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

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?

Comments

privacy?

[tommeke100]

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

Re:privacy?

[smittyoneeach]

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?

Re:privacy?

[rudy_wayne]

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.

Re:privacy?

[TWX]

It has gotten a lot worse, hasn't it?

I want a search engine to identify when someone is attempting to manipulate it and to counter that. I don't want Google Bombs like "miserable failure" regardless of how I feel about the actual politics, to make the results useless. I'm not so childish as to expect an echo-chamber everywhere I look.

This means no more companies whose entire existence is to try to improve someone's search rankings.

As to data being collected, I'm actually okay with the top 80% of searches in a given day being used for advertising revenue, assuming no geographic data beyond nation, and no personally-identifiable data is collected. That's how a search engine would make money, by selling ads based on what people want to know about. If Ford has a press-release about the new Focus, and people search for that, I'm okay with ads related to the Focus or to Fords coming up. I just don't want more than "this term is being asked for this many times on this day" to be reported.

Re:privacy?

[Jane Q. Public]

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.

Re:privacy?

[Rei]

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. :)

Re:privacy?

[smittyoneeach]

The cost would seem proportional to the users.
As far as running the business, just let me sharpen my AWS knives a little more. . .
Of course, in our post-capitalistic era, just having a good business plan is necessary but insufficient to protect you from Big Oligarchy and Big Government, assuming you could pry them apart with a crowbar. If you offer a viable alternative, look for "something really, really unfortunate" to arrive with an innocuous name like "Net Neutrality", or something.

Re:privacy?

[dwywit]

Try google verbatim. Saves having to put quotes on every word.

What was wrong with '+' as an operator, anyway?

Re:privacy?

[jenningsthecat]

I just want the search engine to stop changing what I'm searching for.

This, exactly. Google's ideas regarding 'synonyms' for my search terms would be laughable if they didn't waste so much of my time. Also, these days when I do an 'allintext' search it almost always turns up far more results than did the same query without the 'allintext' operator. Now just how in the fuck does that happen?

I would pay two or three hundred dollars a year for access to a search engine with Google's reach and power, but without all the ad-oriented bloat, the lowest-common-denominator attempts at hand-holding, and the Microsoft Clippy-isms. You know - something that's more suitable for real research and for getting a job done than for figuring out where to have dinner or what meaningless bullshit the Kardashians and other such social parasites are up to. And while they're at it, they need to include a way of searching for exactly what I type, including case, punctuation and special characters. And if my search turns up zero results, that's fine. I'd far rather have that than be insulted by Google's insistence that it must have something I'm interested in.

I'm not so naive as to believe that anyone else can replicate Google's massive search capabilities. So I really wish Google would provide a search interface for those of us who have both a good idea of what we're looking for and a clue about how to do research. It would cost them next to nothing, they could charge for it, and they'd be doing the world a favour.

Hell, right now I'd settle for Google circa ten years ago - it was way better than it is now.

Re:privacy?

[Kohath]

They could sell ads without tracking people.

Re:privacy?

[Jane Q. Public]

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.

Re:privacy?

[fahrbot-bot]

Try google verbatim. Saves having to put quotes on every word.

What was wrong with '+' as an operator, anyway?

According to Google Drops Plus Sign from Search Operators

It has to do with limiting confusion about the search engine’s social network, Google+.

To Baio, “it seems obvious that they’re paving the way for Google+ profile searches. When Google+ launched ... they coined their own format for mentioning people – adding a plus to the beginning of a name... The fate of the ‘+’ symbol was clear: protect a 12-year-old convention loved by power users, or bring Google+ profile searching to the mainstream? It was doomed from the start.”

Re:privacy?

[Jack Griffin]

And, have it do an "untailored" search by default. If I type in a search phrase I get results relevant to where I live. This can be useful in the odd case I want to find a local service provider, but the 99% of the other times I want non-local, fully globalised results, and I can no longer seem to be able to that.

One example, we had a local rugby player Jarryd Hayne who went to the US to gamble on an NFL career. No matter what I search I only get results from Australian media outlets which I don't want. I want to find out the reaction in the US media (if any), but the search always tailors my results to my location which is annoying. This results in my world view being skewed because I'm increasingly only being exposed to local opinions
The Internet is supposed to be a global village. Google ruining that.

Best feature

[Goglu]

Confidentiality

Re:Best feature

[Anonymous Coward]

Google and Bing now keep track of which search results you click on. When you hover your mouse over a search result they use JavaScript to show you what the final destination URL will be in the browser status bar, but when you click the link it takes you to a Google or Bing URL to record your selection and then it redirects you to the final destination. Very sneaky, they didn't used to do that. Plus many people log into gmail and leave it logged in all the time, so Google can attach your search queries and result selections to your profile. They are engaging in a war on privacy.

Re:Best feature

[ScentCone]

They are engaging in a war on privacy.

Or, they're trying to make a viable business out of operating mammoth server farms so you can get stuff you don't have to pay for.

Simple

[JMJimmy]

Search for what I type in, now what you think I want. I'm so sick of having to change every search to "verbatim" because my search terms are being ignored. I'd switch to someone else but they seem to be carbon copies.

Re:Simple

[CarlosM7]

Also, don't remove search terms, and I want all of them "anded", not "ored."

Re:Simple

[swillden]

Search for what I type in, not what you think I want

I want a search engine that searches for what I want, not what I type, and not even what I think I want.

Re:Simple

[swillden]

Why would I want crappy results? I want it to give me what I want, which by definition isn't "crappy".

Re:Simple

[Oligonicella]

False analogy. There's a huge difference between a personal assistant, who by definition *I* know personally, and a faceless business entity who I know not at all (read adversarial entity) scraping 'enough' information about me to presume it knows me sufficiently to second guess what I want and give me that instead of what I requested. Truthfully, why on earth would I trust such an entity?

That's the problem with hypotheticals. They don't reflect the reality we live in.

Re:Simple

[swillden]

False analogy. There's a huge difference between a personal assistant, who by definition *I* know personally, and a faceless business entity who I know not at all (read adversarial entity) scraping 'enough' information about me to presume it knows me sufficiently to second guess what I want and give me that instead of what I requested.

Not really.

I'd say there's a good argument that all of the information I give Google actually exceeds what a personal assistant would know about me. The real difference (thus far) lies in the assistant's ability to understand human context which Google's systems lack. But that's merely a problem to be solved.

Note, BTW, that I'm not saying everyone should want what I want, or be comfortable giving any search engine enough information to be such an ideal assistant. That's a personal decision. I'm comfortable with it... but I'm not yet getting the search results I want.

Better protection against SEO.

[SeaFox]

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.

Re:Better protection against SEO.

[JMJimmy]

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.

Google seems to ignore '-term' when it comes to certain sites/terms.

Re:Better protection against SEO.

[rudy_wayne]

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.

Unfortunately, that's what happens when a search engine is run by a company that depends on advertising for 96% of its revenue. Google is not in the search business. They are not a technology company, no matter how many data centers and driverless cars they have.

They are an ADVERTISING company and their business model depends on getting you to click on as many ads and "sponsored links" as possible, using whatever deceptive methods necessary.

Re:Better protection against SEO.

[JMJimmy]

They were only bad if you didn't know how to use them. I found them to be infinitely better than what we have now - even Google of 3-4 years ago was better than now.

Re:Better protection against SEO.

[afgam28]

If anything, being an advertising company provides an incentive to downrank ad-like results. Why would anyone buy an ad if their shopping site already appears at the top of the organic results?

Completely Open Source

[ModernGeek]

I'd like to see a completely open search engine that allowed people to download the search indexes freely so that they may create their own in-house appliances for search without the need for going through some proprietary site that may or may not be available in the next ten years or even months.

A site that promises to deliver you your privacy is not enough, because they could really be doing anything. Google promised us our privacy, and changed and deleted their old privacy policies even though they said that they'd always keep all copies of a privacy policy on archive. They went back on the word "never" and have continued to discontinue online services that people have become accustomed to with little to no notice.

A reasonably sized search index that is extensible based on what one is searching for would be great. Localizing URL suggestions, wikipedia caches, and other toolbar-suggestion searches in a networked work environment would all have benefits; the applications are almost endless. Freeing the shackles of search from a few could do so much for innovation, privacy, and security.

Exact searches

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Be able to PERMANENTLY disable instant search

[schwit1]

And stop providing results that fail to have ALL of the search terms.

Searching

[Livius]

and nothing else.

Stop adding 'features' to things that don't need them!

Deja vu all over again...

[kackle]

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.

Re:Deja vu all over again...

[JMJimmy]

If you find a good one let me know. I've tried Bing, DuckDuckGo and a smattering of others - they all seem to have the same results or lack any sort of depth which is highly disappointing. My next to try is Blekko - I like the concept of /topic and more of a command line concept.

Re:Deja vu all over again...

[JMJimmy]

oops.. never mind. Blekko is already gone... hrm... maybe Ark? Seems more social than geek though.

Culling

[Moof123]

Make it easy for me to specify I am looking for technical information, or looking to buy something, or what have you. All too often I am trying to do a search for technical information, but if that acronym has also been used by Beiber lately I am SOL. I would love it is I could weed out the pop culture hits when I wanted to omit them.

Similarly I would like a search engine that I could easily specify if I also want hits for related words, or just EXACT match, and whether to ignore capitalization or not. It is maddening when an acronym also happens to be a common word and I get flooded with useless crap.

Being able to be more precise

[Misagon]

Search features I depend on:
* Non-English characters. Handle multiple encodings of web pages and URL-encoded characters in search queries.
* site: to search only within a domain. This is often a national domain, such as "site:co.uk" to search only British sites.
* Minus: Begin able to block certain words, or sites.
* Plus: A word prefixed with a plus is required.
* Quotes/hyphen: Searching for exact phrases. "Java class file" is different from "Java File class".

Where current search engines are lacking:
* If there is a period between the words then they do not belong to the same phrase. (A search for "Hello Google" should not return "Say Hello. Google for it." as its top result)
* Use word order in search query to weigh how important a search term is. Rank pages higher wihen those words are closer together.
* Don't correct my spelling by default, assuming that my search query is in US-English. (I am speaking to you Duck-Duck Goo!). I can spell, and I do not always write English. If I misspell then that is my mistake, and sometimes I search for a brand name that was misspelled intentionally.
* When indexing a web page, identify what is the important text on the page and ignore the rest. For instance, on an internet news site, the text in the articles is most important. On a forum text inside the comments. On this forum, articles followed by comments. What people have written in their signatures is not important. Slashboxes are not and ads are definitely not.
It is aggravating when you use Google on a collecting site and you get every other page on that site in every search result because members have listed their collections in their signatures.
If I search for the word "review", I don't want every page on every web store that has a Reviews tab.
Pages on a site often follow a certain pattern - find that pattern to find which text on each page that is the most unique.

Re:Simple (my wish list)

[Kohath]

Why won't this useless search engine tell me the best place to ford the thunderbird river?

2D navigation for search refinement

[iMadeGhostzilla]

Think of Google's search as your type as 1-dimensional suggestion list. I'd like as I type to see around the search bar a matrix of categories: news, videos, documentation, blogs etc. Then as I hover over a category with a mouse I zoom into a matrix of subcategories for that category using the mouse wheel. I zoom out back one level if that's not the branch I'm thinking of.

In addition, I don't want to click until the very end, and maybe not even then. Hovering over a set of results shows me what's at the deeper level, and when I'm looking at a one or a handful of pages that match the criteria as I refine further, it is also shown as a cell. Hovering over it will give me a preview -- from the search engine, not my browser fetching an actual page. Only when I'm certain I want to go there, I'll click.

That would be a search engine of the future. Or, idea #2: make it like google, but when I control-clik on the link for the page it opens a sanitized copy of the page, provided by your server, so I know there are no scripts or malware and crap. And if possible give me that sanitized preview when I hover over the page so if I'm lucky I don't have to click on anything at all.

I know sites wouldn't like it but just saying what I'd like to see that I think is technically possible. Thanks for listening!

Regular expressions

[jlockard]

I'd love to search using regular expressions, failing that, at least a much more precise way of indicating what must and must not be in the returned results.