3 ms·
Interesting work. It's not quite useful to me just yet, but I think there is something there. The biggest problem I see so far is the fact that I need to click
by coffeemug 17y ago
Interesting work. It's not quite useful to me just yet, but I think there is something there. The biggest problem I see so far is the fact that I need to click on a link after hitting search in order to get any results is a big problem. This needs to be fixed first.
I'm not completely sure what your direction is. If I search for something my goal is to either A) find the best results, or B) explore. You do somewhat of a mix of these two, but don't do either of these things well. I think you need to figure out what exactly is the utility for your users that you're providing, and then polish it until it's perfect. Going through all sources in a frame easily is kind of interesting, but it's not quite the utility I'm ever looking for. Perhaps merge the results somehow? Or let people explore (similar to Scoopler)?
The search space today is different from what it was two years ago. If you consider purely quality of the web results, Google isn't a clear winner. While I wouldn't try something new two years ago (Google was perfect), I would now. If someone built something that genuinely gave me better results, or indexed more stuff, or let me browse content in some great way, or something, I'd use it over Google. I'd imagine other people would too. What I mean is - I don't know what the answer is, but I know it's there, waiting to be discovered. What you've done is unpolished and isn't very useful, but somewhat interesting, so the person who'll discover the answer might as well be you! I'd keep trying, and keep asking for feedback. I'd love to see this go in a good direction.
Good luck!
- rokhayakebe 17y agoThanks for the detailed feedback. You are right about the extra click, I will try to load at least of page then let users navigate. I think I will keep adding vertical search engines and improve the UX.