Slashdot Mirror
Grokker Search Engine Provides Visual Search Results
KeatonMill writes "The New York Times (as always, free registration) ran this article about a new search engine, called Grokker, created by a company called Groxis. Grokker builds a map of content catagories using metadata. So far, it is used in the Amazon.com online catalog and the Northern Light search engine. Groxis is also developing a version to use to search your own computer."
partner=cmdrtaco
I saw some of the similar kinds of sorting of metadata with stuff from YellowBrix and LingoMotors.
I guess, given my background, I'd be interested to see how this works in the bigger arena and if they'll be doing widescale support of the PRISM and SCORM standards.
Anybody out there get to really play with this on the back end?
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. - G.B. Shaw
Kartoo.com
Note: Flash required.
Yes we do.
This program, and several similar, allow you to serious organise content. Google is nice on a boolean search, but not for related content type searches.
I'm pretty good at doing searches with Google, but having tried some of this stuff out, it's AMAZING for doing research. A lot of companies are deriving their technology from intelligence agencies.The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. - G.B. Shaw
Kartoo (previously mentioned here) has been doing visual search results for quite a while already; I'd even say that's the most useful application of Flash that I've ever seen.
Try Google sets, you'll be amazed.
Donate free food to the hungry at The Hunger site.
Do we really need another one. Google rocks, nuff said.
Yes we do, competition is a good thing, having many search engines battleing for our serch clicks is what keeps them free and what keeps them getting better.....
slashdot is a funny beast, people jeer the monopolies and people still jeer at a small upstart trying to take on the big boys.
-------
Drink Coffee - Do Stupid Things Faster And With More Energy!
Mr. Decombe argues that Grokker is a more universal approach to the problem of visualizing textual information than what has been found in previous tools, which focus more on navigation than on categorization.
"The difference is that we have no single paradigm"
A search engine should be impartial- if you search for something, it should give you the site that best matches what you're searching for, not the site that best matches what the owner's opinions are.
Just recently, they removed several thousand websites from their index for unclear reasons- I first noticed this when a search for "somethingawful" failed to bring up anything on the http://www.somethingawful.com/ domain, like one would speculate that it should. I'm sure we all remember a few months ago when Google removed anti-scientology websites from their index and refused to sell advertising to anti-sci sites and services. Something Awful, which I'm sure most people here are at least aware of (if not avid readers like myself) has in the past published several anti-scientologist articles.
A quick glance of the google public support newsgroup shows that SA might not be the only site that's recently been removed. Some people are claiming that google has recently removed dozens of Christian websites. It could be a fluke, but it seems to me like perhaps Google has fallen to outside political influence. I for one will welcome new search engines, if for no other reason than to loosen google's monopoly on internet searches.
Username taken, please choose another one.
Saw TouchGraph on thescreensavers a while ago, this article just reminded me of it. Basically its a java applet that allows you to search google and look at the relationships graphically, pretty cool.
Check out http://www.namesys.com/whitepaper.html - it's the future vision whitepaper for ReiserFS. I think that it would be neat for more people to rethink data indexing and metadata strategies at the operating system level. Lets think more about breaking our data into chunks and associating metadata with those chunks. For example, a consider a database stored in a file. Why shouldn't the operating system know about those chunks so that more apps can see them? Why can't I use the same or similar access control mechanisms for those chunks, etc?
:)
Sorry for this kind of off topic post, but the word 'metadata' triggered the memory of that paper.
I find it amusing that so often, technologically-inclined folks have this sort of "religious" appreciation for Google, as if it is the only search engine technology worthy of regular use or mass consumption. Nothing could be further from the truth. While I will admit that Google is my first (but not only) search engine of choice (and only for certain types of searches), I would like to state my general feelings on the current state of search engine technologies which, I would like to characterize as "brilliant yet balkanized".
Before I do that, and in all fairness to Google, I would like to say that Google's PageRank technology is, for the most part, decent, although certainly not universally-superior.
Google however, has a lot of room for improvement. Some suggestions?
(1) Search Result(s) Clustering
Take a look at Vivisimo.com... They are a company widely recognized for having the most intelligent results-clustering technology.
I find it bizarre that Google often reports to me that there are hundreds of thousands -- sometimes millions -- of results...and yet, gives me the "option" of browsing those results in a top-down linear fashion.
I feel that this is unreasonable. If Google were to CLUSTER results (especially in cases where there are >5000 results), I feel the end user would be much better served.
Google could certainly license Vivisimo.com's clustering technology...or implement their own proprietary form. Either way, I am amazed that Google's results are still not clustered -- even if that clustering was a checkbox option to do so.
It's just not sensible to often report thousands and sometimes millions of results, and then give the user an oversimplified top-down (linear) interface to browse through those results.
(2) "Visual" Search technologies.
I've been a regular user of Kartoo.com for some time now. I find it to be the most well-implemented keyword-connectedness research tool I've ever encountered. SEO-enthusiasts are blessed to have (for now) free access to Kartoo.com. It is also a spectacular implementation of Flash for a purpose other than just "looking slick" and being flashy.
Kartoo allows a person to easily (and very neatly) diagram the keyword commonalities that connect and relate documents on the web.
Unfortunately, the Kartoo interface seems to apply to a limited database. Kartoo functionality on top of Google's database would be ideal, in my opinion.
What am I suggesting? Personally, I would love to see Google buy out or license the Kartoo technology and let users apply it to the Google database. Kartoo really is a very intelligent and useful keyword relevancy diagram tool.
(3) Recursive searching of previous-generation results.
For the longest time, I never knew Google had this ability. Why? Well... after your initial Google search, you only see the "Search within results" link at the BOTTOM of the results list. I feel this option should be available at both the top and bottom of the results list.
(4) Memetic Histography
Take a quick look at HitBrain.com. While far from "perfect", they seem to be doing the best job thus far at keyword frequency tracking. While perhaps "novelty", I think there is real demographics-research value in the following sort of functionality:
Allowing registered users to track relative frequencies of keyword/keyphrase data sets. By this, I mean that a person could, for example, keep an ongoing (daily/weekly/monthly/etc) table of the number of instances of certain search tokens. For example, "john lennon" vs "paul mccartney"...or "microsoft" vs "macintosh"...etc. I think anyone who qualifies as an information age demographer has a use for tracking (over time) relative frequencies of keywords and keyphrases. There is also some entertainment value in seeing how many instances of "good" there are relative to "evil", etc.
(5) ISO search engine syntax standards. I think it would be nice if there was an ISO standard for search engine syntax. I personally prefer Boolean searches to non-Boolean searches (especially when clustering of results is not available). I think that all search engines should accept an ISO syntax standard for searching that, at the very least, allows for advanced Boolean queries, and also, string-proximity-specifying (that is, results for "A" within X number of characters/words from "B", etc) capabilities. Wildcard-capable advanced Boolean and string-proximity-specifying are very useful functions, and would be nice to see ISOfied on all major search engines.
It troubles me that the +" " and -" " syntax doesn't work on all my favourite search engines.
(6) DNS search capabilities.
Take a look at WhoisReport.com (now Whois.sc) and see what it can do for you. I have yet to find a better resource for searching the actual DNS itself.
Some may frown on the searching of the DNS itself but, the truth is, to a respectable degree, the DNS itself has evolved into being a useful directory of sorts. Name Intelligence (the people behind Whois.sc) make their technology available as an API, and Google would be wise to add DNS search capabilities to their WWW search capabilities.
Just my $0.02
Michael Fischer