Ask HN: Who is building a new kind of search engine?
In PG's Frighteningly Ambitious Startup Ideas essay he talks at length about building a new kind of search engine. I was curious, who is working on this angle and makes your search engine innovative?
47 comments
[ 3.7 ms ] story [ 99.7 ms ] threadAs far as I know, nobody is building a new kind of search engines, although I'd guess that a new kind of search engine won't really look like a search engine at first.
https://www.ixquick.com is also another alternative to DDG, doing much of the same thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ixquick
* edited for autocorrect errors
http://blekko.com/
http://s.xqz.ca/
Unlikely I know, but their access to true real-time data presents interesting possibilities I think.
Specifically http://www.verticalset.com/extensions
And build your own here
http://www.verticalset.com/extensions/new
Later on we plan to build a consumer facing website/search engine, essentially a front-end for our api, once we have moved into building large indexes around people and places (the two other verticals we are targeting)
http://rssident.com/mash/?t=job&e=telecommute|remote
http://rssident.com/mash/?t=job&e=java
http://rssident.com/mash/?e=venture|VC|funding
http://rssident.com/mash/?t=reuters
http://rssident.com/mash/?t=pole
I've hired a freelancing coder to do some "wrapping up" so I could show the prototype but it is over a month now and still I haven't heard from him.
I do not want to engage too much time and resources into this (hiring stationary coders) but this really is the search engine that is closest to disrupting Google and Bing.
I believe that slashtags and bangs and non-spam results are not the way to go, my search engine tries a different route altogether which those two big engines ( Google and Bing ) couldn't probably adopt because they are simply too big.
I can produce results semi-manually and all I need is automation for that method but the coder I've hired, stopped responding over a month ago.
I really see big future in it but I do not want to invest too much effort and money into something so risky.
I wish I could show you what it is all about but it would reveal too much. And without the automated prototype, some good coder could simply copy it in like 2 weeks.
I believe that for $10000 I could present a really basic prototype of something that is disruptive to Google and Bing and if it isn't I think nothing will ever be.
People are used to the way Google works. If they(Google) tried to adopt this new way, I am sure many people would resign / change their provider. But still for many people, it would be a better experience.
I think there is still huge room for innovation in search. Google has taken a different track, and they're focusing on Machine Intelligence. (in my opinion) search is just a nice side effect, but I really don't think it's their focus any longer.
It might be too much work just to see if it is useful but I'm thinking they have a ton of data about where everyone goes on the web because the Like button is so pervasive. Why not use that data to make search extremely personalized?
Reasons why I like this:
1) It's not like anyone currently uses facebook for search, they literally have nothing to lose.
2) It would be interesting to see if the aphorism, "Show me your friends and I'll show you your future" holds up.
3) It's data that google doesn't have access to, unless G+ takes off.
4) It would be cheaper to crawl the web, essentially your users are your web crawlers.
Take the same graph theory algorithms used for backlinks and apply it to views and instead of page rank use time that their friends spend on the site.
Then you can do some interesting stuff like weight the page rank more heavily for individuals you interact with more.
Or super creepy (but statistically interesting) stuff could be done like if you want someone to reconnect with a friend they haven't spoken to in a while, weight the "long lost friend's" pages more heavily. Essentially, influence people to talk to each other by converging their data about the world.
EDIT: Another thought - if websites know that they're only admission into the search engine is putting a Like button on their page it gives them an incentive to do so.
http://drift.io
I think it strips out the top however many results you get from google. It can possibly (depending on the search), get rid of SEO heavy results that don't have much useful content.
Digest is not a normal search engine, but an XML description language to tell a spider where to find what on a web layout. Its aimed on the dark side of the internet, able to login on website, use cookies, and even delegate captcha solving.
The main problem of Digest is that its maintenance intensive because websites are changing layouts regularly. The idea of a Digest for the masses would be an open source distributed search engine, that runs on normal peoples web servers. So every (power) user has access to the search engine itself.
My problem, and question to this audience is: How to make money with such an project? The only idea I have currently is kickstarter.
It's part search/discovery part social, and is trying to solve the problem that all the opinions shared in places like Twitter/Facebook aren't preserved, aggregated or made useful outside of the social graph.
We organize opinions around topics, make people weigh in on topics with a binary rating system (cheer or boo) and use the cheers/boos to give each topic a "RottenTomatoes-style" score. Let us know your thoughts - we love feedback.
1. Give immediate visual after clicking the cheer/boo buttons. It can take a few seconds for the loading icon and comments to appear, so having the button lighten or change at all would let me know that it is in fact working.
2. Show the number of comments on each subject so that users have an idea of how popular a subject is at a glance without loading the comments.
3. Add a setting to not automatically load comments after cheer/boo -ing.
www.unscatter.com
I use it to keep up to date with topics on a regular basis and also when searching for recent info on topics
I haven't heard about common crawl mentioned in another comment, going to go check that out now.
I don't think that we need better search algorithms for search engines. I think we just need more filters in the internet. With filters I mean more specialized search engines who are not crawling everything. If I am typing in "Spring" into the search field, I am not interested in "Spring", I am interested in the spring framework. But because most of the people on this planet are not software developers and Google don't know that I am a developer, the spring framework will not be the first result on google.
Of course we need general search engines like google. But I would love to use more specialized search engines who are just showing results to a special topic.
I would like to hear your thoughts about this.
That probably explains why search engine space is dominated by a few power players, with newer players like DuckDuckGo being used by only a dedicated bunch of fans.
http://archify.com - What You See Is What You Search is your private search engine for web/FB/TW/email/..
Disclaimer: I'm archify team member