Slashdot Mirror


Attractive Open Source Search Interfaces?

An anonymous reader writes "I work for a company that manages an online database for the political market. We add to this DB daily with updates from a variety of sources and our customers then search through this content via our Solr/Lucene search engine. My problem is, our search interface is a little, well, basic and I would love to know if there are any feature-rich open source alternatives out there. The only one I can find is Flamenco, and while that seems strong on categorisation, that seems to be about the height of it."

41 of 65 comments (clear)

  1. Sphinx Search by neoform · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Sphinx Search works quite well, is very fast and can handle very large datasets.. Only down side is the indexes are not live.. http://www.sphinxsearch.com/

    --
    MABASPLOOM!
    1. Re:Sphinx Search by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      In fact, Sphinx is used on Slashdot ...

    2. Re:Sphinx Search by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In fact, Sphinx is used on Slashdot ...

      That's really not the glowing recommendation you thought it would be...

    3. Re:Sphinx Search by prestomation · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Right. Slashdot search is HORRIBLE. I've better luck finding old articles with Google

    4. Re:Sphinx Search by yuna49 · · Score: 1

      Here's another vote in favor of Sphinx. I recently was presented with an online shopping site whose search functions were pathetically slow and inaccurate. I replaced these with Sphinx and now get incredibly fast results which are nearly always on target. You'll want to play with the weights assigned to fields and other features to optimize the searches, but if your content is already stored in a MySQL or PostgreSQL database, Sphinx should be one of your top contenders.

      As the parent says, the indexing isn't real-time, but Sphinx has features to enable you to keep live indexes active while you reindex. The frequency of re-indexing will obviously depend on how important recency is for your users.

      If your content is just text files, I'd consider htdig as well. While it's no longer being actively maintained, I've used it for years to index web archives of listserver postings with great success.

    5. Re:Sphinx Search by Larryish · · Score: 2, Funny

      Slashdot's search app isn't called Sphinx, it is named Sphincter.

  2. greenstone.org by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    ... for offline viewing and searching.

  3. KISS by Mr.+Sketch · · Score: 3, Insightful


        <input type="text" name="q" title="Enter your search terms" />
        <input type="submit" value="Search" title="Submit your search request" />
    </form>

    Anything more complex will probably aggravate your users.

    1. Re:KISS by abulafia · · Score: 1

      Thank you! See, I've been using the 1040 for my users' search needs, and boy, for the life of me, I've just never understood why they've been so pissed about it.

      --
      I forget what 8 was for.
    2. Re:KISS by Mr.+Sketch · · Score: 1

      My point is that it works for google and google allows advanced queries very nicely. You shouldn't give the user too many choices that they likely will never need.

      You can easily add special 'keyword: value' pairs that the query parser can recognize which can provide all of the features you needed.

      Examples:
      opening file crashes project: word
      long load times type: defect
      sales report doctype: xls

      How to use these keywords should be specified in a help or advanced page.

      As you said, the simple interface will solve many common use cases, and the more advanced use cases can be easily solved by adding a few extra keywords. Ideally the search engine shouldn't need these additional keywords the vast majority of the time and should organize the results with the ones the user most likely wants at the top.

    3. Re:KISS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      That's only half of the battle. What about results?

    4. Re:KISS by shish · · Score: 3, Insightful

      My point is that it works for google and google allows advanced queries very nicely

      Google also has hundreds of the world's best computer scientists working on natural language parsing techniques, and they still need a load of documentation saying "if you want to use this function, please type your query according to this specific format" (which is no better than having separate input boxes IMO; in fact for the advanced search that's exactly what they do)

      --
      I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
    5. Re:KISS by Hurricane78 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      KISS is retarded. Because simplicity does not always equal efficiency. Efficiency equals efficiency. Plain KISS makes you end up with stuff that is too “simple” to be useful, like Clippy, MS Bob, or Notepad. The other extreme is just as stupid, and gives you things like VI and Emacs, with a wall as a learning “curve”.

      The optimum is obvious: Balanced in the middle, relative to the user’s needs. More power when he needs it, less complexity when he doesn’t.

      I, for one, don’t call anything that does not at least have boolean operations, property fields (like “site:slashdot.org”) and regular expressions a search that fits my needs and level of power.

      Are people who want less somehow better? Or why are they preferred?
      Rhetorical question. I know why they are preferred: Because they are louder, and think they are entitled to get it pre-chewed.

      Also, what is the point of allowing only one way? Nobody is better.
      Add a multiple-choice element, that lets you choose plain text, boolean-enhanced (like google) and full regexps. Makes everyone happy, hurts nobody.

      Maybe next time you don’t apply KISS to your method of searching for a solution. :)

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    6. Re:KISS by PaladinAlpha · · Score: 1

      KISS is retarded. Because simplicity does not always equal efficiency. Efficiency equals efficiency. Plain KISS makes you end up with stuff that is too “simple” to be useful, like Clippy, MS Bob, or Notepad. The other extreme is just as stupid, and gives you things like VI and Emacs, with a wall as a learning “curve”.

      The optimum is obvious: Balanced in the middle, relative to the user’s needs. More power when he needs it, less complexity when he doesn’t.

      I, for one, don’t call anything that does not at least have boolean operations, property fields (like “site:slashdot.org”) and regular expressions a search that fits my needs and level of power.

      Are people who want less somehow better? Or why are they preferred?
      Rhetorical question. I know why they are preferred: Because they are louder, and think they are entitled to get it pre-chewed.

      Also, what is the point of allowing only one way? Nobody is better.
      Add a multiple-choice element, that lets you choose plain text, boolean-enhanced (like google) and full regexps. Makes everyone happy, hurts nobody.

      Maybe next time you don’t apply KISS to your method of searching for a solution. :)

      There is nothing simple about Clippy or MS Bob; those have nothing to do with KISS methodologies. Notepad, on the other hand, is simple, and is very, very useful.

      You are advocating a search box that supports booleans, properties, and regex, with radio buttons to swap between types. Imagine for a moment you are a user hitting that page. What are these buttons for, you might ask. What happens if I select boolean-enhanced and put in a query without boolean operators? What will it default to? Who writes the documentation? How long are you prepared to spend debugging?

      Carpenters, even in the modern age, don't want hammers with swappable heads, or electronically adjusting wrenches. They just want a normal hammer, and a normal wrench. People who use computers don't want or need pages and pages of options. People who want less are not somehow better -- but people who are somehow better typically want less.

  4. How about Sphider? by pbulteel73 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I found Sphider and it fulfills my needs. -P

    1. Re:How about Sphider? by Anonymusing · · Score: 1

      I use Sphider, but dang, the re-indexing function times out every time I try. I have to delete the index and run it as if it were new.

      --
      Liberal? Conservative? Compare perspectives at Left-Right
  5. Yahoo IBM OmniFind Product by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Free solution from Yahoo/IBM -- http://omnifind.ibm.yahoo.net/

    1. Re:Yahoo IBM OmniFind Product by lacourem · · Score: 1

      Seconded. Uses a Lucene backend that you are using now, just import your indexes and away you go.

      --
      when logic fails, bullshit prevails
  6. Re:Windows Live Search is free!!!! by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Contrary to popular belief, Ask Slashdot, even when asking questions about Open Source free alternatives, is not an open invitation to bash Microsoft.
    Please rephrase your comment in the form of something helpful.

    We express our sincerest apologies for the confusion.

    Anonymously,

    Mr. Coward

  7. Swish-E by ccandreva · · Score: 2, Informative

    I've used Swish in it's variants since it was an alternative to WAIS.

    http://www.swish-e.org/

  8. Um.. by wumpus188 · · Score: 1, Funny

    Just curious, what's 'political market' ? Is it really that bad already?

  9. Re:Windows Live Search is free!!!! by mustafap · · Score: 3, Funny

    >I just wish there was a button labeled "Complain to Windows development about this feature and why it sucks".

    There is, it's the "Buy" button next to a Mac on the Apple website.

    Wish I had the money to burn for one of those babies

    --
    Open Source Drum Kit, LPLC deve board - mjhdesigns.com
  10. What sort of database? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Are you talking about searching web pages or a database and presenting the results as web pages? If the latter, then wht's the database?

  11. Re:Why bother with open source? by khellendros1984 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I wouldn't say that GIMP is more complex than Photoshop. I've tried using Photoshop, and it looks like an unorganized muddle of garbage to me. I *get* GIMP, though.

    Linux is just another Unix, but thankfully, a bit more modern and progressive than many of the others. It's as complex as it needs to be, and no more....that's not taking into account the various windowing environments of various qualities (although Windows 7's interface reminds me more of Gnome than it does Windows XP, somehow).

    Then again, maybe I'm weird. My two cents.

    --
    It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
  12. Re:Windows Live Search is free!!!! by khellendros1984 · · Score: 1

    Well, the OSX license agreement says that it can only be installed on an "Apple-labeled" device. My interpretation of that is to put an Apple sticker on the side of a Hackintosh.

    --
    It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
  13. How about... by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

    ...a flatfile with regexps? ;)
    One line per entry, index at the beginning.

    P.S.: No, I‘m not totally serious... or am I? ;)

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  14. Carrot2 - Search Results Clustering Engine by fak3r · · Score: 1

    http://project.carrot2.org/ This plugin is part of the Nutch app now (which does a nice job of search since it uses Lucene) but I've also used it with Solr. Check it out, it's pretty interesting.

  15. GUI showcase by EmperorOfCanada · · Score: 1

    What I want is a GUI showcase. A website with GUIs from movies, industrial machines, web pages, etc. I have never seen a good one. Yet I have seen some very cool interfaces over the years. Sometimes you see movies where the police criminal database or whatnot could only have been built with a team of highly paid graphic artists. If anyone knows about this please reply with a link.

    1. Re:GUI showcase by ottothecow · · Score: 1

      I wish I could give you a link...because I swear I have seen something like this (or at least a blog that had a reasonable amount of their posts about this)

      --
      Bottles.
  16. busybox ash script by technosaurus · · Score: 1

    You can write an extremely fast and powerful (b)ash cgi-script using a properly compiled snapshot of busybox (it will call builtin find, sed, grep... which is much faster than calling separate programs) If you run it on a static webpage using busbox httpd as the server it can even be a function within your server script.

    #!/PATH_TO/sh
    search()
    {
    #your code here
    }

    advanced_search()
    {
    #your code here
    }

    restart_server()
    {
    #your code here
    }

  17. Hyper Estraier by hweimer · · Score: 1

    Hyper Estraier has a Google-like interface that has some additional features such as including regular expressions in your queries.

    --
    OS Reviews: Free and Open Source Software
  18. YUI is nice for building user interfaces. by micheas · · Score: 1

    YUI has a BSD style license and is really nice for building cross browser friendly user interfaces.

    The downside of YUI is that the CSS does not validate as it uses the "holly hack" to do IE specific stuff instead of an if define in the header and a separate IE stylesheet.

    I know people that like blueprint, you might also check out http://www.webdesignbooth.com/10-promising-css-framework-that-worth-a-look/ and see if any of these meet your needs.

  19. Data Search Interface by aharth · · Score: 1

    Hi, there's also VisiNav which lets you assemble complex queries over data, covering keyword search and faceted browsing (as Flamenco) and a bit more (path navigation). Drag and drop UI, where people who don't know facets or path navigation can do keyword search without being distracted. -- Andreas. Disclaimer: I'm one of the developers of VisiNav.

    1. Re:Data Search Interface by RicRoc · · Score: 1

      VisiNav looks very interesting, with a strong focus on class/object hierarchies that could work well on clean, well-structured data sets -- and may be exactly what the poster needs!

      Could you explain here how to continue with VisiNav past the demo? How would the poster adapt VisiNav to his needs: set up his own system and use his own dataset?

      Is VisiNav a research experiment, an open source project, or a commercial product? What licences is it available with? Is it open source?

      --
      Who?
    2. Re:Data Search Interface by aharth · · Score: 1

      Yes, the better the data the better the system will work. However, VisiNav works quite well on relatively scruffy web data due to the integrated ranking component.
      The underlying data has to be in graph-structured format (in RDF syntax); reasoning, most notably object consolidation, is supported via OWL. Once the data is indexed, users can search and browse right away. There's no configuration needed, because the ordering of data is done based on the calculated ranks. The UI can be configured via XSLT and CSS for adding a logo or changing the look and feel.
      We've developed VisiNav as part of a research project, and the university owns (and manages) the IP. I guess they will make it available free of charge for educational and research organisations, but commercial applications would require a license.

  20. Use DBSight Free version by chrislusf · · Score: 1

    Although non open source, it's free version has most of the features. http://www.dbsight.net/ It also has many more sophisticated features that you can dig out.

  21. Twigkit: Not quite open source ... by cliftonc · · Score: 1

    Disclaimer as I have used these guys recently for a solr search project - but not affiliated in any way - and their product is very good. Twigkit: http://www.twigkit.com/ gives you a very slick and simple way to make attractive front ends to solr (or other search engines). For us it was the best of both worlds, as we were able to save by leveraging solr, but then add the stuff these guys brought to the table to really round the whole thing off. In a couple of days they gave us a very slick UI that killed the crappy prototype one we had managed to build!

  22. Re:Windows Live Search is free!!!! by JonJ · · Score: 1

    It says "Apple-branded", i.e a machine that Apple has branded with... Well, an Apple. Not one that you've slapped a sticker on.

    --
    -- Linux user #369862
  23. Open Source Solr-powered Search UI by ehatcher · · Score: 1

    I've posted a blog entry in response to this topic here: http://www.lucidimagination.com/blog/2010/01/14/solr-search-user-interface-examples/ There are several technologies to tinker with, though it's tough to find UI frameworks that fit ones needs exactly. But there should be plenty of food for thought in my blog entry. Please comment there if you have other technologies worth pointing out to the Solr communities.

  24. Ontopia by PensivePeter · · Score: 1

    Although a competitor product, and if it is definitely open source that you are looking for rather than richer-featured proprietary solutions, take a look at Ontopia Open Source, a "subject-centric" alternative to classic text-string based search engines. It uses the ISO 13250 Topic Maps standard which encapsulates all subjects, associations and related data in XML. All engines using the Topic Maps standard are particularly strong in faceted classification, handling complex queries and query classes and, by its nature, offers a user interface that allows user to intuitively move from subject to subject

  25. good search UX is a process by searchtools · · Score: 1

    I agree, Flamenco's faceted metadata is a great way to look at structured data. But Solr has facets, and they're really easy to enable. So that kind of functionality is not really the hard part.

    The really tricky part is finding out what your users need (which is of course not what they say they need).

    Use your search logs: the most important part is seeing what they search for and especially if they have zero results. Talk to them about why: they may have different vocabulary or need something new, or it may be OK because they're checking for the absence of something. You can also look at what are the top queries and the top kinds of queries: maybe they really want to segment by assembly district: that's a great use for faceted metadata.

    Then you can use the standard UI tools like sketches and wireframes to expand the search form for their needs. They may want to search for nicknames or maiden names, who knows? I don't, but they do.

    It's an iterative process involving content coverage, back-end search functionality, and client-side interfaces, but when you do it right, it just hums :-)