Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Google's Test Search Engine

CmdrTaco posted more than 7 years ago | from the well-isn't-that-special dept.

138

Bengt noted Google's SearchMash which is a testbed search engine. Google spokesbot says: "The goal of Searchmash is to test innovative user interfaces in order to continually improve the overall search experience for our users. The experimental search engine looks very different from Google's Web sites and lacks Google branding. In this way, Google believes the site will yield more objective feedback from users."

cancel ×

138 comments

feedback on the feedback (5, Informative)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 7 years ago | (#16813746)

I just tried it and gave a search "NASA shuttle" (on topic...) and it gives a page displaying search results, image results and wikipedia results.
There is a small area asking for feedback:


Were these results useful to you?
Web Pages Yes / No
Images Yes / No
Wikipedia Yes / No


Well, The page results were as expected so Yes, as was wikipedia (even though it was closed to start with) and the results for images would be useful if I could see them (they were at the bottom of the page and not visible at first, so I clicked no).

How can I tell them that the images would be really good if they were somewhere else on the screen?
If they want feedback, they should let people give feedback.

Re:feedback on the feedback (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16813816)

Agreed. Would also be nice to be able to move the search result gadgets around.

Re:feedback on the feedback (1)

MrShaggy (683273) | more than 7 years ago | (#16813852)

I agree with you on that. I remember there was an exit poll, when i left the mmorpg, Star Wars galaxies, asking why i was canceling. The questions they asked allowed nothing for why i was truly leaving. There was web-form for any 'suggestion box type things.'

Maybe they can set it up like the Google home page so that you can drag around the frames as you wish them to be.

Re:feedback on the feedback (1)

garcia (6573) | more than 7 years ago | (#16814088)

While Wikipedia is great and all I really don't think it should be ranked so highly in the results each and every time. If I want to search wikipedia I will either go to wikipedia myself and search for a topic or do a google site search for wikipedia.

My suggestion is that they allow you to remove wikipedia entries from your searches all together but I guess that's just as likely to happen as people wanting them to filter blog entries.

Re:feedback on the feedback (1)

DrEldarion (114072) | more than 7 years ago | (#16814404)

You could always add "-wikipedia" to every search you perform (or write a GreaseMonkey script that does it...)

Re:feedback on the feedback (3, Insightful)

bismark.a (882874) | more than 7 years ago | (#16814840)

And lose 10% on your maximum query size?

Re:feedback on the feedback (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16815230)

You know there's no more that 10-words limit, don't you ?

Re:feedback on the feedback (1)

cheater512 (783349) | more than 7 years ago | (#16816280)

Well now the Wikipedia results are separate. They are now stored in a separate box and not in the search results.

Re:feedback on the feedback (5, Insightful)

Boiling_point_ (443831) | more than 7 years ago | (#16815056)

How can I tell them that the images would be really good if they were somewhere else on the screen?
It's very likely that, in addition to a public beta, Google is doing some live user testing on the interface, where stuff like that would be picked up. It's pretty easy to tell if your screen layout is wrong when you watch a few people try to accomplish tasks with it. Learning whether or not people's actual search problems are solved, however, requires huge numbers of test subjects in real world situations like this!

Re:feedback on the feedback (5, Interesting)

Kijori (897770) | more than 7 years ago | (#16815150)

I can't see any feedback form, but as someone mentioned, they review what people search for, so you could just search for "images box is too far down". [searchmash.com]

yes for wikipedia (5, Informative)

cucucu (953756) | more than 7 years ago | (#16813754)

I used searchmash and voted for results for wikipedia. Some time ago I found the following firefox quick searches to be very useful: Do ./ers have good wikipedia quick searches to share?

Re:yes for wikipedia (4, Informative)

thc69 (98798) | more than 7 years ago | (#16814000)

In both Firefox and Opera, you can add nearly any search as a quick search by right-clicking in the text box.

As for me, I have a local home.html in which I put every search I use, with the html stripped of everything I don't need, and the options I use pre-selected.

Re:yes for wikipedia (1)

Pink Tinkletini (978889) | more than 7 years ago | (#16814030)

For Wikipedia, I use http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site:en.wikip edia.org+%@&btnI=I%27m+Feeling+Lucky [google.com] (as long as we're taking shortcuts, why not get rid of that first click too?)

BTW, Safari users can get plugins for quick search here [pimpmysafari.com] . I particularly like Inquisitor [inquisitorx.com] .

Re:yes for wikipedia (3, Insightful)

MentalMooMan (785571) | more than 7 years ago | (#16814216)

I use http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search =%s&go=Go [wikipedia.org] in opera under search keyword "w". It uses the wikipedia search, which will automatically go straight to the article if it finds a good enough match, or if not, then it'll display a list of articles sorted by relevance. Why rely on google to do it?

Re:yes for wikipedia (1)

hclyff (925743) | more than 7 years ago | (#16814768)

Ironically, I found that in most cases using google with site:... works better than built in searches seen on many web sites, including Wikipedia.

Re:yes for wikipedia (1)

FhnuZoag (875558) | more than 7 years ago | (#16815458)

Maybe, but wikipedia's internal search allows you to customise search results by namespaces, and includes things that google doesn't index - in particular, talk pages, user pages, and internal policy pages.

"google censorship" (4, Interesting)

Wonko the Sane (25252) | more than 7 years ago | (#16813758)

Try searching for "google censorship" and it shows:

Web Pages - about 190,000

And relevent wikipedia articles

I guess it works.

Re:"google censorship" (2, Interesting)

Andrei D (965217) | more than 7 years ago | (#16813808)

What it's odd here is that the wikipedia page [wikipedia.org] is yielded twice: in the web pages section and in wikipedia. I think its common sense to display it only once.

Re:"google censorship" (1)

Creepyguywithastick (934101) | more than 7 years ago | (#16814520)

Wouldn't it be censorship if they didn't show so many results?

Re:"google censorship" (1)

neoform (551705) | more than 7 years ago | (#16814970)

I'm using google.ca .. i got "3,450,000" results for "google censorship"........

Re:"google censorship" (1)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 7 years ago | (#16815920)

I'm using google.cn and I get 0 results for "google censorship"........

Hmmm I wonder who could be knocking on my door at this time of night?

apple/mac like? (1)

jptxs (95600) | more than 7 years ago | (#16813760)

from the colors to the little "x" in the rounded edge search box, strikes me as very mac like. Very interesting considering the other cozying up Apple and Google have been doing lately...

Re:apple/mac like? (1)

peragrin (659227) | more than 7 years ago | (#16813950)

not really, it looks more like *nix window manager than OS X. If it was OS X the then buttons would be one color until you hover over them. It's also a standard feature of just about every gui.

Re:apple/mac like? (1, Troll)

Pink Tinkletini (978889) | more than 7 years ago | (#16814052)

Not Maclike at all. The site is badly laid out and bland, very unpleasant to use. Yes, I did leave feedback.

Re:apple/mac like? (1)

mgaiman (151782) | more than 7 years ago | (#16815908)

If you're viewing the site in Safari it uses the search field (input type="search"), if you're viewing it in other browsers, the search bar degrades to a regular text field.

questionable reference built in (1)

daemonburrito (1026186) | more than 7 years ago | (#16813766)

I'm a bit surprised that TFA has no mention of what must be the most controversial feature: integrated wikipedia. Does the foundation get anything from google for this?

Re:questionable reference built in (4, Interesting)

Digicrat (973598) | more than 7 years ago | (#16814046)

That's a very good question.

I also wonder if Google, aside from this, has donated anything to the wikipedia foundation? Google does claim they support open products, and Wikipedia has been at the top of most regular search results for a while. That doesn't give them any obligation of course, but would be a good-will-promoting-and-tax-reducing-act towards a non-profit that complements Google's offerings.

Of course the real controversy here should be that does including Wikipedia as a special-case in search results lead to a greater trust in the accuracy of Wikipedia's content? And is that trust merited?

Re:questionable reference built in (1)

daemonburrito (1026186) | more than 7 years ago | (#16814112)

Quite right. If wikipedia results are favored, or if this feature makes it in to a production version of the interface, it's sure to re-ignite the wikipedia accuracy debate.

(Not that I have anything against wikipedia, btw. Well, not that much against it, anyway.)

Re:questionable reference built in (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16814064)

This shouldn't be controversial. This is the aim of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not based on commercial interest, but rather, collecting and synthesizing information to be used by whomever can make use of it. Google is using Wikipedia's information to help those who search.

Re:questionable reference built in (1)

jlarocco (851450) | more than 7 years ago | (#16815486)

How is that controversial? All the other search engines do it.

What this article should have been called... (1)

TodMinuit (1026042) | more than 7 years ago | (#16813782)

"How To Google Without An Ads"

There's nothing really innovative about it, besides asking for feedback. It's what would have happened in A9 and Google had a baby.

It looks like ... a search engine (0, Troll)

Gothmolly (148874) | more than 7 years ago | (#16813824)

Lets see, theres a box to type text, and you hit search, and you get some results. Next?

How is this revolutionary?

Re:It looks like ... a search engine (4, Insightful)

kurtis25 (909650) | more than 7 years ago | (#16813930)

It's the other things that are 'revolutionary'. 1. You can (or at least could at one point) rearrange the search results by dragging them up and down - Future application on influencing the ranking on sites. 2. Numbering of search results - not 'revolutionary' but useful i can tell you to search for nasa and see the 3rd result. 3. the options menu when you click on the green url. - I can imagine it will eventually include choices for mapping to address on site, site search (via coop) and so on. 4. start typing to search - fixes that issue with firefox where it tries to search and IE where sometimes goes up to the address bar and you end up searching using msn.com

Re:It looks like ... a search engine (1)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 7 years ago | (#16816084)

1. You can (or at least could at one point) rearrange the search results by dragging them up and down - Future application on influencing the ranking on sites.

Or how to democratize Google-bombing by not having to set up a webpage to do that anymore, just make sure George Bush's official page is on top of your results when googling for 'miserable failure'.

Re:It looks like ... a search engine (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16814648)

That is the point. When will they implement a boolean search? It was really useful when altavista was _the_ search engine.

Requires javascript (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16813828)

It requires javascript for some reason. I think I prefer the original google interface.

Text browsers (2, Interesting)

dattaway (3088) | more than 7 years ago | (#16813844)

It doesn't work in Links.

Re:Text browsers (-1, Flamebait)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 7 years ago | (#16813900)

It helps if you spell it right (Lynx, as in the cat) but you're right, the form doesn't submit right or something.

Re:Text browsers (2, Informative)

banky (9941) | more than 7 years ago | (#16813932)

Or he could spell it "Links" as in the text-mode browser [sourceforge.net] .

Re:Text browsers (1)

tomjen (839882) | more than 7 years ago | (#16813940)

There is a browser called links - and it is so much better than lynx.

Re:Text browsers (1)

Enoxice (993945) | more than 7 years ago | (#16813970)

May I direct you to http://links.sourceforge.net/ [sourceforge.net] ?

There's also a links2 that has a graphical mode. I don't have a link nor do I know if searchmash works in it.

Re:Text browsers (1)

hahiss (696716) | more than 7 years ago | (#16814584)

Here ya' go:

http://links.twibright.com/ [twibright.com]

(But links2 doesn't seem to work with searchmash.com in either graphical or text modes, even though it does have some javascript support.)

Re:Text browsers (0, Troll)

MustardMan (52102) | more than 7 years ago | (#16814110)

haha you got pwned... get your facts straight before acting like a douchebag spelling nazi.

yea, i know i'll get lots of flamebaits on this, but you're still the douchebag that got pwned

Boo! hiss! (0, Redundant)

wetelectric (956671) | more than 7 years ago | (#16813878)

It needs JS enabled to work.

Re:Boo! hiss! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16816476)


Hmm, that's a tough one.

I guess it's time to upgrade to 1996 technology.

Nice with the wikipedia links (2, Informative)

weteko (1022621) | more than 7 years ago | (#16813890)

Very nice with the wikipedia links. I have been using googlepedia (https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/2517/ [mozilla.org] ) but with something like this I could skip that all together.

OLD (1)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 7 years ago | (#16813912)

This is OLD OLD OLD news. I think this was NEW news a month ago, or at the best a few weeks. SearchMash was up that long ago, I'm sure of it.

Re:OLD (1)

TEMMiNK (699173) | more than 7 years ago | (#16814044)

Yep, this should be slow-news-day department, TFA is from October 3, only 41 days ago. Still, I hadn't read about it so there you go.

Re:OLD (2, Funny)

BigMike1020 (943654) | more than 7 years ago | (#16815174)

You must be new here. Expect the mods at /. to post this same article at least 3 times, with the last one being 6 months from now.

Leechy (3, Interesting)

ostehaps (929761) | more than 7 years ago | (#16813916)

Nice. Just unfortunate that the results page looks uncannily like on of those domain leech default pages.

So how is this different from google.com? (1, Interesting)

diegocgteleline.es (653730) | more than 7 years ago | (#16813920)

It looks pretty much like google.com but with a different brand and logo. Even the colours in the result page are the same....

The one "new" thing are implicit image search in each search...and google was already doing that with some searchs

So how is this a "testbed search engine"? And why the article writes "the experimental search engine looks very different from Google's Web sites", when from a first look it clearly isn't?

What is really needed... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16813928)

... is a boolean search engine, "à la" altavista. I _loved_ that one.

Re:What is really needed... (2, Informative)

mjbkinx (800231) | more than 7 years ago | (#16815198)

... is a boolean search engine, "à la" altavista. I _loved_ that one.

You can do boolean searches with Google/SearchMash. By default everything is AND, but you can use OR (all caps) if you like.
Just because typing in words into the search field is so intuitive doesn't mean there isn't useful information in Google's help, you know...

Horrible (3, Informative)

springbox (853816) | more than 7 years ago | (#16813958)

This site requires JavaScript to be enabled to work. I don't usually complain about that, but every other search engine (including Google) that I've ever used works just fine without it enabled.

Re:Horrible (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16814128)

They're probably just seeing if these ideas are even worth incorporating into Google. At this point, they're not as concerned with full accessibility.

Re:Horrible (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16814962)

You know, at some point, you're going to have to take off the tinfoil and enable Javascript if you want to take advantage of all the shiny new tubes.

They are using it to do some nice stuff here, such as expanding a single page arbitrarily instead of generating the usual set of "" index buttons that obscures previous results when you navigate between pages. I like this UI a lot... no more trying to remember how many times I need to hit the Back button to return to a desired result.

Re:Horrible (1)

Reziac (43301) | more than 7 years ago | (#16814992)

I have the same complaint. You don't even get a naked search listing without javascript. Furthermore, the images part didn't work in Mozilla (v1.5).

And it's much slower than regular Google.

Re:Horrible (3, Insightful)

brogdon (65526) | more than 7 years ago | (#16815096)

"This site requires JavaScript to be enabled to work. I don't usually complain about that, but every other search engine (including Google) that I've ever used works just fine without it enabled."

The site is essentially a test harness for working on new UI ideas and techniques. Why in the world should they slow themselves down by catering to people who don't want any of the 2.0 stuff the site is engineered to develop?

What's next, you going to complain that it's not compatible with NCSA Mosaic? Just use the regular Google page, FFS.

Very impressive without JS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16813972)

Without Javascript it's a very impressive result: No results.

That will boost minimalsitic web design...

Googles feedback page! (4, Informative)

MrShaggy (683273) | more than 7 years ago | (#16813980)

I found this out. It seems relatively hidden.

Googles Web Help Center [google.com] There is a link at the bottom of the page, that will allow you to send them comments ala suggestion box style. I already suggested that being able to move the content around ala the google.com/ig site, would be nice, as well as a link or webform, that would let people truly feedback would be great.

Oh, goody ... (1)

pedantic bore (740196) | more than 7 years ago | (#16814020)

... a chance to be a beta guinea pig for Google again!

To be fair, Google is not the only cuprit, just a high-visibility repeat offender. Time was, when companies paid people to be in focus groups and help them market-test new ideas.

Re:Oh, goody ... (2, Insightful)

EMeta (860558) | more than 7 years ago | (#16814248)

You argument would contain some relevance if not for the fact that many (if not most) of the beta projects are considerably ahead of competing aplications. When maps came out, for example, yahoo's & mapquest were sad little engines, that I was glad to get past. Certainly the gmail beta kick-started some decent webmail from others as well. Now I'm not saying that google's releasing stuff 'early' to help their competition, but certainly it helps end users immensely.

And as far as paying testers? Well, in those previous examples you spoke of, I imagine that software wasn't so much being given out free. I for one am quite happy when some new stuff comes out from a company that can improve my life in some way and they let me use it for free as soon as possible. If you don't like 'testing' it... (gasp..) um, just don't use it. D'uh.

Still no "non-commercial" bit (5, Insightful)

Denial93 (773403) | more than 7 years ago | (#16814024)

Including Wikipedia makes sense. I now rely on Wikipedia way more than I rely on Google for my informational needs, because it isn't cluttered with pseudo-information that has no other purpose other than sell me something. To me, although perhaps not to Google, this is spam and it makes me not want to use Google. Of couse I can exclude pages involving "buy" or "customer service" from my results, but this is an inconvenience and I rarely bother to do so if (more often than not) I can find what I need on the wiki.

And when I want to use Wikipedia, I do not need to go via Google. Google would make themselves useful in a more unique way if they offered optional filtering of sales sites. Let me see pages on Catholic Saints that don't involve "special price" candles with pictures of them, give me information on my car without hundreds of businesses offering to replace it. And when I do want to spend money on the web (which is way less often than the times I look for information), I'll tell you Google, thank you very much.

Re:Still no "non-commercial" bit (1)

SpinyNorman (33776) | more than 7 years ago | (#16814184)

As a general comment that's very true, although searchmash.com does seem to produce better focused ("more correct") results than google.com does. I tried a few varied searches, and was quite impressed.

I agree that google should concentrate on finding information rather than commercial sites, since that's what people use it for. They could have information/commerce buttons to flip between the two modes. Given that Google make their money from paid advertisements, you'd think it'd make it even more attractive to advertizers if theirs were the only commercial links that appeared, and they weren't "competing" with the search results themselves.

Re:Still no "non-commercial" bit (1)

DerekLyons (302214) | more than 7 years ago | (#16815350)

Including Wikipedia makes sense. I now rely on Wikipedia way more than I rely on Google for my informational needs, because it isn't cluttered with pseudo-information that has no other purpose other than sell me something.

You are absolutely correct - Wikipedia is filled with virtually every kind of pseudo information except advertising.

Images at the Side Pane (1)

deviq (793272) | more than 7 years ago | (#16814082)

The image results should really be in a sidepane just below wikipedia results and wikipedia results that are shown on the side should be limited to 2 max. I searched for Katie Holmes and got [i]"Katie Holmes Peer Reviewed"[/i] lol. The images at the bottom dont make much of a sense to me. But I guess they have to keep the sidespace free for [i]"Sponsored Results".[/i]

Since its about user interfaces, why not a contest (2, Interesting)

3seas (184403) | more than 7 years ago | (#16814108)

That's right, a contest or better yet a ul/dl your customized search engine interface to google engines?
You know, like firefox has skins and other goodies the users create and share.
So how about an easy to use skin development package to the google APIs?

I like the idea of seeing samples of other searches, like images and groups though I might be doing a search on web.

I know google is about advertising for their income so somehow thats gonna need to happen.

Requires javascript. Thumbs down. (2, Informative)

MySpaceSpartacus (1009919) | more than 7 years ago | (#16814162)

It requires javascript so it gets a thumbsdown from me. I have NoScript [noscript.net] installed so when I would search for something I got the home page over and over. No search results. No thanks.

Re:Requires javascript. Thumbs down. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16814238)

I assume if they went to production with this it would be integrated into the main google search, therefore, I assume that they would make it degrade nicely to those without scripts enabled, if and when it goes production. I assume that by not having Javascript enabled that you don't really care to have the optional features that javascript offers. Of course, I'm assuming.

Re:Requires javascript. Thumbs down. (1)

Reziac (43301) | more than 7 years ago | (#16815094)

Thanks for the link to the noscript tool -- exactly what I needed!!

I use Prefbar and it has a js on/off tick, but being able to configure it by site is better :)

Re:Requires javascript. Thumbs down. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16815758)

So whitelist it, it's Google for fuck's sake. I can understand wanting to browse securely, but get with the times. Complaining that a site requires JS is about as bad as complaining that it won't work in lynx.

Nice! (1)

cockroach2 (117475) | more than 7 years ago | (#16814192)

I like it. I know, javascript isn't everybody's favourite, but still, it really increases search speed and even though you can't bookmark page X of your search result, at least the results per se are bookmarkable (i.e. not loaded using javascript).

There's also a firefox search plugin [googlepages.com] , btw.

Re:Nice! (2, Insightful)

cockroach2 (117475) | more than 7 years ago | (#16814278)

Oh, and as I'm currently forced to use dialup internet, the javascript updates are *considerably* faster than the good old reload-the-whole-page approach.

I don't get it... (4, Insightful)

Zaphod2016 (971897) | more than 7 years ago | (#16814198)

When searching for myself, Google [google.com] and Searchmash [searchmash.com] both show the same images; Searchmash simply moves them to the bottom of the screen where I can't see them.

Images: yes / no / dumb location?

Does Google *really* need user feedback to know this is a dumb layout? Why not move the pics to the empty area in the right margin? Oh, that's right- that's where the ads will go...

Um, how is this different? (1)

ryanhos (125502) | more than 7 years ago | (#16814208)

Other than the feedback on the RHS, how is this new and innovative?

This site is a little messed up (4, Funny)

MrJynxx (902913) | more than 7 years ago | (#16814316)

Ok,

Is this some kind of joke?

I just typed in "hd-dvd" on that searchmash.com website. And at the bottom of the page was a guy sucking another guys dick. Don't believe me? Try it yourself.. that's not the type of thing I'd expect to be seeing on a Sunday morning.

MrJynxx

Re:This site is a little messed up (1)

kicks-ass (977232) | more than 7 years ago | (#16814340)

same thing happens if you do a google image search . Even with strict safesearch on. Weird

Re:This site is a little messed up (4, Informative)

kicks-ass (977232) | more than 7 years ago | (#16814376)

Argh! ars technica linked to it http://arstechnica.com/journals/thumbs.ars/2006/4/ 24/3724 [arstechnica.com] .. no wonder the high rank look for the "always look better " link in the last paragraph

Re:This site is a little messed up (1)

daemonburrito (1026186) | more than 7 years ago | (#16814342)

Why would you not expect to see dicksucking on Sunday?

The link seems to go to a totally pedestrian arstechnica article. Anyone know how that worked?

Re:This site is a little messed up (1)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 7 years ago | (#16814626)

Yes, ars put a link to an image on the saitti website which the saitti owner took offence to (draining his bandwidth).
He replaced the link with a dodgy one instead which includes a statement towards ars.

Googles' image filtering isn't highlighting it because the rest of the site is as you say pedestrian.

(Incidentally, since it gets past strict filtering I have informed them about it)

Re:This site is a little messed up (1)

sabernet (751826) | more than 7 years ago | (#16814374)

Lol. I think their safesearch filter needs tweaking:P

Re:This site is a little messed up (4, Funny)

Paranoia Agent (887026) | more than 7 years ago | (#16814416)

Did you find that result helpful? Yes/No

Re:This site is a little messed up (4, Informative)

hotkey (969493) | more than 7 years ago | (#16814428)

Look at the full-size picture: http://www.saitti.org/images/HD-DVD.jpg [saitti.org] (WARNING: Very NSFW!) The red text explains the reason. Basically, ars technica linked the picture from this guy without permission, so he decided to have some fun.

Re:This site is a little messed up (1)

Pinkfud (781828) | more than 7 years ago | (#16814596)

Haha, what would you expect? You can find that on DVD at your local video store. I plan to watch my mouth on here from now on. They indexed every comment I ever posted at Slashdot!

Re:This site is a little messed up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16816464)

they are preventing links to their site the same way imageshack and other sites prevent direct linking.
its not just a porn image, dumbass.

I liked the more webpages feature (2, Informative)

charliebear (887653) | more than 7 years ago | (#16814328)

Kind of cool that to get more results, it displays on the same page, and you keep scrolling down, instead of loading a new page.

Reminds me a bit of Google personalized homepage (1)

javakah (932230) | more than 7 years ago | (#16814746)

Mainly in that you can minimize different sections. Now if only it would let you drag those sections around to be in a better order for you instead of their current piece of junk organization. Perhaps that's coming. Who knows. It also is starting to feel cluttered. Perhaps they'll let you get rid of sections and create buttons in case you want to see those.

Failure (1)

xmpcray (636203) | more than 7 years ago | (#16814814)

Search for "failure" still brings George W Bush on top...(http://www.searchmash.com/search/failure)

So either searchmash's algorithm is still susceptible to the same Google bombing technique or Bush has actually failed.

Reorder search results around? (2, Informative)

Nixusg (1008583) | more than 7 years ago | (#16814832)

Last time i was there you could reorder the search results to suit you... http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/tcmagazine/~3/38789 079/comments.php [feedburner.com] ...look like that has been removed. Guess it didn't make it past the user responses.

"space bar for more" is nice (4, Insightful)

sunhou (238795) | more than 7 years ago | (#16814844)

I often use space bar to page down in my web browser. I like the way, if you hit space bar while already at the bottom of the page, it adds another 10 results to the list, so you can continue hitting space bar to keep looking at more matches. It works for both web search and image search. I hate having to reach for the mouse to get to the next page of results (or using the mouse in general -- it's too slow, compared to keyboarding).

Maybe that's why it uses javascript, which others have been complaining about.

Re:"space bar for more" is nice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16814936)

big w0rd, my friend.

Re:"space bar for more" is nice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16815518)

(or using the mouse in general -- it's too slow, compared to keyboarding)

The 90 seconds you save every day will come in handy, I'm sure.

Dragging Results (2, Interesting)

Siker (851331) | more than 7 years ago | (#16814944)

For a while you could also rearrange the search results by drag and drop. Last month I wrote a little conspiracy theory [playingwithwire.com] about the true purpose of all this dragging. Seems like they removed that feature now though, so I guess that's a sign I was wrong. Or maybe they saw my blog and realized the secret was getting out and hid the feature... :)

Searchmash? (1)

TheShadowzero (884085) | more than 7 years ago | (#16814964)

Weird name. Anyway, I quite like it. It's streamlined, and most of the Ajax-y features are fast and useful. However, I don't like having the images on the bottom of the screen. Maybe the top or left side? It makes them hard to notice. Also, I don't like being limited to only 10 entries (my Google preferences are set to show 100 entries per search) as it increases the amount of clicks I have to make. I guess it makes sense at this point, though, because otherwise the images would be way too far down. The Wikipedia entries are very nice but would be better if they weren't hidden by default. The "hide details" and clicking on green urls etc. features are very nice and handy. The biggest gripe I have though is the fact that it looks like one of those advertisement search pages, probably because the text is small and at first glance the Feedback and Wikipedia entries look like ads.

Doesn't work in Konq (1)

kirun (658684) | more than 7 years ago | (#16814966)

This doesn't work in Konqueror... the results flash up for a second then disappear. Oh well.

Re:Doesn't work in Konq (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16815036)

Works fine for me in 3.4.0, except that when I try to expand the Wikipedia box, it says "Loading..." forever (well, I haven't actually waited that long, but still).

Problems with "++" searches (2, Interesting)

macklin01 (760841) | more than 7 years ago | (#16815326)

Strangely enough, I had trouble searching for C++.

For example, C++ jpeg gets turned into C jpeg, and returns a bunch of C code. If you search with quotes, "C++" jpeg, you get "C " jpeg. Search for "devc++", and you get "devc " and information on Devcon international.

This doesn't make the search engine particularly useful for C++ coders. ;) -- Paul

Objective Feedback is Right (1)

siLoOfMisfortune (1025410) | more than 7 years ago | (#16815992)

I think that the "Did You Mean?" results should be broadened. Just because I am looking up a state such as Florida for example, it doesn't mean I am looking for just maps.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...