What is Digg?Sponsored by Double Your Dating
The Best Way To Get A Woman To Pick YOU Up view!
doubleyourdating.com - Hereâs how to get any woman to start a conversation with you. Can you say "Bye bye rejection..."???
54 Comments
- colindunn, on 10/10/2007, -2/+51i could have ***** a better description
- toolegittoquit, on 10/10/2007, -0/+24This term "the _____ killer" is really starting to get old.
- toxicityj, on 10/10/2007, -0/+21I misread the title and thought there was some killer on the loose using Google to find his victims >.>
- ThinkBox, on 10/10/2007, -0/+18Searched.
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=google+killer&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 - baldr, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13you're right. I am going to search for a phrase that can replace it... I will call it the '_____ killer' killer.
- MasterThief117, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10I have seen so many articles on how there are better search engines than Google. None of them seem to have caught on.
- wildfire, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10*Hands colindunn a can of alphabet soup*
- OBKenobi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4That's going to be a new Japanese horror movie soon.
People type in a forbidden word in a search engine and two days later a ghost shows up in their house and burns them alive with a George Foreman grill. - edstate, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I burried your comment so the chances of someone stealing your pretty good ideas is just a *tad* lower.
- Kitsune818, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3This isn't a new idea, and it fails horribly once someone starts spamming the system and moving those links higher in the search. Follow the though train now, in such a system, if that happened, what would you do? Try to spot spammers.. How? Figure out which actions are spam and which arent.. and if you could do that, you don't need your idea in the first place, and everyone is doing needless, annoying work.
Also, when you study UI design, you find out more than half the people wouldn't bother to resort the results. They'd just think "I didn't get what I wanted" and move on. Good idea though, if you had honest people, but humans just aren't like that. - Trippin113, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2doesn't anyone realize, that if another company ever looked like it could pose a serious threat to google.....google would buy them out before they could ever get too big.
- wbtn, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Mother in law, she knows f****** everything
- sgtbutterscotch, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Why would you unleash your idea unto the whole world just now?
- Cole2026, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2What is up with this obsession with the word "Killer". From now on, every Digg article with anything "killer" is going to be dugg down as LAME.
- aerogant, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2The only way searching can get better is an increase in artificial intelligence. That is, I talk to the computer about what I'd like to know and it asks me questions in order to narrow down what it is, I am looking for.
- Kitsune818, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2The google killer will be an app that doesn't send you to a site to get the info you want, it just tells you. "Whats the screen resolution of the Vizio VX42LHDTV?" "1366x768" "Who has it cheapest shipped to 39292, US?" "www.somesite.com/linktoit" That's a big difference from NLP. NLP would just return links to other sites based on human friendly search strings.
- fpcyber, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4With companies like Ask being innovative. Who knows what will happen next.
- heavystone, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Want a better search engine. Use "dogpile.com" is has implemented the most popular ones into one. Its awsome.
- DesuKN, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2If there is a Google killer, Google will buy it.
- Drexus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"Searching For The Google Killer"
If you have to go looking for it. It will never be a "killer" - rudy23, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2not gonna happen
- Metasquares, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1This is actually pretty doable using standard machine learning techniques. The trick, as the other poster pointed out, is context, but we can get a good approximation of that using association rule mining.
- wwwdot1jesdotus, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Why do we need a Google killer? Can't we just use google? It's not like it costs money to search.
- kdoig, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1They'll be a company eventually who won't sell out at easily as you would.
- kdoig, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1your first idea sounds great, i've been looking for a side project to do. I think I might called it 'Doigle'
- akatherder, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I'll write a killer app so you can filter that phrase out.
- jeanmaxime, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1client=safari... lol, here is the exact same page : http://www.google.com/search?q=google+killer&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=com.ubuntu:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
19,600,000 results by the way ^^ - 0two, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I'll probably get dugg down like crazy for this... but Windows Live Search is pretty good, actually better than Google at times. I usually use it as a secondary search, and many times it actually does better.
- RobotCitizen, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1It's "shat", isn't it?
"I could have shat a better description." - TomFrost, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I've been using something similar for awhile.. and it's by google. I got dragged to a chick flick with my girlfriend and wanted to know how long it was going to last, so I txted 'what is the running time for _________' to google's SMS line at GOOGL, and it txted back the answer. The tech is there, but it's still very young.
- TomFrost, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Windows live search looks good. But search for "linux" or "google" in it, and compare the number of results to what google finds. Even funnier, look at what the results are. Last I checked, Microsoft kept the "Open source is not a good idea" articles at the top of those kinds of searches. I prefer a search engine that doesn't try to censor me or sway my opinion.
- Metasquares, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Not that search is a perfectly solved problem to begin with! There's still a lot of room for improvement.
- iChaz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Who said google was anywhere near dead?
- Metasquares, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1It isn't as if he was the first one to think of it. I had the Wikisearch idea myself, but didn't have the time or desire to go through the implementation and deal with the issue of abuse. The other idea relies on his site itself having a very high pagerank.
- orvtech, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1the hispanic people allready have one http://www.usaelputogoogle.com try to use that to search for th3 killa
- Joscarfas, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I don't think there will be a Google killer as long as Google have the money to buy them out.
- lujoko, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1i think kartOO is really cool, but it's not very practical. nice to look at, though. http://www.kartoo.com/
- JoeDonH, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1While I kinda get where they're coming from regarding the (re)search angle (in all of their cute parenthetical prefixing and my ironic parenthetical observation of such), I don't think this is where the next step in search will be. There are already many ways out there to "follow up" on what you've searched for if you're already a Google user. If you're not, well maybe not so much, but this article is targeting Google, so that is the lead I'm following. If you have a Google account, you can already go back and search via http://www.google.com/psearch and search through your queries via the integrated history search. You can also use Google Notebook to mark your web (re)search as you go and reference it, not to mention a ton of different options out there outside of Google that help you retrace your steps in the online world. Fact is, there are a ton of ways to follow up on what you were searching for, what you found, and tons of minutia that most people aren't even interested in.
My best and completely uneducated guess as to what "alternative" browsing technologies will focus on is the individual. Knock "Web 2.0" all you want, but the fact is that people are really starting to put themselves out there on the tubes, and they are going to want a way to narrow in on themselves and those they're interested in. John Doe, who's made a bunch of blog posts that only his friends realy read and track back to, posted some stuff on YouTube, commented on a ton of different message boards, has a profile on several social websites - that individual is going to want a way to find themselves and the people connected to them in a more concise manner. It's not so bad if this individual is xXxJdoerulez2139xXx and they keep that identity constant everywhere they have a presence online, because Google will index that stuff and they can find it with a little effort right now. However, if they've joined multiple sites under different user names, they're out of luck.
If technologies like OpenID catch on then it's easy enough for Google to index that perhaps - but that may never be fully adopted or supported (although, personally speaking, I hope it is). Honestly though, one of the biggest and one of the first trends many have ever encountered on the internet is "Googling" yourself. People want the easiest and fastest ways to find themselves and their friends "presence" on the web, and Google can be a maze right now unless you have some seriously detailed stuff out there, or you are at least semi-famous in some fashion or another. It's equally a very scary thing because people can find out a lot about you as it is right now, let alone if somebody comes up with the magic algorithm to accomplish such a feat.
All that said, I'm interested to see what becomes of Facebook. It seems to me that their methodology is what will become the new face (pun-tastic) of the kind of search I'm talking about, as opposed to what is now becoming the standard "Google" search (it is a verb in the dictionary now, so it's definitely a standard). I envision that people will go through Facebook, or whatever site ultimately wins the soul of the collected masses, as a portal to the internet and their your presence there. I say "presence" because it's more than your info, and Facebook is setting the precedent in information collection right now. Once you're presence is constructed and actively and thoroughly tracked, your habits, your interests, your searches, your friends, your friends interests, your friends searches... is the future of search technology, and I'm guessing Google's going to be in on that too.
Jesus, talk about losing yourself in a thought... dare I hit "Submit" to the fragile Digg comment system and lose this to the tubes forever? Meh, according to my theory, I'll just find it on Facebook later. - aerogant, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1They would need spiders that are able to comprehend what is on web pages (in different languages and visually). And categorize the page under sets of contexts. So that when a user asks to know something, it can then narrow down the contexts to what the user is looking for by asking questions, and then provide a summary of the available information and the actual web page sources for that information (not unlike a wikipedia kind of page).
- spect3r, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Searching for the "killer" killer.
- OBKenobi, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I've got a better idea, but I'm not dumb enough to disclose it here so that Jay Adelson steals it and sells it to Microsoft.
- alexray0, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Buried as inaccurate, Google is forever!!!
- aazn, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Safari?
- nacc, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0The only thing google needs is a more indepth filter.
- Philluminati, on 10/10/2007, -5/+5My idea is "Wikisearch" You start off with a simple search engine but people can "drag drop" the order of the search results as they see fit. Those changes are submitted back to Wikisearch (or Phillumina7i srch - how web 2.0!) and over time the results become more meaningful and helpful.
My other idea called "linxcentrl" is where everyone has a webpage on the internet and a button in their browser and for every article that gets, for lack of a better word...dugg (*now there's a clanger!*) it adds a link to from their webpage. Now ALL search engines who use links as a means of identifing popularity (inc. Google, Yahoo, Lycos) get slowly corrected. Therefore my system isn't a rival, nor a "social searching site" but an actual controller of other search engines! Good idea? - kdoig, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Google street maps!
- wildfire, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Was it Colonel Ballmer in the Internet with a chair?
- OBKenobi, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2I think Google has people tied to it because of the advertizing. They don't want to lose their precious SEO optimizations if the competition becomes popular.
Having said that, in all honesty, Yahoo search is about as Google these days. Even M$ Live isn't too bad, although I feel dirty just using it. Google is a bit over-rated, for the reason I mentioned above. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1SUCCESSFUL? :)
- Zakhran, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1I got me the Trace Buster Buster Buster!!
-
Show 51 - 55 of 55 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is