Slashdot Mirror
Better Search Results Than Google?
Mechanik writes "CNN has an AP article about the next generation of up and coming search tools, which try to cope with the glut of hits that result from 'conventional' search engines such as Google. One tool, Vivisimo, "is like a superfast librarian who can instantly arrange the titles on shelves in a way that makes sense. [...] But unlike libraries, Vivisimo doesn't use predefined categories. Its software determines them on the fly, depending on the search results. The filing is done through a combination of linguistic and statistical analysis." Grokker, another, downloadable program, "not only sorts search results into categories but also "maps" the results in a holistic way, showing each category as a colorful circle. Within each circle, subcategories appear as more circles that can be clicked on and zoomed in on." You have to love the author's use of trying to look for a hotel in France with the terms 'Paris Hilton' as an example of searching gone awry."
...until I can regexp my searches. It would make a whole lot of difference.
They aren't off to a very good start:
Problem occurred while using Vivisimo::
Currently under heavy load. Please try again shortly
Please go back to the Vivisimo home page and try your query again
Well, Google made a huge leap forward from the old-guard, of AltaVista & Yahoo, who were in their own way a huge leap beyond what had gone before. We had to expect this to happen sooner or later, but two things spring irresistably to mind.
:-)
1)Will it gain the enormous foothold in the collective consciousness that Google has acquired? To Google is now a verb... and it gets mentioned on Buffy, which is as good a cultural barometer as we are ever likely to have.
2)Will the UI and secondary services (such as the ODP, and Google Groups) be as good as Google itself?
Also, while I'm sure that it will happen one day, I'll believe it when I use it and not before... Oh, and the Paris Hilton thing? LOL! That sort of anti-result comes back from search engines *a lot*. I was just talking to my mom about searches of that type of ambiguous nature the other day.
Sign the FSF's Anti-DMCA petit
I tried this earlier (around noon) when I saw the article. One of my big complaints is that the searches seem to take too long. Google usually is sub-second searches, this seemed to take about 3-5 seconds (this was well before slashdot posted the article, so it wasn't slashdot effect either).
Also, I already do not like the search results showing up in the sidebar with search engines (with mozilla), as that is one of the features I kill as soon as I install mozilla. So, I guess, this search engine has a ways to go before I prefer it.
The searches didn't seem too bad over all, I tried looking for "linux kodak 4530" and its results were not any better or worse than googles. I tried a couple other searches and they seem to be on target about as well as google though.
Norris/Palin 2012
Fact: We deserve leaders who can kick your ass and field dress your carcass.
of Antarctica, an old and very clunky Java Yahoo-like engine (sorta). It used a map of Antarctica to drill down into categories and subcategories before putting the user in a 3D world interface at the lowest level. When I interviewed with them, the interviewer did an excellent job of turning me off the technology, explaining that the 3D interface would allow 'billboard and other advertisements' along with the search results formatted in a 'mall or street' of entries.
Gah.
A new search engine comes along that touts its uber intelligent way of searching. It is hyped by the press but ends up by the way side. (See Teoma)
I don't get excited about "Google alternatives". Google satisfies my searching needs as it is. Sometimes "knowing what to search for" is better than a super intelligent search engine.
As far as I'm concerned anyone with a clue can produce the results they need with a little bit of practice and common sense. They don't need new search engines.
Clif
clifgriffin > blog
Glad to see AP covering a site thats been operational for 2 years, nothing like cutting edge reporting.
What if you want that glut of hits? Sometimes you have to dig through some pretty obscure hits on a search to get what you want, and categorizing them or putting them in funny circles just complicates the process and can make the search take longer. I'll hang with Google and Teoma, thank you very much.
And I certainly don't want a downloadable search app running, that's just another possible inroad for spyware. I've been burned enough times by apps I thought were "clean" that went off and chewed up enough bandwidth to choke a horse.
Be excellent to each other. And... PARTY ON, DUDES!
Despite the problems with Google, it's still the best place I've found to get good info. The trick is to be very careful about how you search for something by adding in search modifiers such as "-sale" or "-bargain" or "review" to weed out the overtly commercial results. But even then, things have changed and not for the better.
-S
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
Is there a search engine that can filter out all of those annoying placeholder sites that grab unsuspecting visitors by simply putting every word about a certain subject on a page and then having links to other useless websites? This is 'webspam' as far as I am concerned and the next step in search engine design should be 'placeholder' site aware.
A search engine that ignores specifically commercial sites would also be helpful.
Any ideas on either of these type features in current or upcoming search engines?
"Vivisimo" can *somehow* come up with a better engine than google, will people use it? Google is getting bigger and bigger not necessarily by their search results (or lack thereof) but also because of how the phrase "google" has caught on in mainstream culture. Face it - when your competitor makes it into the dictionary, it's going to be EXTREMELY hard to get people to change the way they search. If you ask many non-techs how they find information on the web, they don't say "I search for it" they say "I google it".
Now, that being said, one thing the CNN article doesn't talk about in great detail is the technology behind this company - Google started out at a major university - what's the background of this company? While I agree something should be done with all the advertising that occurs with PageRank, I find it highly doubtful that it's going to be another company (rather than Google itself) that will fix it.
" and it gets mentioned on Buffy, which is as good a cultural barometer as we are ever likely to have"
Gawd help us. Society now sucks if that is our barometer.
Google, the verb, has been mentioned on Law & Order. _THAT_ tells me it has entered the mainstream.
Holy s-, it's Jesus!
I'm actually posting this form the browser window of Grokker. Been playing with it for just a few minnutes now, but I can see how something like this can make obscure or broad searches a lot easier. When you enter a search term, Grokker generates a series of circles, each of them representing a subcategory of results for your search term, and each of them in turn filled with subcategories of their own. Searching for "west coast museums", for example, gives me subcategories such as 'travel', 'west coast attractions', and 'history museums'. Once you find your desired subcategory you're presented with a smallish list of matching sites, represented as squares. The categorization seems to make sense most of the time, even if the overall visual effect is remniscent of 70's disco lighting.
I want the fire back.
Google is about having good quality results with a very simple interface, one that anyone can use. Go to an academic library and look at the various journal search engines like "America: History and Life" or PychINFO, or better yet just try out MedLine. See anything wrong? Busy page, weird syntax, a huge instruction page about "how to search".
Engines like Vivisimo may make it if they can keep Google's simplicity and ease of use and only add value with categorizations. And personally, I think they better get out of 1996 with the frames. Yech!
I tried a few searches on Vivisimo before it went live on slashdot and I must say I'm impressed. It addresses one of the main faults of search technology today: context. When you perform a search a tree is shown showing the different contexts (not categories) where the terms were found. Excellent for ambiguous concepts.
But, and here is the beef, it should be obvious to anyone that there must be a interface change in the short term future of search. A textbox is a very limited input to express a complex search. Using regexps and regexp-like operators is not enough. This Vivisimo is a step in the right direction, but there's a lot of way to go through.
For example try to make this search using any engine (Vivisimo, Google, Yahoo, Altavista, etc): who was the red-haired singer that recorded a song with Tom Morello a few years back?. At least I can't find an answer because one of the main aspects I'm using (the red hair) maybe is not as important as other aspects used to describe the situation by anyone else.
There must be a interface revolution in the years to come. Come to think of it, are we still using a textfield to express every possible combination in a google search? Gross!!!
Life isn't like a box of chocolates. It's more like a jar of jalapenos. What you do today, might burn your ass tomorrow.
I think you misspelled barfometer
- Donny was a good bowler, and a good man.
His example of searching for Paris Hilton is nothing more then an glorified example to try to prove his point.
You do not need to completely redign a search engine to get your desired results. You need to refine your search. Search google for Paris Hilton Hotel and the first three results are directly related to a Hilton Hotel in Paris. I would not find this hotel any faster using his circle method with Grokker2. I use a search engine to find exactly what I am looking for. Displaying all the results on some chart, graph, or 3d display still requires me to browse around to narrow my search.
Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
What you ask is more difficult than one may originally think. As soon as a novel approach to counter-acting one of these annoyances becomes popular, it lands itself in the cross-hairs of those who would exploit "the system" in the first place. Witness the current arms race that is SPAM. Witness Microsoft security. Hell, witness Slashdot moderation.
There are a number of bright people on both sides of the aisle. When one side discovers a new technique, the other will work hard to neutralize said technique. This continues until either: it is too expensive for one side to continue, or too complicated for the consumer to bother with anymore.
Google has, among others, a very nice linux filter all ready.
Here's the Google Cache of Vivisimo.
There is no reasonable defense against an idiot with an agenda
:wq
I would prefer as an alternative to regexp (since that obviously would be way too much power and too many exploits) is simple logic operators.
Most search engines now have AND and OR but none have nested logic or short hand
for example I would love to do this in google: (linux && modems) || ("AT commands" && !windows)
> SELECT * FROM brain_cells WHERE synaptic_rate > 0
0 row returned