9/26/05

Getting Closer on Search...

OK folks, the search engine is getting better and better.

A search for College Football Stadiums now returns what it should.

A search for "Corpse Bride" now returns what it should (thanks Kamylienne).

I think the entire site has been successfully indexed now.

The last tweak we are working on is to put heavier weighting on the name of a particular item or category... For example, the search results for "Jessica Alba" should result in a page called "Jessica Alba" outranking the "Dark Angel" page. Currently, it's not.

We're working on this... hopefully we'll have things sorted out in the next day or to.

One question for you all.... do you think we should continue to partition search - in other words, break it up into RateItAll, Weblists, Local - or do you think we should offer the option to search site wide? Feedback welcome.

1 comment:

  1. The new search engine sucks. There is no organization at all. Comments that reference an item are grouped in random order along with titles that contain the item. Any logical search would not just orgnaize hits in a tiered format but would indicate that tier by stating List/Weblist, List Item/Weblist Item, User comment.

    Who needs 1200 hits on a simple search? Search engines should be specific. Whereas the old search was specific and ordered, the new search is disorgnaized and generic.

    The old method may have not shown many things such as one user name referencing another but at least it didn't clutter things with 300 items that are pointless.

    Searches should be intuitive and narrow the possibilities to a managable amount of hits. In some cases that is dependent on the savvy of a users search criteria but a quality search engine should be designed for morons.

    Moron or not, the current search tosses in so much irrelevant crap as hits that it makes it completely pointless. A google search returns better results right now even if that data is cached and 3-4 days old.

    ReplyDelete

Apture