Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Search 2.0 vs. Traditional Search

Posted by timothy on Thu Jul 20, 2006 08:06 AM
from the for-all-that-2.0-stuff-you-lost dept.
The Internet IT
ReadWriteWeb writes "Ebrahim Ezzy reviews 5 new third-generation search technologies — and how they compare to the big guns of Google, Yahoo and MSN. These so-called "search 2.0" companies are combining the scalability of existing internet search engines with new and improved relevancy models; they bring into the equation user preferences, collaboration, collective intelligence, a rich user experience, and many other specialized capabilities. The new search engines profiled are Swicki, Rollyo, Clusty, Wink and Lexxe." Note, as the article points out, that the author has developed yet another search engine, called Qube.
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Search 2.0 vs. Traditional Search 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Not so stunning results for the "next generation" (Score:5, Funny)

    by elrous0 (869638) * on Thursday July 20 2006, @08:08AM (#15749161)
    Well, I tried out the "Search 2.0" Lexxe, the one that "does what TSE's already do, but more efficiently."

    I asked it a simple question. And it responded. Here is the efficient answer that must surely have Google quaking in its boots:

    Lexxe (alpha version) has just encountered a system or internal connection problem, due to too many users using it now.

  • Interesting choice of names (Score:5, Funny)

    by Burb (620144) on Thursday July 20 2006, @08:09AM (#15749163)
    My confident prediction for search 3.0 engines will be TinkyWinky, Dipsi, Lala and Po.

  • I say! (Score:5, Funny)

    by isecore (132059) <isecore AT isecore DOT net> on Thursday July 20 2006, @08:09AM (#15749164) Homepage
    Well, I'm off to eat Food 2.0 now and after that I'm going to Take A Dump 2.0

    Am I the only one who's getting tired of this trend of tagging on 2.0 to everything? It's stupid. Searching is still essentially the same way as before, it's not like a magic robot comes out of the screen or anything.
    • I agree, "Search 2007" would have been much better than "Search 2.0". Afterall, we are about to enter the Vista-age.
    • I think you misspelt your verbs:
      TummyFillr 2.0 beta
      ToiletFillr 2.0 beta

    • It's not quite as annoying as the previous (and sadly still lurking around) trend of putting "e" in front of everything.

      Hmmm, that gives me an idea. Maybe I could start a new company....... eSearch 2.0! Everyone will be all like, "whoa, forget Google, forget the boring old Search 2.0 companies, THIS guy's doing it electronically!"

    • Agreed... Where the hell is Porn 2.0?!

      • Re:I say! (Score:5, Funny)

        by jZnat (793348) * on Thursday July 20 2006, @11:42AM (#15750772) Homepage Journal
        I thought the increasing amount of amateur porn was pr0n 2.0, and that started before Web 2.0. Porn; ahead of the game as always.

        I know! I could create a Porn 2.0 website called fuckhr! Or fuckr. You post your own home-made amateur porn movies, and you tag them with tags like "hardcore", "bj", "cumshot", and "anal"! Then anyone could just search for specific tags and find some good (hopefully) amateur porn to fit their specific fetishes.

        Y'know, this almost seems like a good idea...

      • Re:I say! (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Mant (578427) on Thursday July 20 2006, @09:17AM (#15749659) Homepage

        All the op said was the "2.0" tag was stupid, not the content. I happen to agree, what the hell does "search 2.0" mean? Or "web 2.0"? If you want to actually discuss a technology or approach then fine, but these terms are so vague they don't actually mean anything at all.

        Its just marketing and hype.

        • Re:I say! (Score:4, Insightful)

          by TrippTDF (513419) <hiland AT gmail DOT com> on Thursday July 20 2006, @10:00AM (#15749922)
          I agree that buzz words like Web 2.0 sound lame, but they can loosely explain ideas that are not fully formed... Just as the "Information Superhighway" got used way too much as the internet was gaining momentum, I think "Web 2.0" will get used in a similar way, to describe an idea where the scope is too great to be explained in concrete terms.

          As for throwing "2.0" at the end of everything, it will happen, and it will be inaccurate to the /. crowd, but it will be beneficial for a lot of people not "in the know".

          As mush as we might hate to admit it, the business types that will use this term all the time are just as nessiary as the techies in advancing stuff.
        • Yes, the "2.0" is stupid.

          But in this case, so is the "content" of the article. Example:

          Traditional search engines are based on information retrieval technologies. They implement operations such as boolean queries, proximity searches, text relevance and link analysis.

          So, that defines the current systems. That's a good start. So what makes these other systems "2.0"?

          To explain the generations:

          I don't care about the generations, explain what makes the new stuff "2.0" instead of "1.0". Instead he's covering what

  • Its all good (Score:4, Funny)

    by Timesprout (579035) on Thursday July 20 2006, @08:10AM (#15749167)
    As long as "Lesbian Porn" return plenty of varied and releveant hits

  • no one gives a fuck (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Turn-X Alphonse (789240) on Thursday July 20 2006, @08:11AM (#15749176) Journal
    Move along nothing to see here. People don't want flash based 2.0 web searchs, they want to use a search engine as a spring board. You hop on and 2 clicks later you hop off to your location. When you start adding an interface beyond basic input and 12 million adverts around it (hello yahoo), you lose the entire point of using a search engine to find what you want quickly.

    Keep it clean and keep it simple, that's all you need for a good interface in most cases.
    • While I agree with what you're generally saying, I have to say that yahoo is my second choice after google, its results actually often seem to be much more up to date than google these days. If it wasn't for the interface, it might actually be in the running as my 1st choice search engine.
    • Flash based search? Which of the sites mentioned in the article use flash? Secondly, ignore the 2.0 branding crap, it's a simple way for PR people to get the idea of "New and Improved" across. Google is great and all, but something tells me that people aren't patient enough to sift through the results to find what they want. However, search engines like Swiki and Wink that allow users to contribute to the results can greatly increase the possibility of finding what you want.
    • You're missing the whole point. "Web 2.0" does generally refer to Ajax and more interactive user interfaces, but that's not what this guy means by "Search 2.0", namely new and improved relevancy models, user preferences, collaboration, collective intelligence and, a rich user experience. In other words, it's about improving search results. The only one possibly relevant to your complaint is "rich user experience," but even so I don't know how you got "ads" from that. Really, you're complaining about the
        • I actually did not quote Maddox anywhere in my post, so I do not understand how I am using his words instead of my own. As a matter of fact, I did not use any of his words at all! I made a sarcastic remark in my own words and indicated that there exists an article that extends my viewpoint with which I agree.

          Here is something that he has never talked about but I consider a huge issue: people with disabilities cannot use a lot of this "2.0" crap. I have a hard enough time reading the skewed letters and

  • ...comes the new rage that's sweeping the Internet: Search 2.0! Yes, you've enjoyed Search 1.0 for years but now there's the new and improved Search 2.0! It does all the smae things, but different! No more time-consuming Googling for things -- with Search 2.0, you can have your results in about the same time and have them be remarkably similar!

    If they think slapping a fancy title on it will spark everyone to transition to their new search products, they should think again. I suspect Google will simply roll out there 2.0 option at some point and kick everyone else's butt.

    • Last time I checked, Google was at 2.1 already.
    • If they think slapping a fancy title on it will spark everyone to transition to their new search products, they should think again. I suspect Google will simply roll out there 2.0 option at some point and kick everyone else's butt.

      None of the search engines use the term "Search 2.0." That's the author of the article. I agree it's stupid, but you're blaming the wrong party.

  • Buzzwords (Score:5, Insightful)

    by revery (456516) * <charles AT cac2 DOT net> on Thursday July 20 2006, @08:15AM (#15749199) Homepage
    Note, as the article points out, that the author has developed yet another search engine, called Qube.

    Apparently he's also working on Buzzword 2.0.
    From the Qube home page: AdRoll program aims to enable a new medium that allows free, point based advertising in a proactive manner

    With synergy! Concordantly!! Vis-a-vis!!!

  • You know... (Score:5, Funny)

    by phlegmofdiscontent (459470) on Thursday July 20 2006, @08:15AM (#15749200)
    I just don't see any of these names becoming verbs.

  • ...written by someone who is actually working on the same technology for a rival company to the ones listed in the article. There's an unbiased piece of reporting for you!

  • Uh oh ... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jc42 (318812) on Thursday July 20 2006, @08:18AM (#15749217) Homepage Journal
    ..., a rich user experience, ...

    Well, right there's one of the warning phrases.

    One of the big reasons for google's success is that it doesn't give you a "rich user experience". The main web page is utterly plain and simple. You type in a word or phrase. You get back a page with a lot more text, but its layout is again simple and obvious. Granted, you can click the "advanced search" and see something more complicated. But they've carefully hidden the "rich user interface" behind something that's simple and obvious.

    Google's ads are an example of the same. No "rich" ads; just small, unobtrusive chunks of text. Nothing distracting and annoying, so people don't look for ways to turn them off.

    I like wikipedia for the same reason. No flash or pizzazz; just simple, plain, easy to use, and informative.

    When I see something touted with a phrase like "rich user experience", my natural reaction (after more than a decade of web use) is to shudder and go on to something that's more likely to be useful and informative.

    • When I see something touted with a phrase like "rich user experience", my natural reaction (after more than a decade of web use) is to shudder and go on to something that's more likely to be useful and informative.

      Good point. The fact is, the state of web sites and web-driven applications is atrocious. People are taking the gaggle of new technologies available and abusing them, creating clunky interfaces, over-stuffed web pages, and garish sites where finding actual content is next to impossible. Google

  • Categories, duh (Score:4, Interesting)

    by 192939495969798999 (58312) <info@@@devinmoore...com> on Thursday July 20 2006, @08:20AM (#15749232) Homepage Journal
    No one seems to figure out that the next generation search engine will have to get specific first(patent pending), otherwise how does "bush" know where to go in the search results? It ought to show me a page in between results that says, which "bush" are you searching for? and then has 1 sample result from each "bush" related result group(patent pending). Oh, one other thing -- patent pending.

  • Clusty (Score:3, Informative)

    by PinkyDead (862370) on Thursday July 20 2006, @08:21AM (#15749239) Journal
    Ok... I was looking for something yesterday on Google, but couldn't find it.

    Tried out the clusty solution, and found what I was looking for very rapidly. TFA is correct it feels like a cross between Google and eBay.

    There something to that. I can see Google copying it.

    I didn't try the others because they looked like too much hassle. One of the original appeals of Google was the simplicity.

    • Re:Clusty (Score:3, Informative)

      by AlXtreme (223728)
      I've switched to using only Clusty last fall, and I must say that I rarely use Google anymore (only if I really can't find anything using Clusty, which happens about once or twice a month, or need Scholar). The clustering aspect of Clusty is useful, the privacy policy is straight and clear and the integrated Wikipedia search is a neat feature. And of course Google has become so mainstream that it's not hip to use it anymore.

      The only thing is that Clusty isn't something you can easily verb. I often 'google

  • Ah, "collective intelligence" (Score:4, Funny)

    by LiftOp (637065) on Thursday July 20 2006, @08:24AM (#15749259) Homepage
    ...Because none of us is as dumb as all of us. (http://despair.com/ [despair.com])

  • In Search Of... (Score:3, Funny)

    by digitaldc (879047) * on Thursday July 20 2006, @08:25AM (#15749263)
    Third-generation search technologies are designed to combine the scalability of existing internet search engines with new and improved relevancy models; they bring into the equation user preferences, collaboration, collective intelligence, a rich user experience, and many other specialized capabilities that make information more productive.

    Yes, but can they tell me where in the hell I left my car keys??

  • What About Collexis? (Score:3, Informative)

    by eldavojohn (898314) * <my/.username@@@gmail.com> on Thursday July 20 2006, @08:29AM (#15749297) Homepage Journal
    I built prototype search software that revolved around a product called Collexis. It has a medical demo [collexis.net] you can mess around with. The beautiful thing is that it uses a taxonomy to fingerprint documents. It also takes in raw text and assigns it a fingerprint and then uses Sleepy Cat to quickly reference many records and match your fingerprint. Unfortunately, it's not built for "open" domains like everything on the web but works best when you have a finite domain and a large number of documents to search.

    I feel the author fails to even address the first thing he should have in this article. Why move from "Web 1.0" to "Web 2.0"? This article is not intuitively laid out.

    I found an article in Nature [nature.com] to be much more informative than the article linked in this story.

  • Niche search (Score:5, Informative)

    by blinder (153117) * <blinder DOT dave AT gmail DOT com> on Thursday July 20 2006, @08:30AM (#15749305) Homepage Journal
    while these are clever ideas, and do indeed provide a slightly different spin on the traditional search engine, I believe that they will not have much hope of ever taking a bite out of google or yahoo. I mean, I just went through the process of creating a Swicki, and while the interface is nice... it is a lot of work.

    I still think that the niche search engines are more viable not so much as alternatives to google or yahoo, but as an almost adjunct. Like the site I volunteer for, Diysearch.com, yeah it will never replace the majors, and it isn't intended to do, but because its subject-matter focused, the search results and relevancy are that much higher than what you'd get from a google or a yahoo.

    I have no idea if subject-matter focus is the most viable route in terms of focusing search results, but Diysearch.com has been around for a decade and its doing quite well.

  • Pretty interresting (Score:3, Funny)

    by smeuuh (830337) on Thursday July 20 2006, @08:30AM (#15749308)
    Just tried Lexxe
    Q : Who is the president of united states ?
    A : Armed forces

  • "Rich user experience" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Tx (96709) on Thursday July 20 2006, @08:32AM (#15749320) Journal
    they bring into the equation user preferences, collaboration, collective intelligence, a rich user experience, and many other specialized capabilities

    The only "rich user experience" I want from my search engine is to experience a set of results rich in accuracy, without any other bullshit. Unfortunately I suspect this guys idea of "rich user experience" is mostly the kind of crap I want to avoid.
  • Let's see... here it is... Search 2.0 requires Web 2.0 or higher. A bribe to your local government official may be required for neutral and/or faster access. Most credit cards and first-born children are accepted. If you broke the shrink wrap, you automaticaly agreed to these terms.

  • Geek Powerhouse? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by HisMother (413313) on Thursday July 20 2006, @08:34AM (#15749331)
    The "Qube" webpage calls the product a "Geek Powerhouse", which makes me laugh. The "About" page talks about "browserless search", which sounds a lot like adware to me; and in fact, that's exactly what it is -- you have to download a program to your local machine to use the service. The part that makes me laugh is that despite its being a "Geek Powerhouse", it's Windows-only; no Linux, no Mac OS X. "Search 2.0" apparently means "Now with 200% more evil!"

  • Bingo! (Score:3, Funny)

    by ABoerma (941672) on Thursday July 20 2006, @08:41AM (#15749384)
    • First-generation search ranked sites based on page content - examples are early yahoo.com and Alta Vista.
    • Second-generation relies on link analysis for ranking - so they take the structure of the Web into account.
    • Third-generation search technologies are designed to combine the scalability of existing internet search engines with new and improved relevancy models; they bring into the equation user preferences, collaboration, collective intelligence, a rich user experience, and many other specialized capabilities that make information more productive.
    Bingo! [bullshitbingo.net]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.