Matt Wells, founder & CEO of Gigablast, Inc., says, "We at Gigablast are world leaders in directory search and we continue to make search advancements at a very rapid pace. We are never idle and are constantly innovating and we will remain that way until they have to pry the keyboard from our cold, blue fingers."
Innovating? Innovating what? This is a DMOZ clone albeit with a few additions.
Each listing has a: archived copy, stripped and older copy (which in my case links to wayback machine with no listing).
I'm not sure I want them having an archived copy of my site there.
This is Gigablast's cached page of [?.This...] page was cached by us on Apr 26, 2005. Gigablast is not responsible for the content of this page.
Okay, you are not responsible, but why do you have what looks to amount to an indexable link and duplicate copy of the page?
May be useful except Gigablast doesn't cache/crawl sites except every few months... they have a lot of domains that have been/bought sold in that time so their results are very inaccurate.
They have the same problem as all other SE's. The problem that all SE's seem to have besides their algo/spam problems is fresh/accurate results of both new and old domains which none of them can seem to accomplish. What good is a SE that is 3-months out of date?
I do commend/respect Matt for all the work he's done…
Msg#: 1671 posted 11:26 am on May 30, 2005 (gmt 0)
First, I'd like to ask you guys how we might use our new DMOZ topic site-search. It searches all of the *sites* (not just pages) in a particular topic. I'm wondering how this technology might be useful to webmasters and end users. Any input is appreciated.
What exactly is not in compliance with the ODP license? I am in direct contact with the responsible parties at AOL and haven't heard anything like that from them. But we'll get it taken care of right away if you can point it out.