Slashdot Mirror
New Clustering Search Engine to battle Google
Sophrosyne writes "The New York Times is reporting a new search engine [free if DNA on file with Homeland Security] named "Clusty" is going to try and take Google head-on. The new search engine was developed by three former CMU computer scientists who formed the company Vivisimo. The search engine uses Overture for it's results but offers new features such as an encyclopedia search, clustered results, and a gossip search."
New Clustering Search Engine to battle Google
More like New Clustering Search Engine goes Beta. Let's wait until it's production stable before talking about who it's going to take down in a fist fight reminiscent of the Spock/Kirk battle in Amok Time.
Clusty by Vivisimo? Did I even spell that right? They need to consider naming things that people can:
A) pronounce
B) spell
C) are actual words or at least close to words that qualify for both A & B.
Clusty sounds like something you would call the fat cheerleader. It also will be often mispronounced as Klutsy, so it's a very bad name for a search engine (of all things).
The search engine uses Overture for it's results but offers new features such as an encyclopedia search, clustered results, and a gossip search.
This is a Microsoft tactic: add features to get market share, and it's an evil tactic because nothing new comes out of it, except bloat and bad karma. The fact this is based on Overature leads me to believe that it won't be able to take Google head-on at all. Clusty uses the Google interface but shows sponsored results first (evil), and displays 404 pages in the results. (FYI dteam was the first 3d design guild that is no longer)
I don't think they really have a hope of competing with Google. If it ain't broke don't fix it, so most people will just continue to use Google.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
Like I said, the interface is crud!
A cute name is a start.
But anyway, this does look interested.
I think there's your first clue for why your story was rejected.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
I don't know if a clustering Search Engine if worth while. At least not for an average used...They will just use something like yahoo, msn og google because it's simpler. I gave Vivisimo a go and i didn't find it all that good and worth while.
Instead of being able to search through just gossip, I would be more interested in being able to filter out all the gossip.
ah, nevermind.
So everybody is waiting for the next great search engine to come along and out-google Google, but it seems to me that they are looking in the completely wrong places.
All Clusty, A9 and the other more recent search engines seem to do is add more gimmicks to search results from yahoo and Google respectively. To some extent, this seems to be exactly what Google is doing recently as well: the searches are hardly getting beter, instead we can search news, search references (try define:), search printed text, do automatic conversions, etc etc.
But the truth is that not only are the searches at Google not getting better: they are getting worse. It seems like PageRank is more or less unused nowadays, and Google just uses easily manipulated things like searchterm in URL, searchterm in Title, how recently updated, to rank pages. I think anybody who uses Google to search for specific things must have observed that it works only a fraction of how well it did when it was new.
So what is going on here? Does everybody consider the basic searching a solved problem, and that we don't need to find pages better than google does? Or is a good search that cannot be manipulated really an intractable problem?
If I owned Google stock, I would really be wondering how many of all those thousands of PhD's at the Googleplex are working on this, and how many are writing gimmicks and elegant webmail applications. Or maybe one of them already proved that the problem can't be solved, and Google is just hoping to make as much money as possible before the secret comes out...
Under the heading "House" are the news items:
And under the heading "Record", are listed:
- As Reservoirs Recede, Fears of a Water Shortage Rise (Los Angeles Times)
- NASA Delays Plans to Fly Shuttle Soon (NY Times)
- San Jose State, Rice Set Scoring Record (AP)
This shows that just a clustering technique isn't enough; you need more context. Google (IMHO) does a better job of clustering their news results.Having said this, I wish Vivisimo all the luck. Google needs more competition; it is what will give us the Next Great Search Engine(tm).
Ob: I, for one, would like to welcome our new clustering overlords.. ;-)
It's rubbish. Just look at the results when searching for "large breasts". Nothing of any interest what-so-ever. Nothing!
How does it measure up at finding porn?!
not a very reliable porn search engine.
Arabic results display alright here (firefox 0.9.3 on windows) but you can't click on them. Other UTF-8 encoded sites display just fine; can anyone else replicate this odd behavior?
Look here for an example. Something with the bidi functionality, perhaps? Any hebrew users?
--
The Egyptian LUG
Blearf. Blearf, I say.
The submitter had me all excited there for a minute or so, but unfortunately the "encyclopedia search" he mentions is simply searching the wikipedia.org site. Now don't get me wrong; there's absolutely nothing wrong with wikipedia, however it's already a web resource. You've been able to "encyclopedia search" Wikipedia for AGES by appending "site:wikipedia.org" into a google query.
/. about.
Bah.
Now if they'd done some sort of deal with Britanica to gain search access to its online library, THAT would be a resource worth posting to
Janie took my gun...
Cb..
I occasionally used Vivisimo's search engine years ago (I don't know if it had any association with Overture at the time).
It would take the search results and place them in categorized folders so that you could narrow down the search. Naturally, they picked the categories.
I suppose some filtering would be nice, but do I really need them to do something I should have done when I came up with my search parameters in the first place?
One of the default tabs you can add to its interface is for Slashdot.
How many people actually jump on the "bandwagon" and switch search engines just because some one says it's "new and fresh"?
I gave a9 a try, I like the interface and some of the new features like the search history and the multiple search panes. But shortly after I found myself using google again. Even though a9 uses google, and the results are almost identical, I didn't find anything compelling enough to make me switch.
Does anyone else feel they might be missing some results if they were to use another search engine?
What must a new search engine provide to "steal" users from google?
Free iPods? Sure!
If this engine beats out Google...
Will they give Clusty the Crown?
/bad joke
Option-Shift-K.
Why do Clusty when Vivisimo.com was already working just fine? If I want Google, I'll use Google, not an imitation-Google. And vice versa, if I want Vivisimo, which is useful sometimes, I'll simply use Vivisimo. I certainly don't need a cross-breed of the two.
I have always considered Google's best point, is it's utter simplicity in design. Also, the name is easy to remember. Anyone who wants to up Google has to not only be MUCH better, but also have a good name and be as easy to use as google. Before, in the old days, each search engine produced sometime wildly different results. At the time, HotBot was the best search engine going, but they lost their steam and was ultimately "replaced" with google.
"Jeremy, you need to get to an internet cafe and cut and paste some appropriate sentiments about me from the world wide
Well, Google has got everyone beat in this regard. "Google" is probably the first thing a baby says (and hence I'm sure it is hardwired into our brains). The only thing that could beat "Google" would be "dada" or "burp". Any takers?
:-)
You joke, but a search engine named Dada would likely be well received for the name, and if it was a good system it could find a nice user base. I mean it has taken Google *years* to perfect its systems and they started with a good premise: do no evil. That was when all the search engines were cashing in on ads. A lot of people were turned off of the internet because of that, until Google came along. So it was purposeful, not evil, and light/easy to use.
My suggestion to anyone trying to take on Google is that they should do something else unless google becomes evil, and because power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely -- it's just a matter of time before Google turns evil. Maybe not, though.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
First of all, "uses Overture results" strikes me as misleading. They have an agreement with Overture to share the proceeds from the sponsored links.
The results include MSN and Gigablast and Lycos. Basically, that means Yahoo's crawling plus Gigablast. Yahoo has ramped up their crawling since March, and is on a par with Google. They've been slow about passing all of it to MSN in a timely fashion, but by now MSN has most of it. I think Lycos, which also uses Yahoo's Inktomi, is about the same as MSN.
The clustering is the best of any search engine, meta or otherwise. You don't have to have JavaScript enabled, which is a big plus over the Vivisimo interface I remember from a year ago.
Finally, I was delighted to see that Clusty.com does not set a cookie unless you customize. Even the cookie for customization looked like it lacked a unique ID. I emailed Clusty and they confirmed for me that they have no plans for a unique ID in their cookie.
Google tracks you with a unique ID across all of their services, and saves everything it knows about you. Google's cookie expires in 2038.
Now I ask you, why do Slashdotters feel the need to dump on Clusty?
Now there's a first. Not even Google has ever directly supported Mozilla - the Google toolbar from Google is IE only. And this one now has a Mozilla search plugin link on the front page. Kudos.
Beware the psychokinetic mimes!
how do you add your site to the results? all my searchs so far have come up poorly and none of my sites are on it, so of course i think its lame :D
plus the name, as stated in previous comments, sounds like something ikky, like a cockroach cluster or something, nifty idea and design though sponsered results suck being in the results and not on the side
.n
Simply because for *many* kind of searches, for example looking for a supplier of aluminium extrusions for heatsinking, ALL google's top returns are for OTHER fucking indexing sites like fucking kellysearch and NOT fucking sites owneed and run by aluminium extruders.
This is a trend that has become ever more prevalent over time, and it makes google ever more irellevant.
this will of course get modded troll, see journal
http://slashdot.org/~GuyFawkes/journal
but basically its just *another* interface to overture who are nothing more than search spammers which pay for traffic/click sites usually are.
on a search for "MILF" by putting the Moro Islamic Liberation Front in one category, and separating the more "mature" content in others.
/.'ers can think of other ambiguous search words where clustering helps. The UI could use some simplification, but otherwise I'm impressed.
It's not perfect, but it's a good start. I'm sure
One neat consequence for web marketers will be more targetted traffic. With Google, you have to hope searchers will be savvy enough to use 3-4 keywords to search for exactly what they want- if they can click on two more KWs that refine their search, we'll see the inventory of cheaper 3 KW terms go up significantly.
Information: "I want to be anthropomorphized"
The basic concept of any kind of PageRank is flawed because it assumes a monotonic ordering of sites on some single scale (e.g., popularity as defiend by linkage). The problem with PageRank is not the use of links to assess popularity, but the presumption of a single scale.
The search of "Apple" illustrates this well. This search, like many is deeply ambiguous. It could refer to the computer company, to the fruit, to the record company, to New York City, to the singer (Fiona), or to Apple Valley (MN or CA). Even if the search engine knows that it refers to the computer company, it's still ambiguous. It could refer to the company (as an investment), the products (for purchase), or a question (as in technical support).
The point is that each of these ambiguous alternatives creates an independent cluster of hits. One cannot even rank hits within a cluster due to a hierarchy of ambiguity. Within the Apple computer cluster are distinct subclusters for computer purchase, investment evalaution, and technical support. Although one can create a ranking within each subsubsubsubcluster, it is impossible to construct a meanful rank for all hits across all clusters - the second hit for "purchasing an Apple computer laptop" is not comparable to the 2nd hit for "Apple Records".
Instead of a pagerank scheme that sorts the universe of hits the instant the user enters the search, search engines should be more interactive. The first page of hits would emphasize breadth -- displaying hits most representative of a broad range of alternative clusters. The UI would enable a "more like this"/"fewer like this" selection process that tells the search engine what the searcher is actually looking for. As the searcher selects hits, the subsequent pages might show popularity-ranked hits within the clusters that seem to interest the searcher.
Each hit and each page would serve a double-duty -- serving the searcher's need to get information from the internet, and answering the search engine's question about the needs of the searcher for that particular search. Until the search engine understands each searcher and each search, it cannot hope to rank the hits.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
the clustered results are awesome!!! it is like google and northern-lights combined!!!
nothing really big about the encyclopedia search, it just mirrors wikipedia which already has a good search engine for its articles....unless clusty adds something like natural language search or a close to search I see no benefit for using clusty over wikipedia.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
Hey,
Click 'Customize!' on Clusty's tabs and Slashdot can be made a full time search tab.
Are Clusty people just fans of Slashdot or there is something more?
While I love Google, I'm quite impressed with this new one. Tons of new little features there, like preview frame, and the side panel is helpful, Mozilla plugin.
The welcome page sucks though, and is uninviting.
This one impressed me way more then the one from Amazon.
Because this "rebranding" generates a large amount of publicity they could never buy.
Even on Slashdot, a lot of people didn't know about Vivisimo.
Now you do.
The money they put in the rebranding is FAR less then wath this amount of publicity would cost to buy.
Its very ugly....
All engines should be ranked on their porn finding abilities.
It has the word 'lust' in it. And it sounds real bad in my language (close to 'fart').
Like google, clusty can seach for/through: images, news, ebay, blogs, and . . . SLASHDOT? I was quite supprised to see that it can be customized to have a slashdot tab at the top. The other interesting thing I noticed is that there is a link on the main page to "mozilla search plugin". I am not able to actually follow the link, but it would seem to suggest that they are interested in supporting OSS. Who do you think they are trying to target?
After trying it, it appears to be a little bit better than google. For one, it has that fast, spare interface that set google apart in the beginning.
And these clusters are a great idea.
Definitely worth bookmarking!
eat shiat and bark at the moon
theConcept is a client-based clustering/thematic search engine that works with Google, Wiki, DMOZ and other search engines (it data mines result and analyzes most significant keywords from the source pages). If you have OS X, you can check it out for free.
</shameless plug>
Finally, a search engine that correctly bubbles wikipedia above the spam clones (and read the reply to this post too). Google doesn't even show wikipedia at all on the first page, even if expanded. Kudos, you've won your first (?) customer!
I am a big fan of all things Google (I **love** their SOAP API - free use of the Google backend; the limit of 1000 hits a day is no problem for me because I just use it for a NLP question answering prototype) and one of my best friends works for Overture.
That said, I think that Clusty will do very well. I use Firefox and Safari for my browsers; after breakfast I am going to configure one of them to use Clusty by default.
One thing that make Clusty so interesting to me is that I have been working (for the last year and a half) on version 2 of my KBtextmaster product that uses similar technology: I cluster documents based on what categories I automatically assign to them (for this, I use the Reuter's categories and trained with their excellent 2+ gigabyte tagged news corpus). I also identify people's names, places, etc. and I am planning on using this information to improve clustering also.
Maybe this will give Clusty the crown.
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
A search engine that finds pages containing the words you typed which are *least* likely to relate to your actual underlying question. A google of the absurd, as it were.
This could be very, very difficult. How would you implement such a thing, from a technical standpoint?
The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
Google has had this for a while - its the allinurl advanced search option.
that soon enough someone is gonna tell us that
Google is DYING
The lunatic is in my head
tried it, do not like.
did simple test, searched for boobs. ok got boobs....... ICK! no direct like to the pic, most was advert pages.
i like google's split image page. i like google's "just show it" with out preferance listings.
A search for "the the" (a band) actually turns up an entire page of results related to... the band!
Google, OTOH:
- returns no results for the band on the first page of an unquoted "the the" search
- returns one result -- #5 -- for the band on the first page of a quoted "the the" search. (before last year, you couldn't even get Google to do this)
a plug-in for a search engine for my mozilla firefox consists of ~13 lines of text that you can write all by yourself (get variable name for the query term etc.)
oh , and a nice icon,
they're just trying to kiss up to mozilla users.
-- Avishalom is usually vish
ok i red it as CRUSTY..... like old crusty girls /shudder /vomit
needs a better name
Vivisimo was the search engine I liked a few years ago. The reason I kicked them to the curb went something like this:
"Hey Vivisimo guys, we're starting up a new company here and you have a very powerful results format. What would it take to license your engine to help organize and present our data to the public?"
Vivisimo's answer: Well, that depends on how much money you're going to make of course. Exactly how much money do you have and do you expect to make?
Google's answer: We're designing a hardware box that'll let you do exactly that. If you have a large enough interest we may even be able to include you as a case / study to help save some costs.
Wasn't a hard choice. Technology does not in itself win, impractical people running a company can still deep six the best ideas. Vivisimo we didn't even bother calling back.
Am curious about the technology behind Clusty. It appears they are running Apache/Linux but what have they used to implement the engine logic? Java, C/C++, ...?
Frankly, I don't see what's so great about clustering. It feels non-intuitive to me. And it doesn't appear to improve the quality of my results.
For example:
I search for 2600. I want information on the Atari 2600.
As soon as I realize that 2600 is a hacker magazine, I add the word "atari" to my search.
Why is this harder than clustering?
I do like the Open in Preview Pane feature, though.
--
Irony (n), 1. Learning about a Google competitor from a screen-scraping bot called Google News.
Self-referential sigs are rarely entertaining.
I agree with you but..
.. Good but no site should provide this kind of details open! Look at google and Yahoo, they don't provide accurate information on these issues.
They are using Linux with Apache
Results are clustered that's the only think I love right now. But I'm dam sure rest of competitor get this stuff soon
The important thing is not to stop questioning --Albert Einstein.
If you go to Customize, you can add your own Slashdot tab.
But it doesn't work! A simple search for "Grits" or
"Linux" return 0 results.
"Ewww, Jimmy's got a clusty in his hair!"
- I refuse to use anything that sounds like children's slang for a bogey or some other lump of offensiveness. Whoever thought that name up needs to be drummed out of marketing forever. The layout of the main page is reminiscent of Ask Jeeves (which is a bad thing, it automatically makes me think 'bad searches') and search pages look cluttered and the vivid background against the soft shades of the foreground looks awful. This 'Clustered Searching' is a good idea, badly executed. Next please.
Dealing with lawyers would be a lot less tedious if they all looked like Casey Novak.
"Yeah, I use that new search engine. Crusty. Er, Colostomy. Er, Callusy, or whatever."
If Google is my hands for the web, Clusty is going to be my eye. I can swipe my hand through water in a pond, or sandhills on the beach, and get an idea of what is out there on the web, *in the order of popularity* (because backlinking is so important).
I have no problem with this way Google works, I found backlinking to be tremendously useful when implementing a gigabyte-sized database on htdig, and Google "just works".
Clusty on the other hand works to reduce my information saturation, it will reduce the overload and make me feel better. It seems similar to NorthernLight which did clustering a long time ago, but I believe stopped their public engine and are now going after the enterprise (apparently successfully? They have a linux download too).
I may be biased as I am also very interested now in faceted metadata search engine design, and that seems to be what Clusty is doing. I can't tell if it is the same categories as dmoz.org (which Overture says they leverage), but it seems to work. For example I typed in Northern Light and it gave me the categories of Search Engine, Reviews, Aurora, and even Crude Oil. Crude Oil disappeared when I put quotation marks around the search terms, so I'm impressed, they've taken the trouble to match phrases.
I tried some nonsense words, and discovered connections I didn't know exist (mostly foreign language) - I tried splik, splike, and spli*. Try it yourself in google and clusty. Note Google gives you ten pages for splike while Clusty tells you the knowledge domains they fit into. No more clicking here and there in the google screen list to try and find less-popular links. And Clusty turned spli* into split. And click Details in clusty, and a little yellow information window descends, telling you the different sites (Reuters included) and how many hits from each.
Look at their clustering, it seems good and useful. I searched for something I'm interested in now, the search term was: free bioinformatics tutorials.
Clusty gives me categories like Genomics, some institutes, and the Bioinformatics FAQ. It lets me expand more than one section at a time, and the tiny "More" link at the bottom of the category list continually extends that list each time you click it. That's useful. This leads me to other categories including some C++ libraries, a Computational Biology heading, MDL Chime, and a bunch more. Wow! I haven't studied it much more yet, but I'd like to be able to show a lot of categories the first time (no More button clicking), have more screen width given to the categories column, and display the associations that made it pick certain categories. Also I'd like a yellow popup when I mouse over a category to show the next inner level's category list (at th e moment not too many levels it seems) the way Berkeley's Flamenco does. There is a legend below the category list with a line describing the plus mark as "Expand clusters", but I wanted this to expand all clusters and give me all the categories. About the way I just checked the Flamenco site.. I had to use Google. The first time I typed Flamenco into Clusty and it didn't give me any category called Search Engine, which surprised me. I selected cluster by URL instead of Topic, and when I clicked on berkeley.edu I got a Clusty Error which was reproduceable then but not later. I found it on Google by typing in Flamenco and Berkeley. To be fair, Google took me to an old page that redirected me to the right page. When I went back to Clusty and typde in Berkeley as well and searched by topic, it was fine and took me to the right server the first time. Also the berkeley.edu links worked okay then too, so I want to give them the benefit of the doubt.
About the tech, I'm not sure they went as far as they could even though it works well for me. I thought it seemed to be a faceted metadata engine in some ways because they show the number of hits in each section, th
They have a search extension for Mozilla based browsers, which is certaintly somewhere where they stand out against google.
In the beginning the universe was created. This made a lot of people very angry and is widely considered as a bad move.
I'd like to see a search engine -- perhaps just for shopping -- that weeds out repeat entries. I.e. I was trying to find a particular pair of "Donald J Pliner" shoes and so punched various combinations of "Pliner" and the name of the shoe into Google.
...) but if that were the case: I'd rather just have that answer than spend hours following links that led me back to the same answer. Total bullshit.
And from that I got what looked like several *different* websites. The first website was zappos.com so I went there and found that they didn't have my size / the color I wanted. So I tried some of the 80+ other *different-looking* sites (each with unique URLs). And for just about every single one, I would go to the new URL, then find the shoe I was interested in, then when I clicked on the link to "learn more about the shoe" or "see if the shoe was in stock," EVERY single time I got sent back to Zappos.com which I already KNEW didn't have the shoe in my size/the desired color.
Usually you can tell hack websites by the URLs -- the URLs are something like this: donald-j-pliner.urbanclothing.net
You can tell it's a sham website (as contrasted to shoebargains.com, shoedini.com, shoebuy -- which seem as though they could be legitimate operations in and of themselves).
So I want a search engine that will dereference these various URLs and let me know if if there is something truly new there or if these are just front websites for a website I've already visited.
This was one of my most frustrating online shopping experiences ever; zappos.com saturated the search engine results so that only zappos.com proxies were returned. And maybe the answer is that there are no other retailers (besides macys.com nordstrom.com
I do like the functionality, and am impressed that even after slashdotting it seems to be functional. But they really should reconsider the name, and lose the patch logo, which reminds me of nothing more than a plumber's butt crack.
1: Get a compile farm going ...
2: Set up a worldwide database network
3: Start archiving the web
4:
5: PROFIT!!!
Sorry, it had to be done
> Cat got your tongue? Yet Another Google Killer, stoopid machine
Search result clustering is nothing new. Search engine technology companies like Verity, Fulcrum (from U of Waterloo grads among others, now owed by Knowledge Manager vendor Hummingbird), and others have been working in this space for many years.
While I've seen no overt evidence of this from Google, I would be shocked and amazed if Google did not already have this technology in a highly advanced state.
Google's own "Similar Pages" link associated with search results probably in part uses clustering technology in the background to achieve its results.
1. : having recently been discovered by the New York Times
2. : having been posted to
3. : having recently been renamed
4. : of or pertaining to a recent product launch event (more at song & dance)
>I think clusty.com is better, but now makes me think of unclean prostitutes.
And Google makes me think of clean prostitutes!
Free iPods? Sure!
Well, I guess that's one way to do it...
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
Where's that FTP-Search thing ?
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
When a search engine can point you to, or better yet, inline, answers to arbitrary queries, it will be done.
damn you slashdot and my inability to post a textless comment
Am I the only one who is fed up reading like "company A developed a new search engine which uses company B's search engine by adding revolutionary and world shaking features like thinking instead of you"...
If some are so revolutionary, then why are they using someone else's engine by adding some stuff most people most probably never find out what to use for. Doesn't A9 ring a bell for anyone, or does it.
I have an idea. Let's make a totally new and ground breaking search engine which will use Google's results, but hey, the main idea: let's have a different logo and paint the site pink !
Geez, I sometimes just can't stop wondering about all the freaky things that money can be earned from these days.
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
WebGoggles for those special times when no other search engine will do.
Um, no Booble sucks. Try WebGoggles.
New clustering search engine makes Slashdot front page, falls into obscurity shortly thereafter.
No thank you.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Sounds like something you'd catch while sitting on the John at a dirty truck stop.
Rule #2, innovate the actual searching, not just the organizing.
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
I did a search for my website, and it actually was listed. Something that, dispite my best efforts, I have been unable to obtain with google yet. More power to 'em!
can be found between this and google. For one thing, it must have a similar algorithm to PageRank. If you search "litigious bastards", not counting the "special" result on the top, the fourth hit is SCO. "Miserable failure" hits GWB #1. Not *quite* the same results, but close....
I spent the last few days Googling for some obscure Linux SATA driver information... the best Google could give me was some half-coherent mailing list posts on the subject. A quick search on "Clusty" on the other hand came up with more or less exactly the info I'd been looking for.
___
| | Would you like some help?
(.)(.)
| | / * Search for duplicate articles
|| || * Scan for bad grammar in TFA
||__|| * Use a cliche from saved templates
|____| * Post a hidden link to tubgirl
I started using Google because it gave good results -- not because it had a "clean" interface; not because I liked the name; it was because it usually provided good enough results that I could find what I wanted within the first ten results returned.
It seems to me that the media or whoever reports this stuff just doesn't get it: people want results, not a "portal" or a load of features.
In business news, I keep hearing about how AskJeeves stock is going to go up and how it will challenge Google. AskJeeves, Overture, Lycos, Infoseek, Excite, Altavista and all of the other big search engines have had years to do what Google was able to do, but they haven't. Now that Google is public, they finally get it?!?
When a new search engine surfaces that is able to scan a text and pass a sixth grade reading comprehension test about the text then I will be impressed. That would be a search engine worth using. Until then, I'll stay with Google.
I am the top hit for my own name. Clearly Clusty is superior -- on Google, some lame journalist comes up first, but, c'mon, who cares about him? Clusty properly files him as the second choice. The better results on this very vital search prove that everyone should switch now. Thanks.
Actually, god hates shrimp. People (including me) hate cell phones ringing in church.
http://slashdot.org/articles/04/01/05/1839233.shtm l?tid=126&tid=185&tid=95
It's not hard, people. It's not like if you create a link, people are going to slashdot slashdot.
Looks like they stole the page layout from Ask Jeeves; I see that they have a Mozilla Plugin. If enough people use Clusty with Firefox (since it is booming, after all), or it becomes a standard option, they could really make it big. I think that their biggest opposition is simply people wanted to stay "loyal" to Google- or just have used Google for so long, that they don't want to change.
I'm sad, though- I didn't show up on the Gossip search!
- Code Dark
Index more than 2^32 Web pages and make them accessible as fast as Google?
It's quite simple really....
l e.com/w ww.example.com/thatpage/
.com domain and point it to your webspace at your ISP or, better yet, host your info at the domain itself. End of story.
Since Google appears to be nearing their 4GB page index limit, do this:
Delete ALL (YES *ALL*) indexed webpages except the homepage.
Example:
Why index:
http://www.example.com/
http://subdomain.examp
http://www.example.com/thispage/
http://
When all you really need to index is just:
http://www.example.com/
Added to that, Google has already been 'spamdexed' by online retailers -- 'about 1,670,000 pages' indexed by Google from one particular online retail giant's domain alone!
This approach will also kill off all pages like this:
http://www.example.com/~ispcustomer/
and make it harder, for example, to find useful info in a particular labyrinthine website I freqent via Google on an ongoing basis as needed.
For the 'ispcustomers': if you truly value your information in such a context, buy a
Then the next thing that could be done is to make it easy to report 'spamdexed' domains and 'link farms' so they can ALL be automatically purged from the Google database as needed. To avoid 'Joe Jobs', this purging does not extend to the domains listed on the pages hosted at the offending domains.
Problem solved.
how long till google has all em new features, along with that cool side bar selection :p *rolls dice*
Now I ask you, why do Slashdotters feel the need to dump on Clusty?
Clusty, you don't want to sit with this scum.
*General murmers and complaints from Slashdot*
But I only consider you scum next to Clusty! That's right, you see how you're scum.
The search engine uses Overture for it's results
"its".
For some reason I thought there was a consensus that the 'google' was some arbitrarily large value and at some point somebody decided to define it as 1 followed by a hundred zeros. ...before google - the search engine; I always figured that was why they stretched out the o's like they do.o n/Googl e
There wan't any mention of that at the webster place 'tho?
http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definiti
All other things being the same, "Cluster by URLs" at least will be massively useful for quickly checking up on who links to certain sites. Just for that this is going into the toolbox.
.google.com cookie, if it proves speedie enough over the long run to be not annoying, I might even make it my default search engine.
Given gmail using a
%subj% - well, here it is... OSQ - Obligatory Simpsons Quote...
Clusty is already full of spam, much like MSN and yahoo. Google still does the best job filtering spam websites and clusty/msn/yahoo seem to be far behind. Which is ok by me because this makes manipulating clusty and doing SEO much easier, :). Howver I do recognize Clusty is in beta. Go clusty.
no matter how good search engines become, users will have to be able to define what they want. it's just plain the user's fault if he/she searches for 'apple' and expects 'good' results.
..." phrase.
currently, search engines will provide MUCH better results if users used search syntax (-, +, "..", *, ~..et al)
such syntax can be eliminated (thus reducing the need for educated users) if more advanced search engines can effectively interpret natural language queries.
google already helps user's mistakes with their "did you mean
--- widget evolution: enhanced, plus, super, ultra, extreme, exxxtreme, ultra-extreme,
how this is any different to http://mooter.com/
Below the search results, it says:
Your query linux did not return any result because all the selected sources timed out.
Note: Slashdot.org servers are currently not serving all requests from Clusty.com.
~CGameProgrammer( );
Googles newest competitor? Thursday September 30, @08:31AM Rejected
And I didn't even link to a NY Times article but rather an AP story.
You can see that I have this story listed in my journal at this link.
Keep up the good work. This is the kind of nonsense we have come to expect from /.
P.S. I will usually post some of the stories which have been rejected so be sure to check my journal every so often. After all, why wait for three days to go by when you can get the story when it comes out?
P.P.S. Anyone else see the story of the vibrating condom?
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
I agree with you but..
.. Good but no site should provide this kind of details open! Look at google and Yahoo, they don't provide accurate information on these issues.
They are using Linux with Apache
Results are clustered that's the only think I love right now. But I'm dam sure rest of competitor get this stuff soon
Yahoo use Apache and FreeBSD with some custom c CGIs and PHP scripts on the new stuff.
Google use alot of special mini appliances that runs linux and a customised apache server called GWS/2.1
Google also now have a special cacheing server that gives out the server header: GFE/1.3
Google's search software is written primarilly in JAVA.
Enough open details for you?
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.