Objectively Comparing Competing Search Engines? 405
aendeuryu asks: "My default search engine of choice is, like most of you I assume, Google. That said, some complaints about Google over the years do seem to have some merit -- basically, that sometimes the indices aren't always updated, that it's too easy to manipulate via googlebombing or legislation, and that maybe too many of its featured services never get out of beta stage. Maybe the fact that Google has gone so long without significant competition is enough to make one at least begin to ask questions about it possibly becoming stagnant. Personally, I'm so used to doing things the Google way (and achieving acceptable results quickly) that I'm not really interested in switching -- case in point, all the above links referenced were quickly found via Google. However, what am I missing out on by not giving (for example) Yahoo search a shot? Or, more to the point, how would one go about trying to effectively and objectively compare competing search engines? In what areas have people found Google to have become obsolete for their purposes? Have less ignorant people than myself figured out ways to test a competing search engine's efficacy for themselves?"
dogpile.com (Score:5, Informative)
Alternates (Score:5, Informative)
Yahoo search is okay, not as nice as google, but a good second.
Alltheweb.com has found things google hasn't, but in general I rarely use it.
I rarely use MSN because it was awful all the times I tried it. Same for Altavista.
In general, if I'm searching for something I'll use google first and then Yahoo and Alltheweb to catch anything that google may have missed.
I use Google for almost everything (Score:2, Informative)
I quite like Google. (Score:2, Informative)
One of the great things about search... (Score:1, Informative)
To help you out, I'll even get you started with a few clickable links...
Yahoo Search [yahoo.com]
MSN Search [msn.com]
Ask Jeeves [ask.com]
Hope that helps. Good luck.
Precision and Recall (Score:5, Informative)
When you measure a search technology, the values you typically look for are precision and recall. precision says "of the X results you gave me, how many of them are relevant". recall says "in the world, there were Y possible pages you could have found, but you gave me X of them".
you can't measure recall for a public search engine, but you can measure precision. Take a set of sample queries, and some users. Have them perform the queries, and go through the first ~100 pages and give them a "thumbs up" (relevant) or "thumbs down" (not relevant).
Your overall score will measure precision: if at N=100, all 100 were relevant, that's 1.0. if only 50 were judged relevant, precision is 0.5.
You can estimate recall by judging say 1,000 documents (phew). Then sample precision at N=10, 100, 500, etc, assuming that is an "exhaustive" list of documents in the world.
Re:Questions (Score:3, Informative)
Google Answers [google.com]
Re:Try them out yourself (Score:0, Informative)
Search Engine Watch (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Alternates (Score:4, Informative)
Here is my alternative. It is called Copernic Agent [copernic.com]. It is a desktop application that searches multiple search engines returns the results sorted by relevance. It will then let you further refine your search by searcheing aginst the actual pages in the result list. There is a free version that is crippleware. I bought the personal version and it was my favorite tool for searching job sites when I was unemployed.
search.yahoo.com (Score:5, Informative)
Lately my Google results have been so Google bombed that I've been going back and forth between the two. I can't say for sure yet, but I may be in the middle of a bit of a personal transition.
Depending on what you're searching for, Google is often so front-loaded with dead-end advertiser links that its results aren't really worth much. Although it has to be said, it depends what type of a search user you are, and what types of things you're looking for.
Google is still the king of advanced search.
Re:Dont bother (Score:3, Informative)
The times that I have had problems is when I am not exactly sure what I am looking for in a few quick words. I can put it together in a question, such as "What is my house in Utah worth?" or "Why are flamingos pink?".
in those cases, I usually do ask.com That will get me going on a few pages, at which point I will know more clearly what I'm looking for (Utah "Real Estate") and can google from there on out.
MSN's sandbox test searchpage (Score:4, Informative)
Too bad the search results aren't nearly as up to par as google's results (in my opinion)
http://start.com/1 [start.com]
Simple Method (Score:5, Informative)
I've stuck with Google for a while, but I used to do surveys pretty often. My approach was to start preparing a couple of days in advance, by keeping notes about things I was searching for. Then I'd take three or four of them, usually the ones that I'd had the most trouble refining, and try them out on a bunch of search engines. For each, I'd keep track of how many searches I had to do and how many junk pages I had to get through before I could get to something useful on that subject. It usually became clear pretty quickly which search engines were allowing me to make efficient use of my time and which were wasting my time.
Another thing you might want to do is check out some of the newer "clustering" or "concept map" search engines such as Vivisimo or Kartoo, to see whether they suit your searching style better. They're really quite different from the search engines we've gotten used to, so the metrics I just described don't quite work for them. That doesn't mean they're better or worse - just different.
Re:I quite like Google. (Score:3, Informative)
Not sure why you end up at different fr/dk/... domains though
Re:Why Google works (Score:3, Informative)
2. MSN Search has no graphical ads.
3. MSN Search separates the paid results just as clearly as Google does.
So, when was the last time you looked at MSN Search? Last year?
Teoma used to be good... (Score:3, Informative)
Surprisingly, I still use Ask Jeeves (www.ask.com) for things - and find it finds things that Google has completely missed!
I guess you have to use a combination of several to really find everything you want - though Google by far is the best one.I base it on bot/spider visits (Score:3, Informative)
What's weird I'm noticing is that I don't see anything from something like a Yahoo bot at http://klomdark.servebeer.com:443/analog/report.h
Google still leads however. I wonder where Yahoo is getting it's data, unless it's from a crawl previous to fall 2003, as I'm not tracking logs from that far back. Strange.
Re:Dont bother (Score:3, Informative)
"Flamingos are not born pink. They are white at birth. However, a substance -- called carotenoids -- in the foods they eat produce the bright pink color.
Flamingos would lose their shading if they could not eat carotenoid-filled foods like plankton, shrimp, or -- as handlers at the Philadelphia Zoo have found -- carrots. "
Search Engine Watch (Score:5, Informative)
For some time now, Search Engine Watch [searchenginewatch.com] has provided a good editorial and comparison on various search engines. They focus on marketing topics, but also tend to talk a lot about the underlying technology, etc.
A recent roundup of engines is at http://searchenginewatch.com/links/article.php/215 6221 [searchenginewatch.com].
Re:Questions (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Dont bother (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Questions (Score:3, Informative)
That kind of engines are indeed nice. Still, they have their own oddities. For laughs, I tried to ask the system whether moon is made of cheese.
It so turns out that moon is indeed made of cheese!
"is moon made of cheese?"
"The Moon is Made of Cheese"
I guess it still takes some time before that kind search engines become more popular than the traditional ones.
Re:Yahoo seems lazy (Score:2, Informative)
A9 does use Google for the main results. Their play is in customizing the interface for various types of information.
Re:Alternates (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Questions (Score:3, Informative)
I have actually found searching for a plain english question to work in a number of other instances, as well. Not always, but sometimes.
Re:Alternates (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Dont bother (Score:4, Informative)
What be really sweet, would be a way to EXCLUDE certain sites.
For each site that you want to exclude, add a term along the lines of -site:overstock.com to your query.
Re:Dont bother (Score:3, Informative)
Or at least mentioned in the comments: vivisimo.com
Re:Dont bother (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Dont bother (Score:4, Informative)
For example: a question about Java [experts-exchange.com]. The question first, then the SIGN UP! bla bla, then a bunch of catagories, but if you scroll down further, you'll find answers to the questions, including the 'accepted answer' and such.
Hope this is useful to someone.
Cheers
Re:Dont bother (Score:3, Informative)
Googling for "The Who" gave me mostly relevant results.
Re:Dont bother (Score:3, Informative)
I merely tried to point out that in some cases -- such as this -- searches phrased-as questions can return no relevant answers at all on Google.
Another thing: I may have composed my search in an idiotic fashion. But don't you think most people are idiots, in the way that they ask naïve, corteous questions to Google and expect an answer? Very few people actually reads Google's search tips before searching.
Re:Dont bother (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Major reason Yahoo is better... (Score:3, Informative)
This is absolute rubbish. Google DOES crawl dynamic pages quite happily. It's crawled all of my sites with no problem.
Neither (no) search engine crawls dynamic sites where there are no links to the dynamic content (eg where you HAVE to search using keywords to find the content) but Google and Yahoo are happy to index any dynamic page which is directly linked to even if it has lots of parameters in the URL. Google has indexed 15000 dynamic pages on a directory site of mine quite happily.