[HN Gopher] Show HN: A search engine for your personal network o...
___________________________________________________________________
Show HN: A search engine for your personal network of high-quality
websites
Hey all, Last time when we were on HackerNews [1], we received a
lot of feedback, and we incorporated most of it. - We have changed
our name from grep.help to usegrasp.com - A privacy policy page -
Bulk import - Pricing page We are happy to introduce a new
feature: a personalized answer search engine that provides direct
citations to the content on the page. Demo:
https://usegrasp.com/search?q=is+starship+fully+reusable%3F 1 -
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35510949
Author : vignesh_warar
Score : 224 points
Date : 2023-05-05 08:04 UTC (14 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (usegrasp.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (usegrasp.com)
| airstrike wrote:
| Minor nit but I can't help notice it: the logo doesn't really
| match the product. Typography choices evoke certain feelings and
| attributes. Your choice to me says "women's* beauty / personal
| hygiene", not "find whatever you want at your fingertips"
|
| Short of hiring a designer (and also for fun), may I suggest
| watching the Helvetica film? https://vimeo.com/570441741
| marginalia_nu wrote:
| Make sure to avoid The Helvetica Scenario though.
| elicash wrote:
| I think you're referring largely to women's beauty/fashion
| products, not mens; I haven't noticed this type of logo with
| the products I use or on clothes I buy. And to whatever degree
| the logo might be feminine, I certainly don't think that's a
| bad thing.
|
| People should push the envelope and not just do the same thing
| as everybody else! (Obviously do so with intent, but I wouldn't
| assume there wasn't any.)
| leroy-is-here wrote:
| I looked at the logo to see what kind of non-sense you were
| talking about, but you are absolutely correct. That logo really
| does belong on a shampoo bottle.
| alexvoda wrote:
| And people wonder why all logos today are boring.
|
| Of course they are boring if reification has become the norm.
|
| Maybe just because something is cursive and italicized does
| not mean that it is automatically feminine.
| leroy-is-here wrote:
| I sign my name in cursive and do not think of it as
| feminine.
| airstrike wrote:
| > "all logos today are boring"
|
| That's an overstatement. Many logos are boring, but
| certainly not all
|
| I'm not suggesting a boring logo. I'm suggesting a good one
| that matches the feeling of "grasping"
| aflag wrote:
| I think the top element with the LLM response is a bit
| distracting, since it takes so much longer to load than
| everything else. I think it'd be nicer if it was on a side panel
| or, at least, that the block allocated to it was fixed and the
| results didn't keep jumping around as the output for that is
| generated. Also, it seems odd that sometimes the citation numbers
| don't start at 1 (as you can see if you search for "vscodium
| marketplace")
|
| Finally, just brutally honest feedback. I found the concept
| interesting and I would actually take it for a spin. However, you
| can only make a few queries before it asks you to sign up. I
| didn't find it that interesting to actually sign up just yet. So,
| I'll probably never truly try it out.
| vignesh_warar wrote:
| Thanks for your feedback. The LLM part is a bit buggy since I
| rushed its release. Currently, I am rewriting the entire LLM
| section to ensure that it is both fast and reliable.
|
| May I ask how many queries you would like before signing up?
| aflag wrote:
| I'm not sure if the number of queries is easy to measure. My
| experience is as follows:
|
| I found out about it and decided to make some queries. I was
| trying to understand what it's good at and what it is not. I
| think I tried the same query a few times and small variations
| of it. I was trying to figure out when citations would start
| at 1 and when it wouldn't when it stopped working. I had
| already made a more generic query and I was trying to think
| some queries that would be probably answered by hackernews
| stuff. I would probably play around with a little more today,
| so even for that exploration the number of queries were too
| little. It even surprises me the limit is 20, I thought I
| made less than that.
|
| Anyway, after I knew what it was good at and what it was not.
| I was planning on just keeping it in the back of my mind
| throughout the next days, specially when I go back to work
| (I'm on holidays now) and I thought I'd try it out whenever I
| had a natural query that I wanted to search for. That would
| be the true test in my mind.
|
| In my mind, an unlimited 30-day free trial would probably be
| what makes most sense for that sort of thing. I do realise
| you'll probably want the user to sign in to offer that.
| Which, I might, reluctantly, do if the site actually offered
| me that option, but I didn't get the impression that I'd get
| anything like that. Signing up is a bit annoying because then
| I'll have to sign in from work as well, which I never really
| like to do, but I don't have a better way to offer a 30-day
| trial anyway. Alternatively, if you limited to 5 queries a
| day instead of a month it would already be a better
| proposition, because at least I'd be able to try it again
| tomorrow or when I get back to work. As it currently stands,
| I can only try it again in a month. I'll surely have
| forgotten about this by then.
|
| Edit: actually just realised that not even $15/month gives
| you unlimited queries. 26 per day seems a bit on the short
| side of things. For the same reasons above, I think
| refreshing the queries daily or at least weekly makes more
| sense. I'd hate to run out of queries at the end of the
| month. Or maybe just have a price per query and charge based
| on that while allowing the user to set a limit. I suppose at
| the moment the price is $0.01875 per query. But you are
| required to bulk buy 800
| nicenewtemp84 wrote:
| Instead of just asking one person for their answer, you could
| randomize how many quarries people are allowed, and then see
| which one converts best.
| aflag wrote:
| Yeah, I should add a disclaimer that I'm just one user
| who's never been a product manager or anything of the sort.
| All my opinions may be completely rubbish. But I share them
| anyways because they may help someone.
| nicenewtemp84 wrote:
| Jesus.
| xpe wrote:
| This search engine charges beyond the free tier. I'm glad.
|
| Why? An observation. As a consumer, if I pay nothing, then I'm
| likely to undervalue a service. When I undervalue it, I'm likely
| to use it less mindfully. Ergo, for more frivolous and
| unimportant things. This is exactly what some advertisers want:
| your attention without conscious intention. This is where
| emotions overrule rationality and open the doors to unnecessary
| spending.
| gumballindie wrote:
| A cool idea, but what I don't understand is why are many
| alternative search engines so poorly designed? I may be too used
| to google but I think the text should be a bit more readable. But
| I really like this type of search engines - always wanted search
| capability among my bookmarks and related websites. Perhaps even
| a bit of ai fine tuning around them.
| Brajeshwar wrote:
| May be it is just me and I'm sure you have put in good effort to
| justify the pricing. However, that $10+ makes me think, "Do I
| really need this? I can stay without this and am I missing
| anything, perhaps from gaining something outsized?"
|
| If this was like $4.99 /mo with an annual of $49.99, I might have
| just done it; even if I may not use immediately but to support
| someone starting out.
|
| Or alternatively, a $9.99 /mo ($99.99 annual) would still be
| something within a budget that I'm not over-thinking.
|
| My thoughts.
| bachmeier wrote:
| The pricing page shows me $15/month for 800 searches. There's
| no way that pricing is going to work. Even setting aside the
| issue of getting people to pay that much, who is going to track
| their number of searches to make sure they don't go over the
| limit? And nobody that does 10 searches a day - which is about
| the limit if you don't want to think about this - is going to
| pay for a search engine.
| chankstein38 wrote:
| This. I opened the pricing page and saw the 2 tiers and
| immediately closed it when $15/mo wouldn't get me unlimited.
| I'm not tracking search counts, I have no idea how frequently
| or how much I search, and ultimately I don't need an extra
| decision of "is this worth $0.018 to search for?" when I want
| to search for something. The concept sounds interesting but
| I'm not so confident in it being that much better that I'd
| accept that cost decision every time I search.
|
| Unlimited would be different. $15/mo to search as much as I
| want, it's still insanely steep since I can get so much more
| for so much less on the internet but at least I wouldn't have
| to accept a per search cost decision.
| vignesh_warar wrote:
| Agreed. There is room for different plans, but we want some
| search metric to define the pricing.
|
| On a side note, I truly did not want to put up a paywall. But,
| it is necessary to support our servers.
| xpe wrote:
| Don't feel bad for seeking revenue from your _customers_.
| This is the correct incentive. Find pricing models that work.
| jvanderbot wrote:
| I find it hard to believe that I, a casual, occasional
| googler, would demand $10/m of server time.
| ravenstine wrote:
| Not everyone's search needs are the same. I gladly pay for
| Kagi every month, despite how at least 80% of people would
| never consider paying for whatever The Google already gives
| them. If you're fine with ads and limited control over your
| search results, then use The Google.
|
| Also, there's more to providing a service than just server
| time.
| bachmeier wrote:
| > Also, there's more to providing a service than just
| server time.
|
| Exactly. So what's the point of limiting the number of
| searches to 800? The target market is those that rely
| heavily on search engines, and they're telling them they
| don't want their business.
| groby_b wrote:
| As far as I'm concerned: Charge whatever you need to charge to
| be profitable. This can _only_ work if it 's self-sustaining
| without external influence. A good compromise might be to offer
| a psychologically attractive price point for less searches, and
| a slightly higher one for more searches at a round number - 800
| is the weirdest number :)
| ysavir wrote:
| Agreed. Pricing needs improvement. Not just in the bang-for-
| your-buck sense, but the per-search model. Right now I have the
| following questions:
|
| 1. What counts as a search? If I go to page 2 of search
| results, does that use up another search?
|
| 2. If I have to refine my search to get the results I actually
| want, can I get a refund for all the searches I made that
| didn't predict how the query would be interpreted?
|
| 3. What happens when I meet the limit? Am I charged per-search?
| Can I just no longer search?
|
| 4. If I meet the limit and then go to DDG, or Google or
| whatever, are you okay with that? What if the results there are
| good enough that I start wondering whether or not I want to pay
| $15/month for a search engine? How much is retaining a paying
| customer worth to you?
|
| 5. If I have to start counting my search numbers, I'm very
| quickly going to learn to search less. And the better I get at
| searching less, the less need I'll have for a search engine,
| let alone a paid service. Are you worried about your pricing
| model pushing people towards non-search engine solutions of
| exploring the web and/or finding web pages?
| passion__desire wrote:
| Why isn't there a search engine specifically for e-commerce
| websites?
|
| Generally what I do is I search for X on google. Google throws up
| some shitty suggestions. I go on to those websites to checkout
| their products. Facebook comes to know about my intent of buying
| X since they have their sdk integration with these websites. When
| I open instagram, facebook starts suggesting X selling websites
| to me. I check out those and buy X from there.
|
| I have observed this effect 3 times personally.
|
| Infact such a search engine will optimize towards a better buying
| experience. Reviews, best things to look for when buying X, price
| sensitivity, whether X can be delivered to your area, etc.
| andrepd wrote:
| There are price comparison websites, high-quality reviews
| (rtings, notebookcheck, maybe wirecutter), deals sharing
| websites (pepper et al).
| haidrali wrote:
| I am working on building e-commerce search engine
| https://itemfinder.ae/.
|
| Would be great If you can share you feedback and suggestions
| visarga wrote:
| Because Google didn't have enough time in 25 years to fix that.
| Or they make more money on ads than straight referrals.
| passion__desire wrote:
| Is there a way to tell facebook, I am looking for X? Because
| facebook suggestions are much better than plain google.
| marginalia_nu wrote:
| The market for discovery in general is really under served
| almost across all areas.
|
| Magazines and to some extent brick and mortar stores used to
| serve the product discovery market but right now it's so hard
| to find a product that fits your needs.
|
| So much bait-and-switch nonsense and straight up scams.
|
| Doesn't help that many e-commerce sites are such a pain in the
| ass to use. 45 second page loads with an additional 15 seconds
| of random layout shifts is comparatively good. Product listings
| that show like 6 items per screen, in a random order with
| useless and truncated descriptions and no useful search
| function.
|
| I don't understand how they're getting any sales at all.
| pavlov wrote:
| Amazon is that for most people.
| passion__desire wrote:
| For cakes?
| hiisukun wrote:
| I haven't used it for a while, but there is a website called
| 'staticice' that appears to still be an e-commerce
| price/product search engine. I'm not sure how it works, maybe
| the sites sign up, or provide prices, or staticice scrapes.
| It's mostly for gadgets and computer parts but has worked well
| enough a few times.
|
| Similar to pcpartpicker but much less 'utility', just pure
| search for model w/ price.
|
| I wonder how one would discover websites like this currently
| though -- it's certainly not in google's interest to make the
| top result infobox something like "Didn't find what you are
| looking for? Try searching using this other site:
| goodcommercesearch.net" !
| ricardo81 wrote:
| There sort of is, at least in Europe with Google's CSS
| providers. IIRC there's a few dozen aggregators and aggregators
| must have at least 50 merchants in order to be a CSS partner.
| The products are shown as a carousel and can undercut Google by
| 20% due to tax/competition reasons. I'm not fluent on the
| underlying reasons- the results are also on Google shopping.
| ghastmaster wrote:
| There is a grammatical error on this page:
| https://usegrasp.com/how
|
| > We will more social features in the future.
|
| This should have some verb after "will".
| ThinkBeat wrote:
| You can do this with Kagi and "Lenses". Lenses lets you define a
| set of websites you want results from.
| avinassh wrote:
| hey I just want to let you know that you need to update title and
| meta properties too. Whenever the link is shared on social media,
| it still says grep <!DOCTYPE
| html><html><head><meta charSet="utf-8"/><title>Grasp | New kind
| of search engine</title> <meta name="title" content="Grep
| | New kind of search engine"/><meta name="description"
| content="Search engine for your personalized network of high-
| quality websites"/>...
| vignesh_warar wrote:
| Thanks, updated.
| darkwater wrote:
| Oh, TBH I was expecting some kind of opensource, local-first
| scraper + search engine where you put a list of websites/info
| source "bubble" and it will scrape them over time and present
| them to you locally.
| cdnsteve wrote:
| Yes, except we want a shared resource for an index so we aren't
| all crawling sites in excess.
|
| Eg, here's the latest central or distributed DB, the site in
| your personal list is on it so we don't need to send the
| crawler there because it has already been indexed and is
| crawled by someone else.
| smcleod wrote:
| The quality of the results seems really poor compared to Kagi. It
| seems to favour commercial / privately owned product sites over
| community information etc...
| vignesh_warar wrote:
| Hey, could you please link the search results page? I'd be
| happy to take a look and remove any commercialized sites from
| the network. The best part about this idea is that if there's a
| low-quality site, we can block the previous node, which will
| block all the other sites it was linking to. If a site is
| linking to a poor-quality site, there's a chance they might
| link to other poor-quality websites. You might ask whether this
| will also remove good sites from your network, but a good site
| will always find a way to enter the network.
|
| The blocking feature has not been shipped yet.
| smcleod wrote:
| So I search for something I would have expected the top
| results to be discussions, blog posts etc... (controversial
| on purpose) https://usegrasp.com/search?q=Why+is+terraform+be
| tter+than+C...
|
| Kagi (which I replaced google and ddg with over a year ago
| and have been really impressed with) provides far more useful
| / interesting results - https://file.io/umsdbo2JcEfg
|
| Obviously it's all subjective etc... but yeah - hope that
| helps from my little sample size of 1.
| vignesh_warar wrote:
| Thanks!
|
| I found one annoyingly low-quality site in the Grasp search
| results, which came from https://www.protocol.com (a news
| website). By default, outgoing links from news websites are
| not considered while building the network, as they will
| bring more junk. I maintain a list of UGC sites and news
| websites to ignore.
|
| I will add https://www.protocol.com to the network building
| block list.
|
| BTW, the link you shared https://file.io/umsdbo2JcEfg
| appears to be deleted.
| smcleod wrote:
| Oh sorry, I just used a random site - try this one
| https://ufile.io/aqxi8c4k
|
| (PDF print of Kagi search results)
| freediver wrote:
| You can share Kagi search results by More -> Share this
| search
|
| It looks like this
|
| https://kagi.com/search?q=Why+is+terraform+better+than+CD
| K&r...
| smcleod wrote:
| TIL! Thank you for the tip!
| neuah wrote:
| This looks really cool! It could be useful to be able to
| whitelist some sites without the 4 degree connection. For
| example, if i wanted to include large networks like reddit,
| github, stack overflow,etc. in my search results, 4 degrees may
| start to bring in a lot of junk/undesirable stuff into the index.
| Also love the idea of being able to follow or search within
| curated lists made by other users.
| vignesh_warar wrote:
| As of right now, the Grasp Network builder won't consider
| outgoing links from UGC (User-generated content) websites such
| as Reddit, Twitter, etc. as it would bring in junk, as you
| mentioned. I am maintaining a full list of UGC sites.
| visarga wrote:
| For me it does the search but hangs forever on the LLM.
| vignesh_warar wrote:
| LLM part is currently under load. I am currently doing a full
| rewrite for it, which will improve its speed and reliability.
| timwaagh wrote:
| What i do not understand is how it works. I had not followed
| anything yet it gave me a result. But the search results seem to
| be allright. It even had recipes for andijviestamppot.
| vignesh_warar wrote:
| By default, Grasp uses the HackerNews network, which is built
| from the top sites from HackerNews.
|
| Here is a page about how it works: https://usegrasp.com/how
| sundarurfriend wrote:
| Right now, your homepage makes no mention of us following
| websites, just a search box. It's also easy to miss or not
| understand the "The network is built on top websites on
| Hacker News" message in the results page, so people might not
| understand that it's just the default and is customizable.
|
| Your HN text above in the post does a good job of clarifying
| things, but I think some more messaging is needed in the
| website itself to make its potential clear. (Not many people
| are going to bother checking "How it works" by themselves.)
|
| I'd suggest in the homepage, below "Grasp is a search engine
| for your personal network of high-quality websites.", have a
| "create your personal network" link (that could take you to
| the sign up page or wherever appropriate). And in the results
| page for the default network, have an info box at the top
| mentioning that this is just the default network, and the
| user can customize it, along with a to the "How it works"
| page.
| marban wrote:
| https://biztoc.com/search -- Top ~300 US business news sites
| only.
| stringlytyped wrote:
| This looks like an amazing tool. I've always thought it would be
| great if I could curate my own search index. And the way results
| are summarized with citations is really cool.
|
| However, I am not sure the free plan is generous enough to
| properly evaluate the search engine and see if I can incorporate
| it into my workflow. And the pricing feels steep. I would have a
| look at Kagi's pricing model.
| viraptor wrote:
| > I've always thought it would be great if I could curate my
| own search index.
|
| You can... kinda. YaCy is pretty much dying as a project and
| network. But it still works if you want to have your own
| independent search. It's great for indexing specific endpoints
| you care about + N degrees of links. (Like your list of RSS,
| browser history, etc.)
| chaxor wrote:
| Wow, if 4 degrees out doesn't give 70k nodes it's extended to 7
| degrees out? I figured almost any website would yield a near
| complete graph at just ~6 degrees out.
|
| This is a fantastic idea though. I have been looking for
| something like this for quite some time to just have basically
| wikipedia, stackexchange, email, and gitlab available for 'work-
| mode'. My solution was to make my own search engine with various
| tools, but this may be easier.
|
| Anyone know of other good solutions in this area for restricting
| to just {wikipedia, stackexchange, gitlab}?
| freediver wrote:
| > Anyone know of other good solutions in this area for
| restricting to just {wikipedia, stackexchange, gitlab}?
|
| Kagi Search lenses:
|
| https://help.kagi.com/kagi/features/lenses.html
| ColinHayhurst wrote:
| Excuse the self-promotion but this can be done with Mojeek
| Focus [0]. This capability is also available through our search
| engine API.
|
| [0] https://www.mojeek.com/focus/
| vignesh_warar wrote:
| I'm not aware of any other products, but I think the Bing
| Custom Search API might be able to solve your problem.
|
| https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/bing/apis/bing-custom-search...
| sundarurfriend wrote:
| I've recently been getting into Brave Goggles, and they have a
| `discard` feature so any site you don't explicitly mention get
| discarded from the results. For eg., see
| https://github.com/brave/goggles-quickstart/blob/main/goggle...
|
| They use 1000 domains from Hacker News posts and do ranking and
| all that, but for your purpose, you can just have
| $discard $boost,site=wikipedia.org
| $boost,site=stackexchange.com $boost,site=gitlab.com
| chaxor wrote:
| Thanks, this is really cool. I found one from
| gist.github.com/JellyWX/ called jude.goggles that is
| basically already that.
| alxjsn wrote:
| Created a Goggle based on submissions from /r/netsec as well:
| https://github.com/forcesunseen/netsec-goggle
| chinchilla2020 wrote:
| This is great. Google is no longer a useful search site.
|
| Examples: * too much emphasis on awful video spam * SEO and spam
| has floated to the top * imprecision in search
|
| I recently searched for some simple instructions for jumping a
| car battery, and it was hard to find a decent website.
|
| Try searching for a simple recipe for cookies on google and you
| will get directed to the most awful blogs where the information
| you are searching for is hard to find.
|
| There should be a ranking bonus for simplistic sites. A massive
| bonus for simple explanations given on a forum or
| stackoverflow... organic content that is useful and not
| regurgitated into a blog.
| anenefan wrote:
| Do I have to relax my OS security for it to get data from the
| local machine or using a new version of linux ... since I got
| nothing for each query?
| vignesh_warar wrote:
| Could you please share the specific error message you are
| facing, perhaps from the console?
| anenefan wrote:
| Page loads fine. Hit return, something obvious happens and
| then it's back to the original state. I've got a lot of nosey
| web stuff denied though, just days ago nabbed a supposedly AI
| powered web tracker.
|
| I guess I'll try a live boot as it's working for everyone
| else.
| xpe wrote:
| Let's help suggest pricing models that are worth testing.
|
| ... Not simply the minimum we as individuals would pay...
|
| but something to help improve chances of success increase
| innovation and competition in this space. As a former creator of
| a search engine, I'm glad to see this.
| xpe wrote:
| To think about pricing, it helps to think about:
|
| 1. How much signal do you get from pricing? For example, how
| much customer commitment do certain price points bring? How
| much does _real world_ usage help? Strike a balance.
|
| 2. You want to attract early adopters. What pricing models are
| worth trying? How important is offsetting costs right now? Is
| traction and adoption more important, and if so, how much more?
| What metrics can help measure how to balance these goals?
|
| 3. How can you handle the scenario where you are lucky enough
| to get a lot of interest? How do last long enough to test your
| business without going bust? Your pricing model should be
| driven by these scenarios and your risk preference.
|
| 4. Leave yourself ways to adjust pricing without pissing people
| off. So if your initial pricing is tentative, be clear on that.
| Or let people lock in a monthly rate now in case it goes up
| later.
|
| 5. Create an internal quantitative model that predicts your
| expenses across some likely future scenarios. Tie your pricing
| model to some multiple of that. This can double as smart
| business planning to think about risk and what it takes to
| reach your goals.
|
| 6. Consider adjusting pricing based on how intensively someone
| uses your service, not simply based on search quantity, but
| your end-to-end cost. Recall that Twitter's infrastructure
| costs are _dramatically_ driven by a relatively small number of
| users with high fan out. What aspects of your offering are the
| most expensive? How can you mitigate these costs? How can you
| map these pricing differences to features that customers care
| about?
|
| (Last edits: 12:31 pm EDT)
|
| P.S. I created a search engine that never took off about 10
| years ago. These questions would have helped me.
| kjreact wrote:
| I'm too used to getting search for free, so asking me to pay
| for this service is something that I'm very reluctant to do
| even though I understand that there's no such thing as a free
| lunch.
|
| What I'm willing to contribute is my computing resources. If
| a search service wanted to use my machine for web crawling
| that would be something I'm willing to trade for an improved
| search experience.
|
| I'm not sure how feasible this option is because it doesn't
| pay salaries or cover server costs, but it does help
| alleviate some of the computing costs, I'd assume.
| xpe wrote:
| Another thread a with pricing ideas :
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35827254 : "$4.99/mo with
| an annual of $49.99" or "$9.99 /mo ($99.99 annual)"
| vignesh_warar wrote:
| Thank you so much!
| goy wrote:
| What do you think about a feature that allows users to follow
| each other ? The websites followed by one user can be
| automatically included in the search results of his followers. It
| will enable people to include in their networks the websites
| followed, for example, by authorities in their domain, members of
| their communities, etc
| vignesh_warar wrote:
| Yes, this is going to be our next feature. In fact, this is the
| exact idea that I prototyped a couple of months ago using
| Twitter data, but we are completely off from Twitter now [1].
|
| 1 -
| https://twitter.com/Vignesh_warar/status/1573020208289132545
| groby_b wrote:
| When you implement that, an important thing to keep in mind
| is that "people" are usually a mix of interests. (E.g. if you
| followed me, you'd get a large helping of browser tech,
| photography, 3D printing, human rights work, and fashion).
|
| It might be a better idea to allow people to curate search
| lists by interests and share those focused lists.
|
| People are more interesting in the sense of "of your six
| closest friends, 5 vouched for this site" when a site/search
| result pops up.
| ysavir wrote:
| That is awesome! I've had the idea for the past few years of
| making a social search engine, where the only results are
| pages tagged by people in your "friends" list and several
| degrees outwards from that.
|
| I never had any interest in actually building the idea, so
| it's amazing to see something similar hit the market.
| killthebuddha wrote:
| ChatGPT plugins aren't out of beta yet, but this is 100% going to
| be eaten by one.
|
| Edit: I guess that's not a super productive comment. I commend
| the authors for building and shipping something useful, I would
| personally use something like this.
| savrajsingh wrote:
| That's what they said about Dropbox and google drive --
| amazingly both still exist.
| pkoird wrote:
| How wonderful itd be if we could _subscribe_ to the network of
| our friends / colleagues as well?
| vignesh_warar wrote:
| Yes, absolutely, it will be our next feature!
|
| Link to my related comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?i
| d=35826540#:~:text=Yes%2C....
| marginalia_nu wrote:
| Cool. We definitely need fresh takes on search.
|
| I think historically too many have been attempting to copy
| Google. It was a bad idea when they were great, and it's a worse
| idea when they're floundering. An imitation very rarely exceeds
| what it imitates. Is why after untold amounts of Microsoft R&D
| money Bing is still google-but-kinda-worse.
| vignesh_warar wrote:
| Thanks!
|
| I still remember the day I saw your project on HN [1]. Your
| work encouraged me to start exploring my search engine ideas. I
| can't believe you are commenting on my work.
|
| 1 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28550764
| marginalia_nu wrote:
| Great!
|
| Big part of why I've been working so openly on my project is
| to inspire and to let others see that there's actually still
| things to be done in this space, and despite what one might
| assume, impactful things can be accomplished with a
| relatively modest budget.
| dvh wrote:
| Can this index entirety of stackoverflow and Wikipedia? How does
| it keep it in sync with recent updates?
| vignesh_warar wrote:
| Yes, the search results are a combination of our own index and
| a third-party index, but our future goal is to be fully
| dependent on our own index.
| abhayhegde wrote:
| Nice site! Gave me useful suggestions which Google could not come
| up with.
|
| A suggestion is to change the logo. Currently, it does not make a
| lasting impression since it is in cursive. Seems like a fashion
| brand rather than a tech product. I understand there is no need
| to stereotype (probably this is the one to break them), but even
| then fashionable alternatives could be tried out.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-05-05 23:00 UTC)