4 ms·
It's interesting, and I really appreciate that you aren't trying to out-Google Google. This seems like a useful tool in its own right in addition to what else e
by GravitasFailure 3y ago
It's interesting, and I really appreciate that you aren't trying to out-Google Google. This seems like a useful tool in its own right in addition to what else exists.
- marginalia_nu 3y agoI don't think that would make sense. If Google is struggling with search, a one man Google clone isn't going to do it better. I also think that having "a google", one central search engine, is inherently a bad thing for the health of the Internet. It drives a lot of this search engine spam epidemic we're seeing. A broader and (IMO) more interesting problem is Internet discovery.
- throwaway14356 3y agowithout/before commerce one would link to similar websites as much as possible. Now those are called competitors. I bet one could make a facinating ranking algo that groups sites by subject then sort them by nr of links to others in that group. So the perfect SEO would be to have a blogroll at the top of the left menu with every related website in it. i.e. 3 stores sell the same item. Nr 1 is the one linking to the other 2. Extra points for linking to that specific product page.
- hedora 3y agoGoogle used to be a ~one man search engine clone (and it was definitely better a few years after that than it is today).
- marginalia_nu 3y agoA lot of Google's initial quality was due to the fact that the content it indexed was much higher quality. Even besides the point that the websites they indexed were a lot less adversarial, they put a lot of emphasis on indexing academia, and were outspoken against what came to be their present mixed motives[1]. [1] http://infolab.stanford.edu/~backrub/google.html#a http://infolab.stanford.edu/~backrub/google.html#a
- robin_reala 3y agoWell, two-man.
- marginalia_nu 3y agoI think it was actually three-man with Scott Hassan.