What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Check out new footage. view!
DragonAge.BioWare.com - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
52 Comments
- DoctaStooge, on 10/12/2007, -1/+29"25 Helpful Search Engines You're Not Using Yet"
"25 Helpful Search Engines You're Not Using Ever"
There, fixed the title for you. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+18Google does the job just fine.
- playerslight, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10I know this should help my productivity increase, somehow...
And yet, I just wasted half an hour searching for random search strings and comparing results between engines. - >mark, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10firefox search bar does everything
- GoneSouth, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12On the contrary, I've been increasingly dissatisfied with Google's search results lately. It seems pay-for-play works out great for Google's bottom line, but doesn't really help me find relevant content. I'd really like to see functionality to filter splogs and link sites, and maybe a rating system so other users can rate usefulness of links / pages.
- jcs_goog, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Nice list. Looks decent, but I'll stick with Google for 98% of my searching needs. Some of these might be nice for special purpose searching. And we all know about Google Custom Search. People can now make Google searches better. Here's one I put together that has a Disney theme to it:
http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=006795215486637847381%3A2rvbbczifgm - TDot1980, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Heathen! What is this "library" and what are these "books" you speak of?! Sorcery, witchcraft, to be sure!
- Nougat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Google and Yahoo only search a fraction of the web? As far as I'm concerned, the only part of the web they're not searching is the crappy part that doesn't have anything that I want to look at.
- 52tease, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6That's right, I forgot how good a job Google does of searching the deep web and that Wikipedia is completely reliable and accurate.
/sarcasm - GawtMilk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Right click on wikipedia search bar.
"Add Keyword For This Search"
Name: wikipedia
Keyword: w
Create in : Bookmarks
Right click on google search bar.
"Add Keyword For This Search"
Name: google
Keyword: g
Create in : Bookmarks
YOU'RE DONE! It takes me about half a second to search for something. Why would I want to even use these search engines? Google does it fine. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4That is creepy.
- SamKellett, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Just to be pedantic, but Google don't make their billions from searches, they make it from advertising.
- TheThirdRider, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4well, unless they were capable of searching the entire internet, then they only search a fraction of it. why do people always use "fraction" as a term to denote small? 998/1000 is a fraction and its not a small portion.
maybe its because 7/6 of people don't understand fractions. :P - TDot1980, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4^^ MY EYES!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5"The search bar, it does nothing!"
- JaredRR, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4http://ChaCha.com If you don't like the results, hit search with a guide and get a human. :)
- maeon3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Visit a library. I am always surprised that I can find things in books that I would have never bumped into on the net.
- tybris, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3AJAX whois is certainly the crappiest, most annoying whois I've ever seen.
Whonu just scared me off, it's Web 2.0 meets Web 0.1.
I've head enough for one day...Dugg down. - intense321, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Umm.. I'm already using at least 25% of these engines already. Try again..
- Mantees, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2http://www.similicio.us/ has been diggeffected indirectly
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Here's one that does something no other search engine does -- finds companies by the products they make.
http://www.zapconnect.com
Think Google can do this? Try trying to find makers of catheter balloons in Google. - rompom7, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2If Google can't find what I'm looking for (rarely) I use Clusty.
(btw, Snap is pretty cool if you know what you are looking for)
@timmertc: Snap doesn't seem as clumsy as Ujiko. - Catchpen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2and Firefox gets a portion of the ad profits when the FF search bar is used
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Damn, those visual search engines are badass.
- Dolemite, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Re name this article "25 Search engines, some of which are using Google/Yahoo/MSN for search results".
- johnnykwest, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Useful if Linux is your thing -> http://google.com/linux
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Getty Image Search is so ***** great!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1http://greensear.ch donates ad revenue to environmental non-profits. It's google, but better for the earth ;)
- bsander, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2It's a shame duggmirror caught it, otherwise someone might throw in a Google cache URL.
- kuklaa, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1http://oedb.org/library/college-basics/research-beyond-google
This article talks a little more about the "Deep Web" or "Invisible Web", and it features some more searching methods. - barrylefarge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Great. More search engines. Doesn't google do a good enough job? I guess some people don't think so.
- semengilligan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1vdoogle looks like it would be great for finding videos now that youtube and google seem to play by the rules now.
- bebop717, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Damn all these are freaking slow compared to google.
- DanThe1Man, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Does anyone know a search engine that flat out ignores robots.txt ?
- webcrumb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1http://www.google.co.uk/search?&q=makers+of+%22catheter+balloons%22
Nolato, perhaps?
(Bearing in mind I'm not a medical person and don't spend my time searching for medial supplies) - FnordBob, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Any specialized search engine list which doesn't include http://www.cthuugle.com/ is incomplete
- atticus8, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Ironically, this list would better serve readers if they did a little editing, removed the 18 stupidest ones, and then gave us 7 really good ones that some of us had a chance of using.
- webcrumb, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Meh. If you don't like Google use SearchMash instead...
http://searchmash.com/
(Yes. That's the joke, before someone replies.) - LeftClickSaveAs, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0WEB 2.0!!!!! you say! So what exactly is that supposed to mean, these are search engines that will let me upload videos of people getting hit in the crotch, then vote on and Digg each search result while blogging about it to my VRML podcast feed using Ruby on Rails?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Why isn't searchjerk.com on the list?
- derekfranklin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I happen to like Whonu, but then again, I'm biased, since I'm the developer. :)
- useapi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Note that a little over haft of the online searchers are using Google to search.
http://searchtheweb2.blogspot.com/2007/02/rankings-top-100-alternative-search.html - useapi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Some of these 25 search engines are not on this list. A forgotten list!
http://searchtheweb2.blogspot.com/2007/02/rankings-top-100-alternative-search.html - JasonFilby, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Still a work in progress, but thought I'd plug my own meta-search engine: Keywop - http://www.keywop.com/
- timmertc, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1If Google doesn't find what I'm looking for, I use Ujiko. If I can't find it there, I sometimes try dogpile.
- LeftClickSaveAs, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Very true, however, until I see a search engine that rivals Google's simplicity and effectiveness, I'll continue using it exclusively.
It's always good to have alternatives, and different search engines for different purposes, but I really abhor the whole "Web 2.0" trend of making things "better" by adding a bunch of irritating features and calling them improvements.
A lot of these sites seem to be forgetting something very important: most people using search engines want one thing, and that is to get at the information as quickly as possible. Interactive Flash menus and plugins that allow you to dynamically upload your Youtube videos to the blogosphere, or whatever, do not help you get at information more quickly, they are obstructions.
From the link: "Many of the new search engines use the modular functionality of Web 2.0: mash together several services and add new features." Mash together several services and end up with a hideous mess, more likely. Case in point: Fundoo Web. Why should I wait 15 seconds for the front page to load, when in that same timeframe, I could pull up Google, get thousands of results, and more than likely find what I want? Sites like this take a step backward by assuming that more "features" are better. - derekfranklin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0We live in a world where:
* People get there news from more than 1 source
* People eat at more than 1 restaurant
* People buy there clothes at more than 1 store
* People have more than 1 favorite Website about any given topic
* People have more than 1 best friend
* Etc.
Is there room for more than 1 search engine other than Google?
Absolutely!
While it does a great job, it's by far the answer to the universe, and if it's all you're using, you're missing out on a LOT of great content online.
Derek - JaneMay, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2The 3.5 billion dollars that Google brings in is evidence enough that they're the ones I should be using...
- techfish, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2http://duggmirror.com/offbeat_news/25_Helpful_Search_Engines_You_re_Not_Using_Yet/
-
Show 51 - 53 of 53 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is