[HN Gopher] EU Open Web Search project kicked off
___________________________________________________________________
EU Open Web Search project kicked off
Author : ZacnyLos
Score : 126 points
Date : 2022-09-20 17:50 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (openwebsearch.eu)
(TXT) w3m dump (openwebsearch.eu)
| Animats wrote:
| Early version: https://www.chatnoir.eu/
| andrewmcwatters wrote:
| I suspect search engines are an outdated concept for at least the
| largest of sites, who will generally, but not always, have better
| ways to directly search their own content.
|
| The remainder of the search problem seems to just be collecting
| relevant trafficked sites for listing in results. Today Google et
| al seem to be doing this BY HAND. And it's not even obfuscated.
|
| Recently, for the first time in my life, the wizard behind the
| curtain seems to have been exposed. I feel strongly that one
| could probably start a small index that catered to a fairly large
| audience.
|
| And honestly, for other queries, just tell the user to search
| that site directly. I think you could even market it to users as
| not a technical limitation, but behavior that should be
| considered fuddy-duddy.
|
| Like, really, you're going to search me? You know they have their
| own search right?
|
| Even Yellow Pages faded into obscurity eventually.
| ur-whale wrote:
| > the largest of sites, who will generally, but not always,
| have better ways to directly search their own content.
|
| I have the exact opposite experience.
|
| To wit: searching HN via the algolia link at the bottom is way
| worse than searching on Google with a site:ycombinator.com
| restrict.
|
| Same thing for YouTube, where the search engine is tuned for
| maximizing watch time and strictly not to return what you're
| looking for.
| notright wrote:
| the EU loves taxing productive companies and wasting said money
| in stillborn projects that nevertheless promise a kind of bright
| socialist federalist Europe in their bureaucratic minds
| Comevius wrote:
| At least we have some of the most livable countries on Earth to
| show for it. I take taxes over any trickle-down economics, and
| don't let me stop you looking up the definition of socialist,
| because you are using it wrong.
|
| Besides it's a 8.5 million EUR project, it's literally nothing,
| it's payroll for a few people. The money is being invested into
| people who then spend most of it, so it's a triple investment.
| arjenpdevries wrote:
| Isn't it lovely?!
| notright wrote:
| I am fine as long as they pay for these self-centered utopias
| with their own money
| hrbf wrote:
| I've already caught their crawler ignoring robots.txt directives
| on one of my sites, aggressively indexing explicitly excluded
| information.
| arjenpdevries wrote:
| That cannot be true, as the project has yet to start. But
| anyone can start a crawler, so you may have encountered other
| people's software. We wouldn't be so unknowledgeable to ignore
| robots.txt ;-)
| lizardactivist wrote:
| Out of curiosity, what's the url for your website, and from
| what IP or host do their crawlers connect?
| logicalmonster wrote:
| What does "based on European values and jurisdiction" refer to?
| I'd love to be pleasantly surprise, but this sounds like it's
| ripe for centralized censorship.
| notright wrote:
| InTheArena wrote:
| Given the history of the 20th century, this kind of comment
| promoting European values and jurisdiction seems..... dicey.
| Companies ethical records, as shitty as they are have nothing
| on the mass destruction, genocide and stupidity of governments.
| ur-whale wrote:
| Looks like it's Northern EU only.
|
| No research institutes from {France, Italy, Spain, Greece,
| Portugal, etc ...} involved.
| arjenpdevries wrote:
| Slovenia, Czech Republic. But yes, I think there was a
| competing proposal from Italy/Spain. Not enough budget for two
| projects in this area, unfortunately, as they were good too.
| marginalia_nu wrote:
| I'm a bit skeptical EU-funding a bunch of professors is the way a
| search engine will be built.
|
| The primary goal for academics is to publish new findings, while
| what you need to build a search engine is rock solid CS and
| information retrieval basics. Academically, it's not very
| exciting. Most of it was hashed out in the 1980s or earlier.
| hkt wrote:
| ..correct me if I'm wrong, but Google was started by a couple
| of postdoctoral researchers, no?
| DannyBee wrote:
| Who deliberately did not stay in academia to do it. More to
| the point, a successful team building a product like a search
| engine requires roles that academia doesn't really have.
|
| Who is doing product management?
|
| Who is doing product marketing?
|
| etc
|
| This is all applied engineering at this point, not R&D. How
| does it at all fit into academia's strong suit?
| mkl95 wrote:
| > 14 European research and computing centers
|
| > 7 countries.
|
| > 25+ people.
|
| There are literally dozens of them!
|
| https://openwebsearch.eu/partners/
| marginalia_nu wrote:
| I don't think the number of people or even the size of the
| budget is wrong. A small team can be incredibly powerful and
| productive if you have the right people. In fact, I think far
| more often search engines fail from trying to start too big
| than too small.
|
| The problem is that you need people who actually know how to
| architect complex software systems much more than you need
| revolutionary new algorithms. For that, professors are the
| wrong people. A professor on the team, sure, that might be
| helpful. Not half a Manhattan project's worth.
| mkl95 wrote:
| It happens all the time in Europe. Collaboration between
| public and private companies is pretty much a pipe dream in
| the EU. Some company that actually works on building search
| technology would achieve way more than a bunch of
| professors.
|
| I disagree on the budget though. It is basically pocket
| change.
| marginalia_nu wrote:
| Arguably the biggest most unsolved problem in search is
| how to make a profit (or even break even). This can be
| approached in two ways: You can either try to find some
| way of making search more profitable, or you can find a
| way to make search cheaper. I think the latter is a lot
| more plausible than the former.
|
| A shoestring budget keeps the costs down by design and by
| necessity. A large budget virtually ensures the search
| engine becomes so expensive to operate it will never
| break even.
| [deleted]
| jjulius wrote:
| >I'm a bit skeptical EU-funding a bunch of professors is the
| way a search engine will be built.
|
| Heh, so, funny story...
|
| >A second grant--the DARPA-NSF grant most closely associated
| with Google's origin--was part of a coordinated effort to build
| a massive digital library using the internet as its backbone.
| Both grants funded research by two graduate students who were
| making rapid advances in web-page ranking, as well as tracking
| (and making sense of) user queries: future Google cofounders
| Sergey Brin and Larry Page.
|
| >The research by Brin and Page under these grants became the
| heart of Google: people using search functions to find
| precisely what they wanted inside a very large data set.
|
| https://qz.com/1145669/googles-true-origin-partly-lies-in-ci...
| imhoguy wrote:
| "unbiased...based on European values" - will it fly?
| topspin wrote:
| European values are inherently unbiased. What's the problem?
| o.O
| tricky777 wrote:
| seems like a very interesting idea. So many times I wanted some
| kind of advanced gogle-query-language. (i know about allinurl and
| such, but thats not enough. google is tuned for average user,
| which is good for google, but not for any non average query)
| dataking wrote:
| I don't see any mention of Quaero, the EU search engine that was
| supposed to compete with Google [0, 1]. How is this time
| different?
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaero
|
| [1] https://www.dw.com/en/germany-pulls-away-from-quaero-
| search-...
| arjenpdevries wrote:
| For starters: the objective is to create the index not the
| engine, that's quite a different ambition.
|
| We are very aware of the Quaero/Theseus history :-)
| marginalia_nu wrote:
| What is the difference?
| freediver wrote:
| Supposedely the project is about just building the
| platform/infrastructure (which is what the index is) upon
| which search engines can be built.
|
| These search engines will then have the freedom to define
| their own search product experience, business model, even
| ranking of results.
| jonas21 wrote:
| So something even more vaguely defined and detached from
| real use cases than last time? Great.
| freediver wrote:
| The above actually defines the scope very well. There is
| lot more to be built upon it, but it is not what the
| project is trying to solve.
| notright wrote:
| notright wrote:
| This was the past legislature project. The new legislature
| brings CHANGE. They are not the same..
| thepangolino wrote:
| dang wrote:
| Url changed from https://www.zylstra.org/blog/2022/09/eu-open-
| web-search-proj..., which points to
| https://djoerdhiemstra.com/2022/open-web-search-project-kick...,
| which points to this.
| lucideer wrote:
| Which now shows:
|
| > _Resource Limit Is Reached_
|
| > _The website is temporarily unable to service your request as
| it exceeded resource limit. Please try again later._
|
| Original URL might be more resilient...
| dang wrote:
| Hmm. I can access the page without that message. In any case
| the Internet Archive seems to have it:
|
| https://web.archive.org/web/20220920183027/https://openwebse.
| ..
| Proven wrote:
| rrwo wrote:
| It will be interesting to see what the index contains, and how it
| is structured.
|
| What made Google such a game changer was that they based their
| index not just on the contents, but on how pages linked to each
| other.
| arjenpdevries wrote:
| That's the marketing story. I think it's because they didn't
| clutter their homepage like AltaVista did.
| boyter wrote:
| I have written this before but I'll put it here again. What I
| would like to see is a federated search engine. Based on
| activitypub that works like mastodon. Don't like the results from
| one source? Just remove them from your sources, or lower their
| ranking. Similar to yacy but you can work with the protocol to
| connect or build whatever type of index you want using whatever
| technology you like, and communicate over an existing standard.
| Want to build the worlds best index of Pokemon sites, then go do
| it. Want to build a search engine using idris or ats? Sure! I did
| note the professors are on mastodon so perhaps this may actually
| happen.
|
| One of these days I'll actually implement the above assuming
| nobody else does. I figured if I can at least get the basics done
| and a reference implementation that's easy to run it could prove
| the concept. If anyone is interested in this do email my in my
| bio.
|
| What I worry about for this project is that it becomes another
| island which prohibits remixing of results like google and bing,
| and its own index and ranking algorithms become gamed.
|
| I wish the creators best of luck though. I am also hoping for
| some more blogs and papers about the internals of he engine. So
| little information is published in the space that anything is
| welcome, especially if it's deeply technical.
| fabrice_d wrote:
| At least one of the partners
| (https://openwebsearch.eu/partners/radboud-university/) does
| research on "federated search systems", so there's hope!
| asim wrote:
| One of the things I wonder here is if it would be easier to
| just start by crawling known RSS feeds and then exposing a JSON
| API for the data and making the whole thing open source. Then
| keeping a public list of indexes and who crawls what.
| Eventually moving into crawling other sources but first
| primarily addressing the majority of useful content that's
| easily parseable.
| TacticalCoder wrote:
| > Don't like the results from one source? Just remove them from
| your sources, or lower their ranking.
|
| That's basically Usenet killfiles and, yes, I think they're
| totally due for a comeback in one form or another. Usenet may
| have had its issues towards the end (although it still exists),
| but killfiles weren't one of its problems. The simplest one you
| could just discard sources you didn't want to read anymore but
| the more advanced you could assign weight/rankings based on
| various factors (keywords / usernames / if you did participate
| or not in a discussion / etc.).
| arjenpdevries wrote:
| We like Federated search, we like decentralized search, and
| even P2P search; we are trying to find a good mix, and decided
| to get started rather than wait! Exciting times.
| marginalia_nu wrote:
| What are the benefits from this?
|
| I'm not trying to be dismissive, it's just my feeling from
| working on search.marginalia.nu is that nearly every aspect
| of search benefits from locality, not only is the full crawl-
| set instrumental in determining both domain rankings and
| relevance signals on a term-level such as anchor tag
| keywords; but the way an inverted index is typically set up
| is extremely disk cache friendly where the access pattern for
| checking the first document warms up the cache for the other
| queries, but that discount obviously only exists when it's
| the same cache.
| hkt wrote:
| I would _love_ to be able to run a node that mirrors part or
| all of an index like this, and to let people query it - a bit
| like https://torrents-csv.ml/#/
|
| Good luck! I'll be watching your progress and cheering you
| all on!
| cookiengineer wrote:
| Isn't searx what you're describing? I was running an instance
| for a while, and it's basically a meta search engine that has
| support for all kinds of providers.
|
| There are also some web extensions available so that you can
| fill it with more data.
|
| [1] https://searx.github.io/searx/
| boyter wrote:
| Searx is half of it where it calls out to other searches but
| does not provide its own index as far as I can see. It also
| does not remix the results.
| vindarel wrote:
| I'd say it rather looks like Seeks, unfortunately defunkt:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seeks
|
| > a decentralized p2p websearch and collaborative tool.
|
| > It relies on a distributed collaborative filter[6] to let
| users personalize and share their preferred results on a
| search.
| googlryas wrote:
| What benefit does federation bring here? Unless it is very
| simple to set up, most communities are non-technical and
| probably won't be able to set up their own crawler. I would
| think just a search engine that lets you customize the ranking
| algorithm, and maybe hook into whatever ontology they've
| developed and ranking it accordingly would be sufficient.
| melony wrote:
| What's the point of a federated search engine? At the end of
| the day most nodes will end up implementing the same
| regulations/censorship with development driven primarily by a
| few. It's like ethereum vs ethereum classic all over again. If
| the EU or the developers' respective governments demand a
| censorship or forgetting feature to be implemented, it's not
| like the federated nature would matter. An open source search
| index is useful, a search engine that can be easily self hosted
| is also useful. But building a search engine as a federated
| system is a gimmick with no significant value.
|
| Do you see any major Mastodon nodes interfacing with Truth
| Social or Gab? I certainly don't. If federation barely works
| for a social media app, I fail to see how it would even matter
| for a search engine.
| ur-whale wrote:
| Search is way more than just indexing.
|
| I'd really like to see them match the 20+ years of search quality
| fine-tuning that Google built into their search engine.
|
| Not that Google is as good as it used to, but still, catching up
| with them is way more complicated than just building a big crawl
| + index piece of infrastructure.
|
| And all of that on a government-funded shoestring budget.
|
| Mmmh.
|
| Good luck to them, but I'm not holding my breath.
| bslqn wrote:
| merb wrote:
| so it began, that sern starts to gather market share.
|
| --
|
| I doubt this will take off. I mean they investend more in funding
| and marketing instead of starting to built something. they
| should've started with code (agpl3 of course) and invited more
| and more people. at the moment this is more buzzword bingo
| bullshit than anything else. it's basically always the same
| problem, instead of focusing on the product, they fous more on
| the message.
| s-xyz wrote:
| Correct me if I am wrong, but so the purpose is to create an
| index database, upon which custom search engines can be attached
| upon? Ie, the EU will crawl all pages on the web?
| murphyslab wrote:
| The index is just the first step according to news articles:
|
| > Once the index has been created, the next step is to develop
| search applications.
|
| > The team at TU Graz will be particularly active here in the
| CoDiS Lab and will work on the conception and user-centric
| aspects of the search applications. This includes, for example,
| research into new search paradigms that enable searchers to
| have a say in how the search takes place. The idea is that
| there are different search algorithms or that you can influence
| the behavior of the search algorithms. For example, you could
| search specifically for scientific documents or for documents
| with arguments, include search terms that have already been
| used, or include documents from the intranet in the search.
|
| https://www.krone.at/2791083
| rgrieselhuber wrote:
| The real game-changer in search would be if companies would agree
| to publish indexes of their own sites in an open standard to a
| place that everyone could access. This would undercut the
| monopoly power that large search engines have and allow everyone
| to focus on innovating the best way to search that content vs.
| having to spend so much time and money to crawl and index it.
| _Algernon_ wrote:
| People would abuse that for SEO purposes within seconds.
| rgrieselhuber wrote:
| The market need would then be shifted to the best search
| interfaces instead of who has the most money to build the
| biggest index. A much better focus, IMO.
| TheFerridge wrote:
| I believe that is precisely what the project is aiming to do,
| and to turn it into a public resource.
| arjenpdevries wrote:
| We will explore that idea in the project, I also think it may
| help (but vulnerable for Web index spam by adversary parties).
| rgrieselhuber wrote:
| That is indeed the biggest problem but maybe something that
| can be more effectively dealt with downstream by the content
| rankers and potentially even the user base / custom search
| algorithm builders. Brave's Goggles project is a good early
| prototype of this concept.
| freediver wrote:
| Standard for this already exists [1] but it does not solve the
| problems of
|
| 1. Implementation (sites do not need to have a sitemap; or
| those that have it, may not have an accurate one)
|
| 2. Discoverability (finding sites in the first place, you'll
| need a centralised directory of all sites; or resort back to
| crawling in which case sitemaps are not needed)
|
| 3. Ranking (biggest problem in creating a search engine)
|
| [1] https://www.sitemaps.org/protocol.html
| rgrieselhuber wrote:
| The sitemaps standard (if this is the basis) would need to be
| expanded to support additional metadata / structured data to
| support this idea.
|
| 1. This would be up to sites, to your point, major question
| would be best way to create incentives.
|
| 2. This is solvable via a number of approaches, but the
| search engines themselves would be mostly responsible for
| finding the right approach for their business. I know how I
| would do it.
|
| 3. Indeed, which would be the main point of this
| decentralization, to let search engines focus on their
| hardest problem.
|
| Edit: would Kagi not benefit from having to worry about
| crawling / indexing sites?
| [deleted]
| freediver wrote:
| > would Kagi not benefit from having to worry about
| crawling / indexing sites?
|
| It would, but sitemaps do not provide that function as we
| discussed above. However if EU Open Web Search succeeded,
| that is something we could probably use to some extent.
| wizofaus wrote:
| I suspect you underestimate how much of the power of search
| engines is being able to interpret search queries and figure
| out what a user is really looking for. Even if there were a
| public, standardised up-to-date high performance full-text
| index of the entire web freely available I'm willing to bet
| Google search would be a useful value-add in its ability to
| answer natural language queries.
| rgrieselhuber wrote:
| I run an SEO platform SaaS, so I'm familiar. :)
| spookthesunset wrote:
| I'm pretty sure we tried that way back in the day with <meta
| name="keywords" content="spam spam spam spam">. People would
| stuff that with every word in the english language. Older
| search engines that used those keywords returned some pretty
| awful results. You simply can't trust sites, who have a strong
| incentive to get to the top of SEO rankings, to not lie. In
| fact, given at least one of your competitors will stuff their
| keywords to get to the top you'll have to do it too. It would
| become an arms race for who can stuff the most garbage into
| their indexes to "win". It just doesn't work.
|
| All search engines that attempt to be useful will have to
| filter out the junk. You just have to trust that the search
| engine you are using isn't withholding results from you that it
| considers "bad" (eg: "misinformation" (i.e. stuff somebody
| disagrees with)).
|
| And to me, that is the crux of the debate really. Nobody wants
| spam for search results--everybody agrees with that and there
| is no real debate about filtering that crap out. The argument
| really is should a very large company that has a huge market
| share get to decide what constitutes "fact" and what is
| "misinformation". Based on 2.5 years of experience so far, what
| was once deemed "misinformation" has a sneaky way of becoming
| "factual information". Labeling and hiding "misinformation"
| because it goes against some narrative pushed by incredibly
| powerful entities is very scary and there was a hell of a lot
| of exactly that going on during this covid crap.
|
| I used to fall on the side of "private companies can do
| whatever they want" but now I'm not so sure. Companies like FB,
| Twitter or Google play a huge role in shaping politics and
| society. I'm no longer convinced it is okay to let them play
| the role of "fact checker" or anything like that. Filtering
| spam is one thing, but hiding "misinformation" is entirely
| different.
| rgrieselhuber wrote:
| Your last point is also the one (aside from the economics) I
| am the most interested in.
|
| I think we live in a world now where we are so used to a few
| tech giants mediating everything for us that we can't even
| imagine other solutions to this problem, but it's also how we
| got to this point in the first place.
| closedloop129 wrote:
| >You simply can't trust sites, who have a strong incentive to
| get to the top of SEO rankings
|
| Why is it not enough to punish sites that abuse the keywords?
| spookthesunset wrote:
| Who is the one who punishes the abusers? How can you scale
| the solution to deal with billions of pages?
| bobajeff wrote:
| One problem with that is now you have to trust the websites to
| give an accurate index of their content.
| jeffbee wrote:
| Anyone who thinks this will work has never tried to index a
| site. A huge amount of effort is spent trying to figure out
| if the site is serving different content to users vs
| crawlers, or if the site is coded to appear visually
| different to humans vs machines. If you ask sites to index
| themselves you will get lies only.
| rgrieselhuber wrote:
| I index sites all the time and I think it could work. There
| will be other problems, of course, but we already are
| partly there with XML sitemaps. Relying on the large search
| engines to enforce "honesty" from websites puts them into a
| mediator role that has a number of negative effects both
| for search in general and, increasingly, society at large.
| kittiepryde wrote:
| Relying on sites to be honest about themselves, is even
| less likely. There are monetary incentives for many of
| them not to do that. Many sites host dishonest and
| clickbait content with extreme levels of SEO already. The
| cost of dishonesty decreases if you can directly modify
| the index.
| rgrieselhuber wrote:
| I think that is primarily a symptom of the fact that we
| have a bottleneck on search interface providers. If it
| were easier / cheaper for new search engines / rankers to
| exist in the market, they could fairly easily filter out
| unscrupulous domains.
| wumpus wrote:
| I've run a web-scale search engine and I don't think it
| will work.
| rgrieselhuber wrote:
| Indeed
| boyter wrote:
| I'd rather see them publish a federated search of their own
| content.
| rgrieselhuber wrote:
| Your comment prompted me to check out Searchcode, looks very
| interesting. How would the federated search model work in
| this example? Instead of you having to index the various code
| repositories, they would index themselves and make their
| search of those indexes available via a federated API?
| rrwo wrote:
| There are already sitemaps, and pages used structured data like
| HTML5/ARIA roles, RDF or JSON+LD to provide some semantic
| annotations.
|
| I'd rather that web robots use this information to build useful
| indexes than to have to worry about generating yet another feed
| in the hopes that it helps people find my content in a search
| engine.
|
| Besides, a web robot can determine how much other sites link to
| my content and help determine its overall ranking in results.
| Adding another type of index file to my site will do nothing to
| determine how it relates to other sites.
| rgrieselhuber wrote:
| The structured data on sites, unfortunately, still requires a
| crawler to index that content, which serves as a barrier for
| search engine startups. At a minimum, adding some metadata
| content to XML sitemaps would go a long way to solving some
| of this problem (title, meta description, content summary,
| even structured data to the sitemaps).
| Eduard wrote:
| What's the problem of using any of the many free webcrawler
| (libraries) available to crawl a website (even if solely
| based on the pages advertised by sitemap.xml / robots.txt-
| announced sitemaps), then extract structured data from
| these pages?
|
| I don't see this as a barrier unique to startups.
| rgrieselhuber wrote:
| It's easy to do for small sets of sites, but try doing
| this at web-scale and you quickly run into a large
| financial barrier. It's not about technical feasibility
| as much as it is cost.
| DOsinga wrote:
| With a budget of 8.5M Eur/Usd. Alphabet spends 200B per year. If
| 40% of that is spend on search, their budget is 10 thousand times
| larger.
| lucideer wrote:
| It's definitely a comparative underdog regardless, but if you
| think Alphabet spends anywhere near 40% on search you're out of
| your mind. I'd be shocked if their spend is double-digits. I'd
| be unsurprised if it's <1%.
| o_m wrote:
| I doubt 40% is spent on search. Seeing how bad Google has
| gotten, it seems more likely there is just a skeleton crew
| keeping the lights on
| mkl95 wrote:
| I would be shocked if Alphabet spent >5% on search. But even 1%
| would dwarf this project.
| antics9 wrote:
| We need to develop a social aspect to search where results are
| also moderated and curated by humans in some kind of way.
| topspin wrote:
| And when that curation produces results you find abhorrent?
| What then? Because I guarantee it would; a metaphysical
| certitude.
| Extropy_ wrote:
| On first glance, I see the word "unbiased" immediately followed
| by "based on European values". Now, I'm no expert, but to me,
| that seems pretty biased.
| radiojasper wrote:
| biased on European values
| nathan_phoenix wrote:
| This is just a short reply to a blog which mentions that the
| project started...
|
| The actual website of the project (with some concrete info) can
| be found here: https://openwebsearch.eu/
| dang wrote:
| Changed now. Thanks!
| [deleted]
| jacooper wrote:
| > A new EU project OpenWebSearch.eu ... [in which] ... the key
| idea is to separate index construction from the search engines
| themselves, where the most expensive step to create index shards
| can be carried out on large clusters while the search engine
| itself can be operated locally. ...[including] an Open-Web-Search
| Engine Hub, [where anyone can] share their specifications of
| search engines and pre-computed, regularly updated search
| indices. ... that would enable a new future of human-centric
| search without privacy concerns.
|
| So.. Who's going to create the index? Indexing the web is
| expensive, and its offset by the ads the indexer runs on their
| search website, such as Google, bing, brave and others.
| amelius wrote:
| I wonder how privacy will be ensured when your query hits the
| map-reduce infrastructure running on these clusters.
|
| Regarding privacy the bar is significantly higher than what
| Google has to deal with. This will come at some cost in quality
| and/or speed.
| caust1c wrote:
| Every individual website has an incentive to create indices of
| their own content, and hosting providers could provide it as a
| service. Not hard to envision. Search Engines could download
| these indices periodically to build the meta-search.
| wizofaus wrote:
| Also not hard to envision websites being incentivised to lie
| in their indexes.
| moffkalast wrote:
| Someone who's snagging an EU grant, that's who.
| ur-whale wrote:
| > Someone who's snagging an EU grant, that's who.
|
| Bullseye.
| beardedman wrote:
| Oh cool, but do you mean the "EU Open Web Search Data Collection
| Program"?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-09-20 23:00 UTC)