection problem, due to too many users using it now.
Please try again a few minutes later. Thanks."
I don't get it, how did that answer your question? :(
Re:Loading... (Score:2)
Use the Preview Button! Check those URLs!
:p
Clusty (Score:3, Informative)
Tried out the clusty solution, and found what I was looking for very rapidly. TFA is correct it feels like a cross between Google and eBay.
There something to that. I can see Google copying it.
I didn't try the others because they looked like too much hassle. One of the original appeals of Google was the simplicity.
Re:Clusty (Score:2)
>Google, but couldn't find it.
>Tried out the clusty solution, and found what I
>was looking for very rapidly.
Same here. Couldn't find anything reliable for something
on Google, just tried Clusty and the categories made it easy.
Hmm
Re:Clusty (Score:2)
Re:Clusty (Score:3, Informative)
The only thing is that Clusty isn't something you can easily verb. I often 'google
Re:Clusty (Score:2)
This made it easy to find review of games and the system as well as potention places to buy game and get history on the system. Not 100% perfect, but a p
Ah, "collective intelligence" (Score:4, Funny)
In Search Of... (Score:3, Funny)
Yes, but can they tell me where in the hell I left my car keys??
Re:In Search Of... (Score:2)
Yes, but can they tell me where in the hell I left my car keys??
No, but the NSA or FBI can...
Re:In Search Of... (Score:2)
They did help me find it sitting underneath my nearly-completed Renewable Energy Machine I was building in my basement - right after they confiscated it.
What About Collexis? (Score:3, Informative)
I feel the author fails to even address the first thing he should have in this article. Why move from "Web 1.0" to "Web 2.0"? This article is not intuitively laid out.
I found an article in Nature [nature.com] to be much more informative than the article linked in this story.
Niche search (Score:5, Informative)
I still think that the niche search engines are more viable not so much as alternatives to google or yahoo, but as an almost adjunct. Like the site I volunteer for, Diysearch.com, yeah it will never replace the majors, and it isn't intended to do, but because its subject-matter focused, the search results and relevancy are that much higher than what you'd get from a google or a yahoo.
I have no idea if subject-matter focus is the most viable route in terms of focusing search results, but Diysearch.com has been around for a decade and its doing quite well.
Pretty interresting (Score:3, Funny)
Q : Who is the president of united states ?
A : Armed forces
Re:Pretty interresting (Score:2)
"Rich user experience" (Score:5, Insightful)
The only "rich user experience" I want from my search engine is to experience a set of results rich in accuracy, without any other bullshit. Unfortunately I suspect this guys idea of "rich user experience" is mostly the kind of crap I want to avoid.
Fine Print... (Score:2)
Geek Powerhouse? (Score:4, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:3, Funny)
Generation 3 is Search 2.0? (Score:2)
Wrong number (Score:2)
What I want is weighted search (Score:2)
For i
Slashdot 2.0... can we move on now (Score:2)
What we have is an ugly rehash of the late 80's and early 90's when everyone who wanted to add "new hotness" to their product name called it 2000, the dotbomb when everything cool was e or
Get over the 2.0 already.
Re:Slashdot 2.0... can we move on now (Score:2)
I want real improvements instead (Score:2)
I also want search engines that ignores menus, or other things that aren't part of the main content of the page. Why should every page on slashdot be associated with Apple just because it appears in the sections menu?
Another thing that could use improving is the removing of pages with similar content. There is no need for there to be 50
The problem has never been search.. (Score:2)
Search 2.0 is already here (Score:2)
Re:Clustering? (Score:2)
Re:I haven't RTA... (Score:2)
Repair (40)
Ball cock assembly (29)
Tips, Leaking (18)
Femdom, Cock and ball torture (22)
Toilet tank ball cock (16)
Toilet Fill (9)
Home Depot (7)
Regulating device (5)
Master, plumber, leak, detection, drip, help (3)
Bathroom (4)
pick your poison. There's more than just google.