| 11:11 am on Mar 4, 2003 (gmt 0)|
> OV has in their very first PR said ATW would continue to be used as R & D sandbox
This does not strike me as a point of different orientation for the future, more a continuation of what FAST is already doing, which is slowly but surely becoming G's main competitior, and now it has some backup (financial) to start to bite into G's marketshare.
Though i understand that many would disagree with this point, why not? is all i can say. Everybody knows that ATW algo is good enough > i.e. think 'advanced search'. Who does not use it.
| 11:13 am on Mar 4, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I miss the feature of searching for personal sites. I suppose I could imitate that feauture by inserting the tilde in the "Must contain" "<text>" "in the URL" but my keyboard has no tilde... :(
Also in the URL investigator it says my site is in Catalan, but it is quite clearly is English. Maybe I have to revise the META tags to define the CHARSET. However the investigator has other features which would be painstaking to find otherwise and for free, such as size, link popularity, ownership and others.
Overall, nice incremental evolvement, nothing revolutionary.
| 11:41 am on Mar 4, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Looks like Google with a different logo, IMO of course :)
| 12:04 pm on Mar 4, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Thanks all... Looks like in malaysia we are not getting ov or es. just plain Fast results and do they look good!
| 12:58 pm on Mar 4, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|ATW is a great engine, just needs promoting and Google will be dead in the water! |
"Killing" Google would not be good news. While I would too would like to see ATW join the pantheon along with Google, I'd also like to see *some other* search engine come along with the best features of each that managed to become tremendously popular. I get nervous when too much power is concentrated in one spot -- 3 top quality (and widely used) independent search engines is a healthier WWW, IMHO...
| 1:08 pm on Mar 4, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Apa khabar chiyo, sudah makan? :) (I used to live in Malaysia.) Same here in Egypt, no Overture results. I'd love to hear a logical explanation for that. Have the same problem with Yahoo. There are plenty of people who could be potential clients clicking on those ads, like for example ex-pats.
| 1:24 pm on Mar 4, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Apa Baik Suzanne! Speak quietly about the lack of PPC in our results or they may well just turn them back on... :)
| 3:02 pm on Mar 4, 2003 (gmt 0)|
They followed Google's example. I like it! Custom skins - very nice touch.
| 3:59 pm on Mar 4, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I like it too - it sure is a step in the right direction
| 5:32 pm on Mar 4, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Its amazing. The design in my opinion is even better than Google's. URL investigator is cool with the added sub-domain feature is neat.
And I noticed that thier results are very very relevant. I don't know if they changed anything but results are really acurate.
Still one problem: duplicated search results.
Watch out Google, All the Web is doing great.
| 5:52 pm on Mar 4, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I have no problem with the sponsered ads for the "hotel" search. They are labeled sponsored and they are above several presumeably HRs, there is even a "more results like these" link which helps set them apart from the rest of the results.
I don't use any PPC service and I mainly run a little hobby site which is paid for by me. The FTC definitely has no juristiction in Norway. I'm always amazed that Americans just think their laws apply elsewhere.
Americans are the source of much amusement in Canada.
| 5:59 pm on Mar 4, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I really don't like the new design. I guess I'll have to build my own stylesheet. Nice new public functions though
| 7:34 pm on Mar 4, 2003 (gmt 0)|
WOW! Think they were "just a little" inspired by Google's success as a search engine, and Google's design when making there new design?
If Google could copyright there design, AllTheWeb would have to look out!
I like the new design, but then again I'm like, this is a Google clone! Give me something new! Be original, AllTheWeb! C'mon!
| 7:47 pm on Mar 4, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I can't tell the difference between the sponsored listings and the regular listings. I guess clicking on the top three results repeatedly (my competitors) isn't click-fraud.
Over's results shouldn't appear on this lousy engine (it's lousy because I have bad rankings) in the first place. Not if they continue to use it as an R&D platform.
| 7:50 pm on Mar 4, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Canucks are the source of much amusement in the States!
| 7:59 pm on Mar 4, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I have to say I was impressed! Here is one person hoping that ATW gives G! a run for it's money and allows us to have another basket!
| 8:06 pm on Mar 4, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Can't see any ppc/overture listings anywhere, even on "hotels".
Accessing from New Zealand - would that be a factor? Tried various ppc searches without seeing any "sponsered listings".
| 8:11 pm on Mar 4, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I like the features of the URL investigator, which have already been mentioned.
* If you type a URL into an Alltheweb search form that doesn't include &cat=web, URL investigator does not kick in, and instead you get hits for sites that mention the url. This happens with the Alltheweb search form on my browser's start page :(
* If you type a URL that isn't in Alltheweb's index, there's no link to web.archive.org. D'oh!
* The info-links in the URL investigator ("see who owns...", "999 external links...", etc) appear above subdomains but below superdomains. I find this confusing; the info-links should always be tightly grouped with the page they are for.
Suggestsions for improvement:
* In the URL investigator, the only distinction between superdomains and subdomains is the text "homepage" or "subdomains". It would be nice if there was also a spatial hint. For example, it could outdent superdomains, indent subdomains, and maybe move the superdomain above the page in question.
| 8:49 pm on Mar 4, 2003 (gmt 0)|
The FTC definitely has no juristiction in Norway. I'm always amazed that Americans just think their laws apply elsewhere.
Americans are the source of much amusement in Canada.
Yes us bad, bad Americans. Give me a break.
But back to the issue, International Jurisdiction is always a grey area but the FTC definitally has solid grounds to try and regulate material that is broadcast to american computers. You can find some links to cases on sites listed here: [directory.google.com...]
| 8:59 pm on Mar 4, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>* The info-links in the URL investigator ("see who owns...", "999 external links...", etc) appear above subdomains but below superdomains.
I find this actually rather good for usability: main info all grouped together on top, with secondary info below. Try www.yahoo.com, and you'll see what I mean.
| 9:53 pm on Mar 4, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Oh, and BTW:
| 12:30 am on Mar 5, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I find the design better than Google, but sadly the search results aren't.. one search term 'free online diary' (hope this isn't too specific) returns six pages of results from the same site - they don't seem to be able to deal with subdomains just yet..
The font sizes could be slightly larger as default, but other than that.. I love the Mac look!
btw. no ppc results showing in Australia either.
| 5:00 am on Mar 5, 2003 (gmt 0)|
JeremyL >> the FTC definitally has solid grounds to try and regulate material that is broadcast to american computers
It will be interesting to see how this evolves. The FTC may well have some say in this case where an American company has a financial stake in the offshore company that is sourcing the data. Otherwise, every scammer in town will be setting up an offsore search engine to spoof the American market by disguising paid ads as pure search results, and domestic search engines that are at a disadvantage will be screaming loud in Washington.
There will probably be some reciprocal international agreements that develop also. Otherwise Google just might turn off the pastel colors on their sponsored listings for Norway surfers.
The FTC might even make Overture/Fast a test case when it sees those new SERPs.
| 7:18 am on Mar 5, 2003 (gmt 0)|
What's best about the new design is: No more banner ads!
Surprised that nobody has mentioned it yet.
| 7:53 am on Mar 5, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|What's best about the new design is: No more banner ads! |
Surprised that nobody has mentioned it yet.
Maybe we've all been partially blinded by some of the blinking ads they used to have. ;) Now that you mention it, it makes a big difference.
| 12:17 pm on Mar 5, 2003 (gmt 0)|
At least it now looks like a search engine, before it was very confusing.
The results though need a lot of improvement to be anywhere near Google's accuracy at least on the tests I did.
Plus it still has some of our pages that have had a re-direct up now for over 6 months!
| 6:16 pm on Mar 5, 2003 (gmt 0)|
It's certainly not very original, but whose redesign has been?
I'm surprised more of a ruckus hasn't started over their sheepish treatment of sponsored links. I couldn't find them at first - then I squinted and there were the "sponsored" monikers. 2 pt font, in parentheses. This bucks the trend towards more disclosure from their competitors.
| 7:59 pm on Mar 5, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Hey everyone.. since we're on the topic of ATW. Does anyone know how long it takes for the FAST engine to index all of the pages of a site rather than just index.html? I've been waiting for over 2 months.. does anyone have any insight?
ps - I have paid for the FAST indexing from Lycos as well.
| 11:03 pm on Mar 5, 2003 (gmt 0)|
The skins were there before the update. The alchemy feature has been there for a long time.
| 11:12 pm on Mar 5, 2003 (gmt 0)|
True Enigma. What is a bit sad though that by way of this redesign the skins from their CSS design contest have been lost. We had a winner here among the members...
| 11:31 pm on Mar 5, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Now if only the search results where any good.
The few searches I did turned up a bunch of crap in the top spots.
Other than that, I like the look. It looks very familiar!
| This 93 message thread spans 4 pages: < < 93 ( 1 2  4 ) > > |