Slashdot Mirror
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.
I asked it a simple question. And it responded. Here is the efficient answer that must surely have Google quaking in its boots:
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
My confident prediction for search 3.0 engines will be TinkyWinky, Dipsi, Lala and Po.
Well, I'm off to eat Food 2.0 now and after that I'm going to Take A Dump 2.0
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.
I enjoy large posteriors and I cannot prevaricate.
As long as "Lesbian Porn" return plenty of varied and releveant hits
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
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.
I like muppets.
...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.
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
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!!!
I just don't see any of these names becoming verbs.
...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!
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
..., 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.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
No one seems to figure out that the next generation search engine will have to get specific first(patent pending), otherwise how does "bush" know where to go in the search results? It ought to show me a page in between results that says, which "bush" are you searching for? and then has 1 sample result from each "bush" related result group(patent pending). Oh, one other thing -- patent pending.
stuff |
It answered my question accurately and succinctly: http://www.lexxe.com/main.cfm?sstring=what+is+the+ best+search+engine?&clickcluster=fmclk&sstringtemp =fmstr
Ok... I was looking for something yesterday on Google, but couldn't find it.
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.
Genesis 1:32 And God typed
...Because none of us is as dumb as all of us. (http://despair.com/)
Third-generation search technologies are designed to combine 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 that make information more productive.
Yes, but can they tell me where in the hell I left my car keys??
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
"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? :(
I built prototype search software that revolved around a product called Collexis. It has a medical demo you can mess around with. The beautiful thing is that it uses a taxonomy to fingerprint documents. It also takes in raw text and assigns it a fingerprint and then uses Sleepy Cat to quickly reference many records and match your fingerprint. Unfortunately, it's not built for "open" domains like everything on the web but works best when you have a finite domain and a large number of documents to search.
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 to be much more informative than the article linked in this story.
My work here is dung.
while these are clever ideas, and do indeed provide a slightly different spin on the traditional search engine, I believe that they will not have much hope of ever taking a bite out of google or yahoo. I mean, I just went through the process of creating a Swicki, and while the interface is nice... it is a lot of work.
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.
sad robot making broken music
Just tried Lexxe
Q : Who is the president of united states ?
A : Armed forces
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.
Oh no... it's the future.
I think Lexxe is feeling the slashDot effect. One big difference between google and itself... I clicked the "Who is Louis Nicholas" comparison links... google came back immediately, Lexxe took two minutes to give me an error of too many people.
The "Qube" webpage calls the product a "Geek Powerhouse", which makes me laugh. The "About" page talks about "browserless search", which sounds a lot like adware to me; and in fact, that's exactly what it is -- you have to download a program to your local machine to use the service. The part that makes me laugh is that despite its being a "Geek Powerhouse", it's Windows-only; no Linux, no Mac OS X. "Search 2.0" apparently means "Now with 200% more evil!"
Cantankerous old coot since 1957.
- First-generation search ranked sites based on page content - examples are early yahoo.com and Alta Vista.
- Second-generation relies on link analysis for ranking - so they take the structure of the Web into account.
- Third-generation search technologies are designed to combine 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 that make information more productive.
Bingo!I found it!
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
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
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 would be "0.1" and "1.0" and when he gets to "2.0", it's
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".
Information is not "productive".
Google already has "user preferences".
The article is crap.