Search 2.0 vs. Traditional Search

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.

Comments

no one gives a fuck

[Turn-X Alphonse]

Move along nothing to see here. People don't want flash based 2.0 web searchs, they want to use a search engine as a spring board. You hop on and 2 clicks later you hop off to your location. When you start adding an interface beyond basic input and 12 million adverts around it (hello yahoo), you lose the entire point of using a search engine to find what you want quickly.

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

[OutsideOfDreams]

Flash based search? Which of the sites mentioned in the article use flash? Secondly, ignore the 2.0 branding crap, it's a simple way for PR people to get the idea of "New and Improved" across. Google is great and all, but something tells me that people aren't patient enough to sift through the results to find what they want. However, search engines like Swiki and Wink that allow users to contribute to the results can greatly increase the possibility of finding what you want.

Re:no one gives a fuck

[andrewman327]

I actually did not quote Maddox anywhere in my post, so I do not understand how I am using his words instead of my own. As a matter of fact, I did not use any of his words at all! I made a sarcastic remark in my own words and indicated that there exists an article that extends my viewpoint with which I agree.

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 numbers they have to prevent robots from signing up for 10,000,000 e-mail accounts (learning disability) but the blind have it a whole lot worse. What little screen readers could do with real honest html pages is now shot to hell. I also find it harder to navigate these pages using a keyboard, forcing users to use a mouse instead of tabbing through pages. As we all know, computer mice are among the least ergonomic things ever created.

From the makers of Web 2.0...

[Billosaur]

...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.

Buzzwords

[revery]

Note, as the article points out, that the author has developed yet another search engine, called Qube.

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!!!

You have to trust an article...

[Billosaur]

...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 ...

[jc42]

..., a rich user experience, ...

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.

"Rich user experience"

[Tx]

they bring into the equation user preferences, collaboration, collective intelligence, a rich user experience, and many other specialized capabilities

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.

Re:I say!

[Mant]

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!

[TrippTDF]

I agree that buzz words like Web 2.0 sound lame, but they can loosely explain ideas that are not fully formed... Just as the "Information Superhighway" got used way too much as the internet was gaining momentum, 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.

As for throwing "2.0" at the end of everything, it will happen, and it will be inaccurate to the /. crowd, but it will be beneficial for a lot of people not "in the know".

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.

I'll say the content was crap also.

[khasim]

Yes, the "2.0" is stupid.

But in this case, so is the "content" of the article. Example:

Traditional search engines are based on information retrieval technologies. They implement operations such as boolean queries, proximity searches, text relevance and link analysis.

So, that defines the current systems. That's a good start. So what makes these other systems "2.0"?

To explain the generations:

I don't care about the generations, explain what makes the new stuff "2.0" instead of "1.0". Instead he's covering what would be "0.1" and "1.0" and when he gets to "2.0", it's ...

Third-generation search technologies are designed to combine the scalability of existing internet search engines with new and improved relevancy models;...

We had "relevancy models" in his "1.0" version.

Wouldn't the first generation of search engines (without the "relevancy models") be "1.0"?

Then Google would already be "2.0" because it has the features of 1.0 PLUS the new (at the time) "relevancy model".

So improving the relevancy model would make the "next generation" more "2.1".

...they bring into the equation user preferences, collaboration, collective intelligence, a rich user experience, and many other specialized capabilities that make information more productive.

Information is not "productive".

Google already has "user preferences".

The article is crap.