Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Ask Slashdot: What Features Would You Like In a Search Engine?

Posted by timothy on from the esp-heads-the-list dept.

New submitter nicolas.slusarenko writes Nowadays, there is one dominant search engine in the world among few alternatives. I have the impression that the majority of users think that it is the best possible service that could be made. I am sure that we could have a better search engine. During my spare time I been developing Trokam, an online search engine. I am building this service with the features that I would like to find in a service: respectful of user rights, ad-free, built upon open source software, and with auditable results. Well, those are mine. What features would you like in a search engine?

11 of 276 comments (clear)

  1. privacy? by tommeke100 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Next to working well, maybe the assurance that not all your search queries were logged and sold to third parties or used for advertisement?

    1. Re:privacy? by smittyoneeach · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So, how much are we willing to pay as a subscription to make up the lost revenue?
      Or do we just expect the vendor to eat the opportunity cost?

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    2. Re:privacy? by rudy_wayne · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Here's a radical idea. How about if the search engine returns results that are ACTUALLY WHAT I'M SEARCHING FOR.

      One day I was trying to find a particular video clip. No matter how i tried to refine my search query, all I got was completely irrelevant bullshit. Now, the video I was looking for was somewhat old and obscure and so its entirely possible that it doesn't exist anywhere on the Internet. That's fine. I can accept that.

      But, if that's the case, then my search should return zero results. Not thousands of irrelevant results.

    3. Re:privacy? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If there were millions of users, how much would it COST to keep it operational? Figure that out, then add some reasonable profit percentage. Win-win.

      Do you think you could run an operation like that for around $3.5M a year, given 1M users? Great. Charge $5 per year per user. I'd pay it.

    4. Re:privacy? by Rei · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I just want the search engine to stop changing what I'm searching for. I don't want to have to quote every word like I have to do with Google to make sure that the word is actually in the page, and by "the word", I mean "the word I type, not a word that Google things may be similar to the one I typed". It's worst when you're searching for foreign words, product names, acronyms, or whatnot and Google tries to treat them as if they're English words and declines them or chooses synonyms.

      "Did you mean X?" is fine. Even "Searching for X (see original results here)", if you're very confident that the person made a common spelling error or whatnot. But just going in and swapping out words as if this is expected behavior? Terrible. At least let me disable it if you want to do that...

      Beyond all this: I do like how one can do simple commonn operations on Google - math, conversions, etc. The more of these the better IMHO, so long as they have a standardized format - be they tracking numbers, flight lookups, whatever. It's okay in my book to be a bit Wolfram-y.

      Keep the interface plain, simple, the sort of thing that'll work on any browser, from a modern Chrome to a simple text-only browser. Only use javascript where it's not essential for the site to work. Here's an example of something that would be a good use of javascript: if you need to track clicks, like Google does, do it through javascript rather than by having a link redirect like Google does. I hate how I can't just right click and copy link on Google without getting some massive Google redirect link.

      Just my thoughts. :)

      --
      *Kid Rock runs for Senate* Democrats: We must run Kid Scissors.
    5. Re:privacy? by Kohath · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They could sell ads without tracking people.

    6. Re:privacy? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you offer a viable alternative, look for "something really, really unfortunate" to arrive with an innocuous name like "Net Neutrality", or something.

      Since you brought up Net Neutrality: can you give me one example of a small, innovative startup in the ISP business in the last 10 years?

      No? Why not?

      I'll tell you why not: it is not a competitive market. It's a de facto oligopoly, with barriers to entry that are far to high for the little guy to vault.

      That's where government's legitimate role begins: by regulating or breaking up oligopolies and monopolies, so that there can be competition in the marketplace.

      Don't expect market forces to fix a problem when there isn't a real competitive market in the first place. That's not very realistic.

      And I'll answer my own question: the only "new" broadband ISP to make a name for itself in many years now is Google, and they can hardly be called a "little guy". They are one of the few groups that has the money and muscle to elbow its way in to a business that is very hostile to outsiders.

  2. Best feature by Goglu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Confidentiality

  3. Better protection against SEO. by SeaFox · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What made Google so great when it was still relatively new was the results were more relevant, i.e. they weren't just a bunch of advertisements. With the rise SEO that is less the case now, and looking for something on Google for me now means adding "-buy -purchase -price -shop" automatically.

  4. Exact searches by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Try searching for someone named "Beiber". Google might find him, but he'll drown in a million entries for some singer named "Bieber". But I did not search for Bieber.

    There are many cases like this, where something rare has a name similiar to something more popular. Don't assume I mistyped! I rarely do. But if I mistype, I can search again. But I can't deal with a search engine that blatantly assumes I'm dyslectic.

    And finally, let me search for source code snippets without turning up tons of irrelevant stuff. Spaces in an exact search is not separators - if there is no match, just say so. Don't assume I might want something completely different.

  5. Deja vu all over again... by kackle · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Amen, brother. Similarly, I switched from Lycos a decade+ ago because they dropped Boolean searching (some of us are power users!). I used Yahoo! next, but it was painful on dial-up with all the extra junk on their home page. Then I came across this new, misspelled site called "Google". I loved it; but lately it has been wearing on me as it panders more and more to the masses.

    Note to Google: We nerds might be in the minority, but it is WE who direct the non-nerds as to how to set up their digital devices, avoid online trouble, choose their search engines, etc. Don't ruin it for us. I already started to keep one eye open for another search place, because I fear it'll only get worse.