Comments on: New search engine launches, sucks http://johnmccollum.co.uk/2008/07/28/new-search-engine-launches-sucks/ Thoughts on web development, social media, the internet, and computers in general. Tue, 06 Jan 2009 02:48:19 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: Bill http://johnmccollum.co.uk/2008/07/28/new-search-engine-launches-sucks/comment-page-1/#comment-58 Bill Wed, 30 Jul 2008 00:37:24 +0000 http://johnmccollum.co.uk/?p=29#comment-58 I think it's kinda lame, but maybe I'm missing something. I think it’s kinda lame, but maybe I’m missing something.

]]> By: Josh http://johnmccollum.co.uk/2008/07/28/new-search-engine-launches-sucks/comment-page-1/#comment-57 Josh Tue, 29 Jul 2008 11:05:30 +0000 http://johnmccollum.co.uk/?p=29#comment-57 I tried it out yesterday, and although the About section didn't work (It does now), it was the least of my problems. I did a few searches, the first for one of my websites, which returned results #1 and #2 (the only two results), and the cache for it was over 10 months old. Earlier today, I tried searching for my name, which returns my blog on any other search engine, returned nothing about me at all. The same for my nickname. They say that index more than Google, but it really doesn't seem so. It's destined to fail, and the design is ugly. I tried it out yesterday, and although the About section didn’t work (It does now), it was the least of my problems. I did a few searches, the first for one of my websites, which returned results #1 and #2 (the only two results), and the cache for it was over 10 months old. Earlier today, I tried searching for my name, which returns my blog on any other search engine, returned nothing about me at all. The same for my nickname. They say that index more than Google, but it really doesn’t seem so. It’s destined to fail, and the design is ugly.

]]> By: Charles http://johnmccollum.co.uk/2008/07/28/new-search-engine-launches-sucks/comment-page-1/#comment-56 Charles Tue, 29 Jul 2008 02:41:29 +0000 http://johnmccollum.co.uk/?p=29#comment-56 Tried it for a few searches this afternoon and I have to agree, the results weren't anything new and the fact that they didn't even have a complete website (about us missing) made it look like they were not ready to go yet. I'm willing to give them sometime because not every website is perfect the first time it goes live. I'll wait and see if they make the changes/improvements necessary to make them and alternate to Google. Tried it for a few searches this afternoon and I have to agree, the results weren’t anything new and the fact that they didn’t even have a complete website (about us missing) made it look like they were not ready to go yet. I’m willing to give them sometime because not every website is perfect the first time it goes live. I’ll wait and see if they make the changes/improvements necessary to make them and alternate to Google.

]]> By: Nick http://johnmccollum.co.uk/2008/07/28/new-search-engine-launches-sucks/comment-page-1/#comment-55 Nick Mon, 28 Jul 2008 22:29:19 +0000 http://johnmccollum.co.uk/?p=29#comment-55 It seems alright to me. I have a pretty fast computer, so rendering the images might take less time than on yours, but the number of images on a simple search is still too many. I agree that the layout of the results page is pretty confusing, but at least it looks nice and arranges itself without any errors. It also seems like it's piggybacking on Google for a bunch of things (the search too?). I would give it a few months and see if it gets better... it still seems to be in early stages. It seems alright to me. I have a pretty fast computer, so rendering the images might take less time than on yours, but the number of images on a simple search is still too many. I agree that the layout of the results page is pretty confusing, but at least it looks nice and arranges itself without any errors. It also seems like it’s piggybacking on Google for a bunch of things (the search too?).

I would give it a few months and see if it gets better… it still seems to be in early stages.

]]>