Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Accoona - How Does This Search Engine Rate?

Cliff posted more than 8 years ago | from the google-competition dept.


An anonymous reader asks: "How many of you have tried the new AI-based search engine, Accoona? How does it compare with the other big search engines (Google, MSN Search, Yahoo, etc)? In late 2004, the Associated Press reported that Bill Clinton helped launch the company behind the engine, which is also backed by the Chinese Government. The EETimesUK has another article which describes how the search engine is supposed to work." For those who have tried Accoona, how would you rate the accuracy of its results?

cancel ×


Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

To Be Honest (5, Funny)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 8 years ago | (#14912117)

I don't think I could remember the spelling.

I'd probably have to google for it.

Re:To Be Honest (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14912206)

Yeah, google. Or is it googol? I'll have to accoona for it.

Re:To Be Honest (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14912869)

I guess it could become very popular in Portugal, where accoona means, literally, 'the cunt':

"-Hey , I have to write a paper about some really obscure subject and I have no idea where to start looking. Any ideas?
-Sure! Take a look in 'the cunt', I usually find everything I need over there. Couldn't live without it, heh!

Re:To Be Honest (1)

Alex P Keaton in da (882660) | more than 8 years ago | (#14913072)

But who knew that the 7th most popular non adult web search in China is
Plastic flowerpot manufacturer... 005_03_29_001.jsp []
So easy-
1 make plastic flowerpots
2 Set up Chinese Language e commerce website
3 Profit

Re:To Be Honest (1)

jspoon (585173) | more than 8 years ago | (#14913247)

But who knew that the 7th most popular non adult web search in China is Plastic flowerpot manufacturer...

I'm inclined to think that this must be some weird fetish that they didn't catch. Not plastic flowerpots, but plastic flowerpot manufacturers.

It's Not Google (5, Insightful) (907022) | more than 8 years ago | (#14912118)

What response do you expect form Slashdot members?

Re:It's Not Google (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 8 years ago | (#14912477)

Yea, but Google doesn't have AI.
One day Accoona might wake up

Okay, enough with the jokes.
Was it just me, or are all the links through Overture? []

Re:It's Not Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14913444)

Yes, they are. Since I have mozilla setup to block overture junk...I guess I won't be using this search engine. Which, by the way is just as bad as google - it puts marketers, ads, and a bunch of corporate hoopla at the top of the list, and you must manually search through the results for any real content.

Re:It's Not Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14913799)

this companies only purpose is to have an IPO- classic pump and dump. They don't have any technology worth discussing- there is no AI and the alogrythyms are weak at best. Using basic search clustering techniques would have been a better effort

Never heard of it... (3, Insightful)

creimer (824291) | more than 8 years ago | (#14912138)

Why would I use a search engine that I never heard of, much less know how spell it's name. I have a hard time with Google and Yahoo as it is.

Re:Never heard of it... (3, Informative)

Anonymous Freak (16973) | more than 8 years ago | (#14912233)

Yeah, looks like a blatant piece of 'advertising by submitting to Slashdot' to me.

You think Accoona is bad... (1)

Jizzbug (101250) | more than 8 years ago | (#14912281)

Just wait till Kozoru [] releases the beta of their search engine (supposedly mid-April, according to a friend that works there).

Re:Never heard of it... (1)

luder (923306) | more than 8 years ago | (#14912735)

Back in 98, I'm pretty sure someone must have said the same thing about google...

Requires javascript to work (2, Insightful)

DrSkwid (118965) | more than 8 years ago | (#14912158)

so I think it is a stinking pile of shit

Re:Requires javascript to work (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14912246)

I completely agree. For me, javascript is a death-knell for Internet sites. (As are Flash, cookies, registration, DRM).

Oh, and for all the clueless webpage "coders" who wouldn't know user-friendly usability if it hauled off and slapped them in the head, all itchy at the keyboard ready to type such pithy clever-isms in response to yours and my posts such as, "Gee, the Internet for you must be a lonely place" ...

Guess what? It's not. It works just fine without your clueless webpages. It must be a lonely place for YOU, with all your 'leet Frontpage uber-"coder" skills, or whatever.

Re:Requires javascript to work (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14912369)

Wow! Javascript is the "death-knell"?

Here's a tip: Nobody gives a shit you (and other dingbats like you) consider a "death-knell". This is 2006, not 1996. It's time to put your semen-encrusted, VT100, Piece-Of-Shit-IX terminal away and join the new millennium. It would also help if you finally took a shower.

Re:Requires javascript to work (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Crowhead (577505) | more than 8 years ago | (#14912378)

You anti-javascript types seem really bitter. You can code all your functionallity in CGI if you want, but to abandon javascript and cookies. How do you have user accounts without cookies? Log in every page refresh? Use Apache authentication? That pop up user id/password is ugly, it blocks your site unless you have an account and it has no "log out" method. I just don't see anything beyond static web content with js and cookies unless it's horribly over programmed on the server side.

Re:Requires javascript to work (1)

MikeFM (12491) | more than 8 years ago | (#14913637)

Using Javascript is fine but a site should work without it whenever possible. The same for cookies, Java, Flash, CSS, etc. I use most of these but I go out of my way to make sure my website's will work without them. So long as it tries to work without these then I'm all for using them as needed to provide a good experience.

I think some people are insane with their complaining about cookies. Cookies are essentially harmless and aren't at all needed by website's to track you. Unless you switch IP addresses between every request I'm tracking you. I know where you live, where you're browsing on any of my websites (or associated websites), know when your looking, and unless you've hidden the details I know what platform and browser you're using and often what spyware you're infected with. None of this requires cookies. All that info is easy to get. What is more effort is keeping track of your session data properly if you don't use cookies. It's a real pain because it forces me to either track you by IP or to pass around some stupid session variable.

What kind of moderation is this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14912850)

You guys modded him flamebait? Observing that the site requires javascript and therefore is not useful to many Net users strikes one as insightful, not flaming.

Re:What kind of moderation is this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14913118)

Eat it, Pepe!

I'd have to say no... (4, Informative)

hacker (14635) | more than 8 years ago | (#14912167)

I just tried it with several of our OSS project pages (which rank PR7 or higher), and Accoona doesn't even list the main project homepage well into the 4th and 5th page of results. I gave up after that. Google, Yahoo and MSN all have the project pages as the first or second hit, across all three of those engines.

Re:I'd have to say no... (1)

Bogtha (906264) | more than 8 years ago | (#14912360)

That really doesn't say anything other than that this search engine differs from more traditional search engines. That could be true if it has severe deficiencies, or it could be true if it was significantly better than the others. It really depends on whether the pages you are talking about are most relevant to the particular keywords you used, for this search engine's intended audience.

Re:I'd have to say no... (1)

hacker (14635) | more than 8 years ago | (#14912465)

I searched for the projects, by name. Plucker [] for example..

Now try the same search in Accoona [] . I went well into the 4th and 5th page of results and STILL didn't find a link to the actual project page itself. In fact, there are 30,241 results returned, but I went onto the 14th page just now, and STILL not a single link to the project page.

AI or not, it isn't returning results for what I'm searching for.

Re:I'd have to say no... (3, Insightful)

Bogtha (906264) | more than 8 years ago | (#14912516)

I agree, it's a poor set of results. I was assuming you were searching for something like Ant and getting a lot of pages about real ants, but that's obviously not the case - the result set includes lots of pages about the software, but the most relevant site isn't well ranked.

Looking through the results, it seems as though it's working with a quality weighting that is unrelated to the search term. If you look at the highest ranked websites, a lot of them are websites with an enormous number of inbound links, but not necessarily a lot of inbound links for that particular search term. Thus websites like Wikipedia, Sourceforge, Debian Packages, etc get ranked highly because they are popular websites, and the actual project website isn't ranked as well because although it's more relevant for the search terms, it's less popular overall.

I expect this is a reasonable approach when you are searching for terms for which a lot of websites are equally valuable, but breaks down for specialised areas where there are "canonical" URIs.

Re:I'd have to say no... (1)

Bogtha (906264) | more than 8 years ago | (#14912528)

I expect this is a reasonable approach when you are searching for terms for which a lot of websites are equally valuable...

I meant to say "equally authorative" here.

Re:I'd have to say no... (1)

Somegeek (624100) | more than 8 years ago | (#14912453)

I tried the name of a friend (pulls up 12 hits on Google) and got a single hit. Not very promising. As well, the home page looks like a clone of Google. They could have made a succinct home page but still been original at the same time.

Re:I'd have to say no... (1)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 8 years ago | (#14912628)

Wow, even my puny little gets first page rank in a search for its name. You must have chosen a bad project name. Here's a hint: project names that consist of a single common word are hard to search for. :-D

But seriously... it did have a hard time when I asked it for deck2omf [] (Google PR1). Not a surprise---sort of a project that maybe three people in the world care about---but that project also includes some really useful binary diff tools that folks might find helpful (specifically designed to aid in analyzing binary file formats). It also has some code for dealing with OMF files, and AFAIK, is the only available open source project that actually does, which at least a couple of dozen people in the world must care about.

In any case, its results for that one are so far off the mark, it isn't even funny. It returns only a single entry. That entry is for some random directory listing containing nothing but a list of additional directories, one of which is called deck2omf, which is completely and totally empty. And that's it. No reference to, no reference to (which is #1 on Google's search for deck2omf), etc. I get about as close when I search for otneb.

Not impressed yet. Let me know when you've at least spidered sourceforge....

Damn liberals... (-1, Flamebait)

Eneff (96967) | more than 8 years ago | (#14912180)

Accoona Home|Web Search Results Results 1 - 10 of 7,131,713 for democracy
        Tell me about: Democracy

1. Democracy Now!: radio and TV news ... and TV stations in your local area that air Democracy Now! Independent Media is more important than ever ... Democracy Now! is now offering a "podcast" of our show a way ... []


At least Google has the decency to demote these pinko commies to second place, but what would you expect from China?

(Handbasket, please.)

Re:Damn liberals... (0, Troll)

Profane MuthaFucka (574406) | more than 8 years ago | (#14912333)

Three of the top 10 links it returns for 'fascism' refer to GW Bush and his corrupt, incompetent administration. I think this search engine is better than you think.

Looks like... (1)

suspected (907639) | more than 8 years ago | (#14912181)

Accoona looks exactly like Google does. I'm all for trying new websites, but Accoona looks like nothing more but a copycat. If they used innovation rather imitation to build up their user base, then I might have gave them a little more consideration.

Re:Looks like... (1)

Spaceman40 (565797) | more than 8 years ago | (#14912228)

Who cares about looks? It seems to work rather well, although I'm not ready to switch just yet.

Re:Looks like... (1)

swimin (828756) | more than 8 years ago | (#14913127)

I would say that it doesn't work nearly as well as google. Unless of course you mean by the speed of results returned, because that seems to be equal, its the actual results that you get that greatly affects how well a search engine works, and its seems to nearly equal google on some search sets, and fail horribly on others. It seeems like the more obscure thing you're looking for, the harder it is to find it.

Re:Looks like... (1)

Spaceman40 (565797) | more than 8 years ago | (#14913318)

I only did a cursory test (searched for a couple programming languages, seemed to be alright), and I'll take your word on the decreasing quality for more obscure searches.

Not that I'm loathe to accept a better search engine or anything - Google just does what I want (most of the time)... Thanks for checking it out a little further.

Re:Looks like... (1)

BrokenHalo (565198) | more than 8 years ago | (#14913436)

Maybe the telling thing is in the submission that Acooma is "backed by the Chinese government".

I don't want to come across as racist, but I don't think it's unfair to draw a parallel with all those other Chinese copycat products we've all used that just don't work very well.

Re:Looks like... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14913026)

The imitation is only skin deep. The innovation is in the code that performs the search, not the HTML that presents it to the user.
The about page gives more detail : []
If You want innovation in web page design, a search engine is probably the wrong place to look. They will be far more inclined to go with a familiar, functional, design...
Besides, with a search engine, it is what is behind in, the search itself, not the HTML, that counts.

Doesn't work (2, Insightful)

Tango42 (662363) | more than 8 years ago | (#14912227)

It's meant to do all kinds of clever things - I took a look, even read the FAQ, and after a couple of minutes gave up. I couldn't work out how to make it do anything other than be a standard search engine that seemed to give worse results than google. A SE that I have to spend ages working out how to use isn't worth the hassle.

I'd give it a 10 (2, Funny)

RLiegh (247921) | more than 8 years ago | (#14912247)

it has a nice feed and you can blog to it

more importantly... (0, Flamebait)

kajoob (62237) | more than 8 years ago | (#14912250)

How Much Did This Search Engine Pay To Advertise On The Main Page of Slashdot?

MOD UP! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14912290)

Worst. Slashvertisement. Ever.

Re:MOD UP! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14912538)

It was on drudge over the probably paid for there and viral here. It really has no business on either, imo. The current top story, "Adapt to New Technology or Die," has been on drudge a while too.

Re:more importantly... (1)

japaget (836976) | more than 8 years ago | (#14912823)

Accoona was also featured [] on the Drudge Report [] over the weekend. According to EE Times [] , Accoona recently held a press conference to announce their enhanced search engine [] . It looks like they are in the midst of a major marketing campaign.

Backed by the Chinese government? (2, Insightful)

babbling (952366) | more than 8 years ago | (#14912269)

So, the company was helped with launching by a former US president, and the search engine is backed by the Chinese government? Sounds pretty suspicious to me.

Re:Backed by the Chinese government? (1)

Nehmo (757404) | more than 8 years ago | (#14913035)

The Chinese government is a reference? article about launch [] "China Daily Information Company (CDIC), partners with China Communications Corp (CCC), is set to engine." The only thing worse would be a search engine controlled by the US government. (That wasn't a joke.)

Re:Backed by the Chinese government? (1)

Kadin2048 (468275) | more than 8 years ago | (#14913164)

You're not the only one who was given pause by that.

Why do I suspect that a search engine backed by the Chinese government might not give you the helpful "Links have been removed by order of some guy with a gun" messages at the bottom of censored results?

Actually I've been surprised for a while that the PRC didn't just start it's own search engine and blocking everything else. (Although I guess why bother, when you can get U.S. companies to bid against each other to do your censorship.)

However, they do seem to return Wikipedia links without problems (in fact, the Wikipedia article on "Tiananmen Square" is the #1 result when you search for that term, or several common misspellings) and the Wikipedia article is included in the "Acoona Answers" result on the term.

See: []

Re:Backed by the Chinese government? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14913385)

Hey, the desktop search returns the results of your seach to COMMUNISTS! Awesome!

The face (1)

AWhiteFlame (928642) | more than 8 years ago | (#14912274)

Is very creepy. And the layout is a direct copy of google. Sooo...

Backed By China... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14912287)

I am sure it does its best to protect us from pesky, seditious, websites.

Doesn't repect quoted strings (4, Informative)

blamanj (253811) | more than 8 years ago | (#14912288)

I tried a search with a two-word quoted string, and the first result had the two words in separate paragraphs. That's not good.

let me guess (4, Insightful)

minus_273 (174041) | more than 8 years ago | (#14912296)

"Bill Clinton helped launch the company behind the engine, which is also backed by the Chinese Government. "

that pretty much eliminates it from my book. As bad as google is, i don't my search engine directly controlled by the Chinese Communist party AND Bill Clinton. I imagine searching for Tianamen [] wont get you much compared to Google since it never happened...

Re:let me guess (2, Informative)

tsaler (569835) | more than 8 years ago | (#14912370)

Actually, the results you get searching for "Tianamen" are pretty similar to what you get from Google. Then again, if you wanted to get the full story, you might be inclined to spell Tiananmen [] correctly.

That being said, I won't be using Accoona. I don't like it, for one thing, and I also don't want my search to be influenced too much by the Chinese government if I can help it. I don't mind so much about Bill Clinton being their spokesman, though any time Clinton and the Chinese [] are working together, you'd better be careful.

Re:let me guess (1)

baldass_newbie (136609) | more than 8 years ago | (#14912584)

Lessee here...Accoonna (or whatever it is) had 159,671 hits for Tiananmen, while Google had over 5.4 million.
Yeah, the Chinese don't have history totally scrubbed, but they're working hard at it.

Re:let me guess (1)

tsaler (569835) | more than 8 years ago | (#14912940)

It's scary, isn't it?

Re:let me guess (2, Insightful)

Red Alastor (742410) | more than 8 years ago | (#14913694)

<sarcasm>Wow, scary !

And they only have 5.6 million results for cheese while Google returns 125 million results. Isn't it outrageous ?!</sarcasm>

Re:let me guess (1)

facelessnumber (613859) | more than 8 years ago | (#14913283)

See what you get when you click the Tell me about: Tiananmen [] link at the top of that search. I'll bet that's the kind of thing a Chinese IP gets when they search for it.

Re:let me guess (1)

facelessnumber (613859) | more than 8 years ago | (#14913299)

Ah, damn my eyes. I see now that there is a link at the top of that page mentioning the protests. There goes my conspiracy...

Re:let me guess (2, Funny)

barawn (25691) | more than 8 years ago | (#14912376)

Or it could be because you spelled Tiananmen [] wrong.

Re:let me guess (1)

mrami (664567) | more than 8 years ago | (#14912379)

Helps if you spell it right: Tiananmen []

It finds what I need (1)

panic911 (224370) | more than 8 years ago | (#14912297)

I tested a few queries on it and it found everything I was looking for on the homepage. This is an interesting search engine though.

Slightly offtopic - does anyone have any information on how Google ranks pages? I've read this page [] which has some really good information in it, but does anyone know of any other guides on search engine optimization with google?

Number of pages indexed? (5, Insightful)

The Waxed Yak (548771) | more than 8 years ago | (#14912309)

Granted, the number of pages indexed can be a misleading metric... but in the 20 minutes I've spent with it so far, I'm finding that a significant number of the pages I'm searching for are not in their index.

Maybe the things I'm searching for are a bit esoteric, but I think these guys are in for a serious game of catch-up since everything I searched for is readily available via Google.

You can have the best search algorithm in the world, but if your pool of data to search is smaller than the other guy, you're going to have a hard time of it. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see another player out there pushing Google, to force them to innovate more than they have. But if these guys have been in the business since 2004, they've had plenty of time to index pages.

Matata (5, Funny)

PuppiesOnAcid (792320) | more than 8 years ago | (#14912341)

Now someone just needs to make a search engine called "Matata", and we'd have no worries for the rest of our days.

Re:Matata (1)

246o1 (914193) | more than 8 years ago | (#14912553)

Did you read that that's actually where the name came from? Because if not, I bow to your Disneyfied mind.

Re:Matata (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 8 years ago | (#14913016)

Did you read that [a movie well-protected by Disney copyrights and trademarks is] actually where the name came from?

Are the operators of this search engine expecting a letter from Disney's lawyers? (cite: tarr [] )

Re:Matata (3, Informative)

StikyPad (445176) | more than 8 years ago | (#14913418)

a) It's the name of a song [] , not a movie.
b) Titles [] can't be copyrighted.
c) Trademarks can only be enforced against confusingly similar products. IE, not a search engine vs. a theme park.
d) The Disney spelling is Hakuna Matata [] .
e) The tradmark is Class 25 (See: Your own link) which means it's for clothing [] .

So no, to answer your question, they're not.

Trademark dilution (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 8 years ago | (#14913463)

It's the name of a song, not a movie.

The song was first published in a movie titled The Lion King.

Trademarks can only be enforced against confusingly similar products.

This was true until the mid-1990s, when the United States and other countries enacted laws regulating dilution of sufficiently famous trademarks [] . As for whether a dilution claim will succeed, you're also assuming that Disney won't drag out the trial long enough to bankrupt the defendant.

Re:Trademark dilution (2, Informative)

StikyPad (445176) | more than 8 years ago | (#14913524)

The song was first published in a movie titled The Lion King.

It doesn't matter if the song was published on a CD, in a movie, or through mindwaves; the title of that song cannot be copyrighted.

There exists a trademark of the phrase "Hakuna Matata" on clothing. The trademark registration says nothing of "The Lion King." Using one word from a trademark with a different spelling for an unrelated product over which there is no trademark is a huge stretch. You might as well say Burger King is likely to get sued because their name is diluting the Lion King, since lions obviously are not burgers.

Can't even ego-surf! (1)

KNicolson (147698) | more than 8 years ago | (#14912344)

I did a search for my full name which appears on my blog, yet it couldn't find it! I tried a few other searchs and the coverage of my blog seems pretty useless all round.

It also doesn't seem to accept double-quotes to indicate phrases, which is a very important feature for me!

It works great! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14912347)

I'd say it works great.
My homepage has the #1 ranking when I do an ego-search using my name.

Too much marketing speak, not enough technology (4, Insightful)

Aaron Isotton (958761) | more than 8 years ago | (#14912367)

I'm a little skeptical. A search engine with a smiley in its logo? That's so 1999! But the FAQ puts me into an even more pessimistic mood. IMHO this Accoona thing is just lots of marketing speak, but doesn't really offer anything new, neither from the usability nor from the technology point of view.

To quote from the FAQ:

Accoona gives you the ability to use Artificial Intelligence technology to SuperTarget Your Search(TM)
SuperTarget Your Search TM depends on sophisticated Artificial Intelligence technology, but Accoona makes this feature easy to use. Accoona adds another step in which you see the words you typed in your search query appear separately. All you have to do is click on the most important word in the phrase.
Accoona's Artificial Intelligence uses the meaning of words to get you better results. For example, when you type five keywords in a traditional search engine, you're going to get every page that has all five keywords, no more, no less. With Accoona's Artificial Intelligence Software, which understands the meaning of the query, the user will get many additional results.
Accoona's Artificial Intelligence also allows you to SuperTarget Your Search TM. For example, within a query of five keywords, Accoona Artificial Intelligence lets the user select one keyword so that the search results are ranked to favor pages where the meaning of that one keyword is more important than the meaning of the other four keywords.

As far as I can see, this means that

  • They understand synonyms and add them to your query "intelligently". I'm not sure whether this is really a good thing. It's probably useful sometimes, but will be a pain if the AI decides to add some bogus terms to your query. By the way, since Google looks at the content of the links pointing to a page they also have this kind of "related words" feature. With the difference that theirs is not based on AI, but on people.
  • You can give different weights to the words you're looking for. I hoped not to see that ever again. This simply means that you're going to try multiple combinations priorities if you're really desperately looking for something.

Ah, and one last thing. Accoona doesn't have "teh snappy". It's just too damn slow. And I'm not waiting for search engines EVER AGAIN.

Re:Too much marketing speak, not enough technology (1)

Captain Splendid (673276) | more than 8 years ago | (#14913517)

And I'm not waiting for search engines EVER AGAIN

Well put. What I never see mentioned when anyone is talking about Google's success is that, due to their bloat-free design and the fact that they actually seemed to give a shit about the user experience, pages loaded damn fast. I started using Google when I was still on dialup because I got sick and tired of other Search engines' load times. That was what vaulted Google to the top, not PageRank. If they had debuted just a year or two later, when broadband was really taking off, it would have been a much different story IMO.

Doesn't work for me... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14912380)

Since I have the "No Script" extension installed. It would seem to me that if they are going to go for the simplistic look of google they ought to work without javascript. Also, why not a firefox tool bar? I doubt it would have been any harder to create than the one they offer for windows. Probably easier.

weird (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14912385)

it gets points in the "trying to look like google department", but good grief. i accoona my name (not a catchy verb), and my personal web site on travel info comes up number one, but my ALA [] article is number 21. Number two for my name is a paper i wrote in high school that i uploaded to a local bbs that's now on the web (a listing that i've blocked from google results for my name)

all in all, i'd say it's not as smart as google

Scary (1)

Tsiangkun (746511) | more than 8 years ago | (#14912388)

The face is scary.
Connections with Bill makes me think connections with the government.
The direct copy cat interface of google, reminds of recent requests for google searches from the DOJ.

All in all, I find the search engine scary, and won't use it. I just can't get over the fealing that it might be an instrument of big brother, and the AI isn't to get better search results, but to analyse the search itself.

First impression (2, Funny)

Fortyseven (240736) | more than 8 years ago | (#14912389)

Never heard of this search before, but it's gotta be awesome: my site [] came up first [] when I search for 'BTEG'.

Take THAT Black Training and Enterprise Group [] !

It rates poorly (1)

loteck (533317) | more than 8 years ago | (#14912398)

it has no image search, nor can it search usenet. it won't add 2+2 nor does it tell me what the weather is.

also, searching for my alias loteck on google gives me an ego boost, accoonaing my nickname wants to sell me bad techno, it would appear.

Yeah, thats right. "Accoonaing"? Never gonna happen.

Beats (1)

Goalie_Ca (584234) | more than 8 years ago | (#14912413)

Best! Why? It got past the loading stage. I'm glad they chose a light and simple interface. Speedy as hell even under a /.'ing. Maybe they don't index as much as google yet but the search itself seemed reasonable. Google really shines when it comes to finding obscure things.

Article summary should have read: (2, Informative)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 8 years ago | (#14912427)

An anonymous shill asks, "Try our search engine! Please!!"

Some serious (but basic) flaws (1)

licamell (778753) | more than 8 years ago | (#14912440)

I just checked it out really quickly and noticed some serious flaws. They're such basic things that it is a little distburning.

1. They do not show you the link under each results, they only show you the domain. So in the quick search that I did I ended up with a ton of results at the same domain, but can't tell which one is which.

2. I figure ok, I'll just mouse over the link to see where it goes to... NOPE, does not work.

3. It's definitely missing a lot of links. In searching for something that I am familiar with the results, namely my own name in quotes, I get 28 results from Accoona, as compared to 137 from google (all valid).

and these are just the things I noticed in the first 10 seconds.

NO CACHE = useless (1)

moochfish (822730) | more than 8 years ago | (#14912456)

I tried a few searches before realizing the lack of a cache made many of the results useless. The engine spits back a tiny portion of the page, but there's no guarantee that page hasn't moved or changed. For example, for dynamic pages such as the slashdot front page, the engine incorrectly indexes it. Clicking on the link takes you to a new and updated version of the page, devoid of the original search term that brought you there. This was okay 5 or 6 years ago before Google went mainstream, but now I tend to click on caches about half the time I search since the main link is often not relevant.

Weak on the links (1)

shuz (706678) | more than 8 years ago | (#14912468)

Ya, I'd have to say accoona, has a long way to go. I did a simple search for "Aaron C. Berg" and I got a resume from a geocities page. Now granted that is mine but it is also about 5 years old. Google returns 64 URL's which details my online presense for the last 8 years where I used my name. returned 5 and Yahoo returned 15. Google wins again. None of the search engines found :-(

Muhtattah? (1)

jollyroger1210 (933226) | more than 8 years ago | (#14912511)

Acoona.....any relation to muhtattah?

oh, what a wonderful thing.

AI huh. (3, Informative)

moochfish (822730) | more than 8 years ago | (#14912512)

So I read this little press release and I wasn't that impressed. You want to talk about context parsing? Google started that type of search innovation [] . Not commonly known is that Google even suppresses ads when it guesses its users are searching without any intentions of making purchases, such as for research. This is illustrated here:

Search Argentina []
Search Population []
Search Both [] (no ads)

I'd say that's pretty contextual if you ask me. This search engine is a bunch of hype, and much farther behind than it thinks.

Re:AI huh. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14913533)

If you think the features google lists [] there are all google innovations, you're gravely mistaken.

OO == search? (1)

Gorimek (61128) | more than 8 years ago | (#14912515)

So it seems that a double o is the marker for search engines.

Google, Yahoo, Accoona

Other markers I've noticed are that hamburger joints are yellow and red, and that ED drugs must end in -a.

Accoona Rating (1)

Mindragon (627249) | more than 8 years ago | (#14912539)

Accoona presently isn't rated by "" ... Therefore, it goes at the bottom of the list.

1. Google
2. Yahoo
3. AskJeeves
4. AllTheWeb
5. AolSearch
6. HotBot
7. Teoma
8. AltaVista
9. GigaBlast
10. LookSmart
11. Lycos
12. MSN Search
13. Netscape Search
14. DMOZ
100. Accoona

Yep. I think it might register as a minor roadbump in Google's quest to take over the world.

A1-based search engine? (1)

Sentry21 (8183) | more than 8 years ago | (#14912579)

Am I the only one that read that as an A1-based search engine? I couldn't think what steak sauce, even fantastic steak sauce, could bring to search engine technology, though I'm sure it would be delicious. Oh well, another dream dashed.

Re:A1-based search engine? (1)

vain gloria (831093) | more than 8 years ago | (#14913126)

Am I the only one that read that as an A1-based search engine?

Not at all. I myself was caught out thinking someone had implemented a low-tech search engine based primarily upon cheap labour and the scribbling of notes onto an inconveniently large* piece of paper [] .

* or inconveniently small, depending on your perspective.

Not Buzzword Compliant (2, Insightful)

fm6 (162816) | more than 8 years ago | (#14912585)

It's interesting that the buzzword "A.I." can still generate interest among Slashdotters. In the industrying, labelling something "A.I." is fatal, because there's so much unfulfilled hype associated with that term. Which was never that useful, being rather vague.

Whatever the technology behind it, you won't get me to try a new search engine by talking about the technology behind it. You need to tell me exactly how my search results will differ from what I'll get from Google. And even then you've got a tough sell. I used to keep a links menu for all the different search engines so I could refer to them in case I found Google's results unsatisfactory. Finally got rid of this menu: I rarely referred to it, and when I did, I never got any hits that Google had missed.

This article is a troll (0, Flamebait)

deblau (68023) | more than 8 years ago | (#14912586)

"An anonymous reader asks..." Nice one. If you're going to try free marketing feedback from a large population of geeks, the first thing you need to do is be honest about who you are. We hate obscurity and we hate marketers -- you could at least make a peace offering by naming yourself.

If you've got a problem with what I've said, you're welcome to reply. I signed my digital name to this post.

Overture link? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14912631)

Did anyone else notice how mousing over any of the results shows that it links to (Overture is now owned by Yahoo)

Spyware! (2, Informative)

japaget (836976) | more than 8 years ago | (#14912743)

The URL "" is listed as a spyware site by both Spybot Search and Destroy [] and by MVPS [] . Both of these modify the /etc/hosts file to map "" to

Bill Clinton? (1)

socerhed (908637) | more than 8 years ago | (#14912793)

does it come with a free intern?

No Unicode (1)

bertilow (218923) | more than 8 years ago | (#14912839)

It's backed by the Chinese governement, but it can't handle Unicode correctly.

Something smells like incompetence here.

no results (1)

Surt (22457) | more than 8 years ago | (#14912840)

Couldn't find squish, my little web game, even given the hint that it was on ptth. Google finds 4 pages of relevant hits. [] c&charset=utf-8&la=en [] &ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozill a:en-US:official []

How does it rate? (1)

woobieman29 (593880) | more than 8 years ago | (#14912862)

It doesn't.

When/if it does, you won't have to come here and Slashvertise to know it either, as we will already be talking about it.

/. Editors, FYI this is the sort of advertisement that /.'ers dislike the most. If your gonna sell-out /. like this, I hope that you are getting paid well to do so.

Wow.....just, wow... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14913295)

I work for Accoona, so I am really getting a kick out of most of these replies. Some of you guys are very good at making it sound like you know what you are talking about.

But trust me.... You don't.

I think you just want to make yourself sound smart, when in reality you don't know what you are talking about. This is how bad info gets passed around. If you don't know about the topic....Don't make yourself sound like you do.

Spyware (1)

ScaryFroMan (901163) | more than 8 years ago | (#14913374)

Isn't this the one that has a toolbar that is covered in spyware and adware? The kind that is packed in with screen savers?

Spyware advertisement? (2, Informative)

IamGarageGuy 2 (687655) | more than 8 years ago | (#14913549)

Search for Accoona spyware (google or Accoona) and you will see how they advertise. This is not only spyware, but they are apparently spammers, according to Wikpedia. How did this get on slashdot? I am amazed that a site on /. is an ad for spyware. I hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist , but is this the end of /.

Fortunately it has the obligatory double O (2, Funny) (579491) | more than 8 years ago | (#14913591)

Yahoo and Google are the only search engines that are considered successful right now... Altavista, WebSpider, A9... these have all fallen by the wayside. Why? None of them have two letter Os next to each other. Accoona does. I predict it will be a smashing success.

Spyware or not? (1)

ajdlinux (913987) | more than 8 years ago | (#14913844)

When you go to the install toolbar page, they say there's no spyware or adware, and they are bundled with Norton Internet Security (I would trust Symantec more than M$). Are the spyware rumours true, or just rumours?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>