HN Explorer

Show HN: Million Short Day 2 and 171,686 unique searches later - Version 2 (millionshort.com)

34 points by taxonomyman ↗ HN
Thx to everyone for overwhelming support and feedback. We lauched V2 today on Day 2.

______Version 2 additions: (ordered by demand)

-Open search browser plug in

-Settings to Add sites (like Wikipedia.com back in)

-Settings to exlude even more sites

-favicon added

-Quick links to alter 'removal slices'

-Settings for Adult filtering

-Removed sites now in alpha sort order

______Quick stats:

171,686 Total Unique Searches

148,477 Absolute Unique Visitors

420,963 Pageviews

peaked at 1,500 concurrent users

+plus:

Got some HN Love

Got some Reddit Love

Got some Techcrunch Love

20 comments

[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 59.7 ms ] thread
taxonomyman
Thx to everyone for overwhelming support and feedback. We lauched V2 today on Day 2.

______Version 2 additions: (ordered by demand)

-Open search browser plug in

-Settings to Add sites (like Wikipedia.com back in)

-Settings to exlude even more sites

-favicon added

-Quick links to alter 'removal slices'

-Settings for Adult filtering

-Removed sites now in alpha sort order

______Quick stats:

171,686 Total Unique Searches

148,477 Absolute Unique Visitors

420,963 Pageviews

peaked at 1,500 concurrent users

+plus:

Got some HN Love

Got some Reddit Love

Got some Techcrunch Love

hello_asdf
Any chance you could add in some features of DuckDuckGo regarding privacy? Examples could be not tracking search history, not sending a referrer, etc.
pathdependent
I'm really curious to see how -- or, for you're sake, if -- the traffic decays. A front-page view on hackernews will generate that level of traffic with an exponential decay over the next few days. That being said, searches are different from views, in an exciting way for you.

I used it and bookmarked it for potential discovery searches in the future. It's a very interesting idea.

taxonomyman
Hard to say. The goal was to execute on an idea which seems to be both useful and unique. Get feedback, reiterate and improve. Rinse and repeat.
hello_asdf
I wrote a quick search addon for Firefox, so I plan on continuing to use it.
taxonomyman
Awesome. Would you be able to share? We'll post it to the site..
hello_asdf
Sure, it's pretty simple. I actually just took the icon from your search thing and added it to mine. The only difference between ours now is that I use the param tag so that it's not just one long url.

https://gist.github.com/2572530

riskish
is it using Google?
taxonomyman
Bing. We are working one some custom crawling/indexing to enhance.
sidman
I searched a few things, one being the project im working on now and i discovered very interesting things that lead me to book mark the results. One of the results even made me laugh and one lead me to some information i had no idea about ! Its an interesting project and i book marked your URL to discover things i normally might not so great job. I guess just like the physical world the deeper and deeper you go the more interesting and weird are the results.

BTW have you written your own crawlers and indexers ?

taxonomyman
Thx. Yes, many crawlers and indexers. Many.
snarkinatree
The need to have Wikipedia in search engine results is perplexing. Why not just search Wikiepdia? It is certainly not slower. They even provide SSL.

Is it the lack of full text search on Wikipedia?

I've experimented with building a full-text search for Wikipedia. But so much of the content is just copied verbatim from the sites listed in the References and External Links, it seems not worth the effort.

3pt14159
Because Google is better searching Wikipedia than Wikipedia is.
snarkinatree
Can you provide an example search that demonstrates this?

If Wikipedia had full-text search, with a results page that looked like Google, and it was as fast as Google, would you use it?

Consider that Wikipedia is not, AFAIK, collecting your search data to serve you advertisements.

I have found that there's very few Wikipedia pages I can't pull up with a Wikipedia "search" that I could only get with a Google search.

e.g. [your browser] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/search_term =one step

versus

[your browser] http://www.google.com/search?q=search_term then finding the right result and clicking it =two steps

joejohnson
It took me a while to realize that these search results were omitting the top 1 million sites, not the top 1 million results for a given query.
ojr
You are not alone ;)
SpaceDragon
I've been happy with the results, and may even make this my default search engine. Heck, I could use a change.
molsongolden
Just made it my default search in Chrome. Going to give it a shot for this week then report back.