About Lexxe
News and Press
New Search Engines like Clusty and Lexxe Save Time and Produce Better Results
Date: August 28th, 2006
Dr. Andrew Cohill, CEO of Design Nine, a US Internet consulting company based in Virginia, yesterday published an article "Search 2.0 and third generation search engines" on its company's Technology Forum. He claimed that the new search engines "save time and produce better results". With the rapid development of newer and better search engines, Dr. Cohill predicted that "Google could fall, and fall quickly".
This is not a single voice of concern about Google and expectation of the third generation Internet search engines. Mike Yamamoto, an Executive Editor of CNET News.com, recently claimed, after commenting on the "Search 2.0" startups, that "None of these is a household name yet, but neither was Google only a few years ago. That could change quickly and drastically in the Web 2.0 era".
The full articles are as follows (some quotes are highlighted in bold):
Author: Dr. Andrew Cohill
Date: August 27th, 2006
This article is a great summary of some of the new "Search 2.0" search engines that represent third generation technologies. The first generation of search engines were those that simply indexed the content of Web pages, with the venerable Alta Vista as the best example. Google defined second generation search technology, which looked at links to and from a Web page as a way of determining relevance.
Third generation search engines go well beyond the aging Google model, using intelligent clustering of results, natural language processing, and more human input to improve search results. Clusty is one of my favorites, which tries to cluster results into categories. This is especially helpful when a search query tends to include results from more than one topic area, which happens a lot. When you get search results back, you can quickly pick the appropriate cluster and whack out a lot of dreck. For example, if you put in the word 'record,' which can have different meanings in different contexts, Clusty returns 199 clusters, with the top ten results sets on the first page. It is pretty likely one of those sets is the correct one.
Another interesting one is Lexxe, which says it uses natural language processing to improve query results. It seems to work. The same two word query that Google coughed up 68,000 results for returned just 100 results in Lexxe.
One might reasonably ask why Google has not bothered to improve its search engine. Currently, the company probably thinks it does not have to--its quarterly earnings shot up again. But the Internet can turn on a dime, and I continue to believe that Google could fall, and fall quickly. In the meantime, try some of these new search engines; they save time and produce better results.
Source: http://www.designnine.com/news/?q=node/783
Author: Mike Yamamoto
Date: July 20th, 2006
Confused about the direction of search technology? We certainly are. That's why we were particularly interested in this primer on "Search 2.0 vs. Traditional Search."
A lot of blogs and sites write about this important area of development, often in generalized or densely technical terms. But Read/WriteWeb, a part of the Web 2.0 Workgroup blog network,
helps explain the status of search technology the best kind of learning tool: examples.
Specifically, the blog summarizes five hot technologies that are on the front lines of search development--Swicki,
Rollyo,
Clusty,
Wink and
Lexxe. (Is it just me, or does this sound like a roster of cartoon characters?) Key features among many of these emerging technologies, not surprisingly, are community and collaboration.
None of these is a household name yet, but neither was Google only a few years ago. That could change quickly and drastically in the Web 2.0 era.
Source: http://news.com.com/2061-10811_3-6096581.html
|