New Search Engine Takes "Dyve" Into the Dark Web 55
CWmike writes "DeepDyve has launched its free search engine that can be used to access databases, scholarly journals, unstructured information and other data sources in the so-called 'Deep Web' or 'Dark Web,' where traditional search technologies don't work. The company partnered with owners of private technical publications, databases, scholarly publications and unstructured data to gain access to content overlooked by other engines. Google said earlier this month that it was adding the ability to search PDF documents. In April, Google said it was investigating how to index HTML forms such as drop-down boxes and select menus, another part of the Dark Web."
so... (Score:5, Funny)
More tits and boobies (Score:5, Funny)
They're also looking into indexing images based on whether they contain boobies.
You mean like these boobies [wikimedia.org]? What about these great tits [wikimedia.org]? And would you tap that ass [wikimedia.org]?
Re:More tits and boobies (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Well if you consider that Moot only gives you 10 pages of it at a time, a service like Deepdyve will aggregate all that hard to reach stuff. Not that you'd want hard-to-reach porn... Whatever floats your boat!
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
But you don't need to sign up on 4chan...
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
created an account,.....as long as they return results a bit faster than getting you your user name and password to you.
Thank you for your registration.
Due to the wonderful interest that we have received, we will be sending out your username and password next week.
We hope you enjoy using DeepDyve, the research engine for the Deep Web!
Pay walls (Score:5, Informative)
The company partnered with owners of private technical publications, databases, scholarly publications and unstructured data to gain access to content overlooked by other engines.
I know why the other engines don't index these documents: they're behind pay walls. As the second link points out, Google already indexes (some) PDFs, but that doesn't help if the site doesn't want me to see the PDF. There are lot of topics, such as disability rehabilitation and linguistics, that I can't search for without Google returning a bunch of results from sites that require a subscription but to which my county library [acpl.info] doesn't subscribe. (A tip-off for these results is that "Cached" doesn't show up.)
Re:Pay walls (Score:5, Informative)
It appears this website ITSELF requires a subscription, the "beta" is free, the "pro" is not. Signing up for the beta will get you a registration page, followed by this helpful message:
"Due to the wonderful interest that we have received, we will be sending out your username and password next week.
We hope you enjoy using DeepDyve, the research engine for the Deep Web!"
Not impressed so far that they can't let me use the search for a week unless I pay them money. Don't fall for this scam.
Re:Ignore. (Score:5, Interesting)
And I need to login even if I want to search wikipedia???
Nice way to shoot yourself in the foot, guys.
At least you should offer a checkbox on the search page so that registered users get the payed content and anonymous users get what's out there for "free".
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Ignore. (Score:4, Funny)
Consider that at least 75% of the browsing public never gets much deeper than a Google image search for "cute puppies," or some such nonsense.
Yes, but you have to realize that some of that 75% is going to want to see MORE cute puppies they couldn't with just google image search.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Pay walls (Score:5, Insightful)
If they can't set up a registration system that can get someone registered in under a week then how good is the rest of it?
And what do they need my street address for?
Pass.
Re: (Score:2)
Google guidelines (Score:2)
"There are lot of topics, such as disability rehabilitation and linguistics, that I can't search for without Google returning a bunch of results from sites that require a subscription "
To me that's a breach of Google's own guidelines.
Here are Google's guidelines:
'Make pages primarily for users, not for search engines. Don't deceive your users or present different content to search engines than you display to users, which is commonly referred to as "cloaking."'
In 2006 they blacklisted BMW for breaching them:
Re: (Score:2)
As Google's user, I very rarely want to get search results for content that I can't access.
If you are still in university, you can access it: e-mail the URL to yourself and access it from a desktop computer inside the university library. I guess Google assumes that anybody who searches for what it thinks are scholarly topics is still in school and therefore has access to the school's subscription to JSTOR, Wiley, Elsevier, SpringerLink, and other closed-access scholarly journal sites that I see spamming the listings. But for those who have left school after finishing a degree, tough droppings. I'
Re: (Score:2)
2) Which universities are allowed access? I'll find it interesting and amazing if somehow all universities worldwide have access.
As it is, such results are useless and a big waste of time to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Which universities are allowed access?
Any library that subscribes to journals is allowed access to articles from those journals. In general, underfunded county libraries choose not to spend tax money on them, but libraries affiliated with universities that offer courses in those areas need the subscriptions for their students.
This means more spam (Score:2)
If the search engine can read source code, it can certainly parse out an email address.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This will certainly defeat the practice of obfuscating links with e-mail addresses in them, by using a picture link or "click here."
"Click here" still works: use a web form to send e-mail instead of disclosing an e-mail address that doesn't use a whitelist. And AFB has reported that a picture of an address doesn't work even for legitimate users of speech or braille browsers.
Most Prime (Score:1)
You have to pay?! (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know about you guys but I prefer not to have to sign up or use the "pro" version for my web searching needs.
In fact why do I have to sign up to web search anything?
Besides this thing looks like it just gets in your way [deepdyve.com].
Thanks, but it's not a google killer.
Re: (Score:2)
Because it searches stuff Google can't access because of pay barriers. I have to be on the college network to get at this stuff.
BTW, this is not especially revolutionary as Google Scholar from my university can search this stuff. Don't know quite how it works, but it seems to tie in with SFX and/or Metalib. Only it works much better than Metalib.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, familiarity makes me forget to clarify, that's SFX OpenURL software [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting, because I am about to go to my university to search for research papers, I shall have to give this a go.
Woo... (Score:2, Insightful)
Good news is I can finally PAY to be annoyed.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
'boobs anal pokemon glitch asians etc'
What the hell are you searching for again?
Riiiight. (Score:4, Funny)
In layman's term (Score:2, Funny)
basically it's like cavity search for the internet.
Dear DeapDyve: +1, PatRIOTic (Score:2, Insightful)
Login? to search a "dark net".
You are fucking kidding?
I was right about Tesla crashing. I'll make another prediction.
Deap Dyve out of business in 1 year.
Cheers,
Kilgore Trout
P.S. : get the Cyrillic fonts enabled. Russia is invading the U.S.S.A. Finally !!!
Re: (Score:2)
Try it (or not) (Score:1, Insightful)
I shall certainly try it out.
BUT, if it is anything like how badly Cuil went on its first week, it will fail.
Instantly, just by seeing the frontpage, i don't have high hopes.
You have to sign up?
Yes, i will try it, when i can be bothered signing up, WHICH would probably be never, as i will probably forget about it until the article posted here in a month saying how awful it is doing.
Google starts indexing scanned (!) PDFs (Score:5, Informative)
The summary is a bit misleading. Google has been indexing the textual parts of PDFs for a long time. According to the article they have now started indexing scans inside of PDF files, which requires OCR.
Google has been doing that for catalogs [google.com] for a while now, but OCRing large numbers of scans obviously requires a lot more resources.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Like... the amount of resources behind Google Book Search [wikipedia.org]?
No, a lot more than that. 3.000 books a day is great, but there are a lot more PDF files to be processed. And as usual, if you make a service work some of the time, people will complain, so Google probably took their Books and Catalogs experience and put it to work on a larger scale.
already Convert Scanned PDF Docs to TXT w/Google (Score:1)
Re:Lost me/Login (Score:2)
That was my first impression too
the last few new search engines that have been advertised here at /. all required a login/account just to search.
how F'ed up is that?
best thing ever or smoking crack? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm in the humanities so perhaps the experience of people in the sciences will vary. However, I'm not terribly impressed. It has potential but as it is there doesn't seem to be much that it offers that Google Scholar doesn't and it has things that don't seem to be of much use at all.
Most of my search results came from Sage Publishing which typically show up in Google Scholar results anyway. If the
Multiplication Problem..... (Score:2)
"In April, Google said it was investigating how to index HTML forms such as drop-down boxes and select menus, another part of the Dark Web."
-Great, now I can have 10,000 times more irrelevent search results to dig through!
Deep, NOT Dark!!! (Score:2)
There is a VERY big difference!
Google (Score:3, Insightful)