| 6:39 am on Jul 1, 2002 (gmt 0)|
was interesting to read all the past Spidering posts about openfind. seems they aren't starting out very well liked.
| 6:52 am on Jul 1, 2002 (gmt 0)|
At least in my keywords it seems fairly out of date (nothing less than a few months old). Also no way to add a URL.
| 6:54 am on Jul 1, 2002 (gmt 0)|
>Spidering .... seems they aren't starting out very well liked.
Perhaps because we could not see any results or all that spidering. Maybe that will now change.
Interesting that thay are not actually caching sites, rather grabbing them on the fly.
This will certainly add spice to the Asia-Pacific region, I wonder how much of an impact it will have globally. They will need to do some serious promotion.
Having said all that, with all the whining of late regarding the shrinking number of major players, it is nice to see some more competition.
The intial test searches I did seemed to come up with good results.
| 6:59 am on Jul 1, 2002 (gmt 0)|
It definitely doesn't understand what quotation marks are. Try putting a phrase in quotes and watch what happens.
Kind of odd, considering the size of the database, that on one search I tried to check the freshness of the listings, they show 28 pages, while Google shows 21,000. I'm guessing that, in that database, they must have a lot of Asian language pages that Google doesn't have.
| 7:04 am on Jul 1, 2002 (gmt 0)|
yeah, tried looking for a "ADD URL" myself with no luck. My site isn't included in it anywhere.
| 7:14 am on Jul 1, 2002 (gmt 0)|
A search for "openfind" shows 0 matches!
| 7:29 am on Jul 1, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Now I just have to figure out what their ip's were so that I can unban them ;-)
| 7:34 am on Jul 1, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Lets not be too hasty. From their information page -
"HONESTLY, THIS SITE IS NOT COMPLETELY READY AND WELL TESTED YET." (Their Caps)
Lets give them some time to improve.
| 7:50 am on Jul 1, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Yahoopenfind just doesn't sound as good as Yahoogle. Maybe just Yahoopen or Yahoopenholler.
Sounds from their article that they think they can actually replace Google at Yahoo. And we all thought it would be alltheweb.
| 8:32 am on Jul 1, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I found my site under the usual keywords and they have some pages cached which I updated in the last few days.
They also list my old URL from when I switched from free to paid hosting back in Nov. 2000. I wonder where they got that from ?
| 10:22 am on Jul 1, 2002 (gmt 0)|
|1.5 billion searches a day answered by google! |
That doesn't sound to right!
| 10:29 am on Jul 1, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I banned them some weeks or months ago.
They still have all my pages indexed.
I will not unban them until they make their way into some trafficked portal.
The interview gives no big hope they will succeed. Everybody can slap together a bot that puts the web into a database. As long as they offer nothing realy new, it's just another searchengine like all the others trying to impress by the number of indexed pages, which is a useless number.
They say Google provides 1.5 billion searches a day. Is that true ? 1.500.000.000 searches ?
I thought it was 150 million ?
| 10:33 am on Jul 1, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I'm not going to say I don't like it but...
I DON'T LIKE IT !
(Note : I need some optimization tips ;))
| 10:43 am on Jul 1, 2002 (gmt 0)|
btw, the site can be found here:
I love the ability to roll a bit of your own ranking by date or score.
"inject random results". What's that about?
| 10:50 am on Jul 1, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Old Index, and it doesn't seem to come close to the huge indexes that Google and FAST have!
But most important, algo sucks!
| 11:17 am on Jul 1, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I am quite impressed for a beta site - they have already gone along way to addressing many of the issues needed to be successful.
Large DB size
Good quality spam free results
I can see nothing wrong with the algorithm, results seem to be relevant to the search, different to some of the other engines but still on topic.
| 12:21 pm on Jul 1, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Unfortunately the spammers are the winners with openfind! Openfind lists all dodgy, cloaked site, all the spammy dwp's and multiple domains/subdomains with all the same "content". Yes, they prob have the largest index, but the messiest!
And dates like 19970609 aren't really "fresh".
Uggly - useless! I don't think this is because it's beta ...
| 1:31 pm on Jul 1, 2002 (gmt 0)|
-data base appears to be 3-4 months old.
-Spam dominates the top serp, oftentimes, multiple cloaked-redirected domains.
I agree with Yidaki, having the biggest db does not equate to quality serp.
Don't get me wrong, I also wish that there's something out there that can seriously challenge Google, but by the look of things, openfind has a long way to go.
| 2:05 pm on Jul 1, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Is that "score" in the listings something akin to page rank?
| 2:20 pm on Jul 1, 2002 (gmt 0)|
It is weird, when I check the "cache" page on some of my URLs, the date at the bottom of my pages is 7/01/02 (today) - either they just crawled my site or they are showing the "cache" page as the actual page.
FYI, I have "Today's date is: xx:xx:xx" at the bottom of my pages, so I know when Google visits by looking at the cache page.
| 3:38 pm on Jul 1, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Here are the IPs I have listed for Openfind:
| 4:15 pm on Jul 1, 2002 (gmt 0)|
It's nice to see somebody actually do something after that much crawling.
Thanks for posting those IP's. Now that's one less bot I have to worry about in my access log :)
I didn't ban them, but I was close to it...every time their bot came up, I would think "what are they doing..." now we know :)
Not too bad a start for an SE, interesting results. A bit spammy, but every new engine has flaws.
| 4:25 pm on Jul 1, 2002 (gmt 0)|
At the very least, OpenFind is a nice way to root out page jackers and spammers.
I tried locating my site using my typical set of target keywords, and when I perused the results, I was astonished to find portions of my site (or sites I've worked on) which had been copied and used for spam doorways by third parties.
I don't think the tactic is working for them with the top-tier search engines, but if I hadn't checked in OpenFind I wouldn't even have known about the theft. (Don't think I'll follow up on it unless I see those pages appearing in Google or MSN Search, but...now I know who they are.:))
| 4:31 pm on Jul 1, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I dunno, at the moment openfind seems to automatically put my searches into quotation marks. It's really annoying because if I don't get a phrase exactly right it returns 0 results! Even odder, it sometimes shows up an exact phrase, other times the result just has those two words somewhere in it. Openfind really doesn't know what to do with quotation marks, and there doesn't seem to be any advanced search page either.
(Also, I don't think it lists results from CGI pages.)
Having the biggest index doesn't mean anything unless you have the means to access it properly.
Google is still king IMO!
| 4:56 pm on Jul 1, 2002 (gmt 0)|
For me the database is a little old.
I do not have an idea about the serp. I noticed that is sensible to singular and plural terms.
| 5:13 pm on Jul 1, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Hey, to give them their credit, I mailed them about the quotation marks problem and they immediately replied back admitting they were trying to fix it. They also suggested using an ampersand (eg. term1 & term2 instead of term1 term2 or "term1 term2") as noted on the engine's title page.
This does indeed seem to give much better and more google-like results than either the phrase alone or the phrase in quotation marks, so maybe we're misjudging it because its syntax is a little weird.
| 5:53 pm on Jul 1, 2002 (gmt 0)|
So did we figure out what the "Score" was? heh for one of my searches the top guy is 6405 then the next guy is 25.
| 6:04 pm on Jul 1, 2002 (gmt 0)|
>>Also, I don't think it lists results from CGI pages<<
It lists a CGI site I've optimized, including interior pages, though not as deep as Google, but deeper than everyone else except Fast. Also, I'm seeing, the site ranks well for some terms that can only be attributed to link pop and/or link relevancy.
For other searches (different sites) in competitive areas, I am seeing very spammy results too...
In all of these searches, I'm surprised at the small number of reported matches. On the first result above, OpenFind reports 28K matches, whereas Google shows 1.7-million.
I wonder how many Asian language pages OpenFind shows that Fast and Google don't touch at all.
A PS to the above... on the CGI pages listed, I might have found them via external links than by spidering the site. Nevertheless, they're CGI "fake directory" style listings, without page filenames, and they are listed.
| 8:32 pm on Jul 1, 2002 (gmt 0)|
They are really all over the board when it comes to my keywords. Interestingly, my site is popping up pretty high for some of my can't-get-'em-in-Google-no-matter-how-hard-I-try keywords ... but it's popping up next to a whole bunch of garbage.
(This is good ... and bad.)
| This 38 message thread spans 2 pages: 38 (  2 ) > > |