4 ms·

We launched http://48ers.com http://48ers.com a few weeks ago to do a similar thing. Obviously Google doesn't have our scale, raw computing power or potent tech

by whyleyc 16y ago

We launched http://48ers.com http://48ers.com a few weeks ago to do a similar thing. Obviously Google doesn't have our scale, raw computing power or potent technical acumen, but it's nice to see them trying. If it goes anywhere for them we'll most likely just buy them out and quietly sunset their little pet project.

pinko 16y ago
Just tried your site with an open mind (hadn't heard of it before now). Alas, Google Realtime returned much better results. After the top few links, in fact, your results seemed to be unrelated to the query: http://48ers.com/search/?q=sanebox http://48ers.com/search/?q=sanebox vs http://www.google.com/search?tbs=mbl%3A1&hl=en&source=hp&esrch=RealtimeLaunch%3A%3AExperiment&q=sanebox&btnG=Search http://www.google.com/search?tbs=mbl%3A1&hl=en&sourc... Any idea what went wrong?
- whyleyc 16y ago
  I've just checked the search and the results seemed to be pretty accurate for me: http://www.mediafire.com/imageview.php?quickkey=fgb8wcu4oulss19 http://www.mediafire.com/imageview.php?quickkey=fgb8wcu4ouls... Was it on a later page they seemed to go more fuzzy ?
  - pinko 16y ago
    How odd. Your results are different (and better) now. When I looked before the first three links were great, after that it was as if they were for a different search.
hsuresh 16y ago
I notice that you don't update the search results, any specific reason for not doing so (given that you call it a real time search)?
- whyleyc 16y ago
  Just that we wanted to get a minimum viable product out of the door and this feature didn't make the cut. It's on the todo list to add in, but we thought it was just a "nice to have" that seemed to be the current fashion for realtime search. Turns out people deem it to be more important than that, so it's now one of our higher priorities.

4 ms·

We launched http://48ers.com http://48ers.com a few weeks ago to do a similar thing. Obviously Google doesn't have our scale, raw computing power or potent tech

by whyleyc 16y ago

pinko 16y ago
Just tried your site with an open mind (hadn't heard of it before now). Alas, Google Realtime returned much better results. After the top few links, in fact, your results seemed to be unrelated to the query: http://48ers.com/search/?q=sanebox http://48ers.com/search/?q=sanebox vs http://www.google.com/search?tbs=mbl%3A1&hl=en&source=hp&esrch=RealtimeLaunch%3A%3AExperiment&q=sanebox&btnG=Search http://www.google.com/search?tbs=mbl%3A1&hl=en&sourc... Any idea what went wrong?
- whyleyc 16y ago
  I've just checked the search and the results seemed to be pretty accurate for me: http://www.mediafire.com/imageview.php?quickkey=fgb8wcu4oulss19 http://www.mediafire.com/imageview.php?quickkey=fgb8wcu4ouls... Was it on a later page they seemed to go more fuzzy ?
  - pinko 16y ago
    How odd. Your results are different (and better) now. When I looked before the first three links were great, after that it was as if they were for a different search.
hsuresh 16y ago
I notice that you don't update the search results, any specific reason for not doing so (given that you call it a real time search)?
- whyleyc 16y ago
  Just that we wanted to get a minimum viable product out of the door and this feature didn't make the cut. It's on the todo list to add in, but we thought it was just a "nice to have" that seemed to be the current fashion for realtime search. Turns out people deem it to be more important than that, so it's now one of our higher priorities.