| 5:30 pm on Jan 13, 2005 (gmt 0)|
too bad Brett, you have too many documents at webmasterworld..
| 5:45 pm on Jan 13, 2005 (gmt 0)|
That's quite expensive for a SME, don't you think?
| 5:51 pm on Jan 13, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Is that price realistic in today's market? I mean almost all of the top 5 search engines now have a desktop search program - how long until they simply make that more robust and slide it into some dedicated rack equipment?
I guess since there is little competition currently they can charge that.
Isn't gigablast working on/offering a similar product?
| 5:55 pm on Jan 13, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I agree it is expensive, but plenty of companies have that type of money and want a high quality search.
This isn't for 99% of the people out there, but it does fill a need.
They seem to do ok selling their other - more expensive search appliances - although this is peanuts compared to adwords/adsense:
| 6:02 pm on Jan 13, 2005 (gmt 0)|
wheres the affiliate program for this? :P
| 6:11 pm on Jan 13, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Must be hidden in the redirect somewhere
| 6:43 pm on Jan 13, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I can just see it, employees bucking for a promotion will spam their documents to the top of CEO's favourite SERPs (ahead of luddite coworkers).
SMEAR? (Small Medium-Enterprise Altered Results)
| 11:32 pm on Jan 13, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Great, now it is almost an impulse buy, can't... hold... out... much... longer.
| 11:40 pm on Jan 13, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|I agree it is expensive, but plenty of companies have that type of money and want a high quality search. |
The question I have is this -- Google achieved good search results in many respects due to taking advantage of interlinking nature of the web using approach they called PageRank. You can do that on the web because there are enough links for anybody, but how can you do the same for a local small collection of most likely standalone documents?!?
Sure proximity search, synonims and all that will work, but major feature that defines Google as the world wide search engine simply not present in environment they are targeting.
| 4:28 am on Jan 14, 2005 (gmt 0)|
This goes after Atomz paid search solution, which was also $5000/year once you got into the thousands of pages.
IMHO local site search continues to be way too expensive, yet still no decent FOSS software?
| 12:25 pm on Jan 14, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Good thing the DMCA would prevent anyone from buying one of these and using it to reverse engineer their algorithms ;)
| 1:10 pm on Jan 14, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|but how can you do the same for a local small collection of most likely standalone documents |
In some cases you don't need to. As you mentioned - the other factors are still there. The need for pagerank isn't as great when you have documents all created by the same company - all organized in a similar way - and no one trying to spam.
| 1:12 pm on Jan 14, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|I can just see it, employees bucking for a promotion will spam their documents to the top of CEO's favourite SERPs (ahead of luddite coworkers). |
That isn't as odd as you might think. I've had 10-15 requests to optimize search boxes since g introduced it last year.
| 7:53 pm on Jan 14, 2005 (gmt 0)|
We have a 700,000 page license to the Google Appliance. Downside >> Google only offers email support (their Appliance support is leaves much to be desired).
Plus, their Appliance division lacks resources and development. They only have 500 or so clients using the Appliance, so you know it is not a profitable arm of Google (at least not compared to their key economic engines).
I am surprised to see the mini... I thought they would be phasing this arm out.
Our company seeks a consultant that has worked with the Appliance in the past. We need help.
If anyone knows a consulting firm that can help with deployment I would appreciate it. We are 5 months into this and regret choosing the Appliance.
| 8:13 pm on Jan 14, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Good thing the DMCA would prevent anyone from buying one of these and using it to reverse engineer their algorithms |
It is perfectly legal to reverse engineer in some countries, especially those outside of DMCA jurisdiction ;)
I think people only now realising how important search is, and for now they stick to searching stuff on the web without realising that their own corporations or even desktops have lots of stuff that can be taken advantage of with proper tools. IMO this market is way too small for Google, perhaps its a shot to establish themselves however... or try to make success from that first (AFAIK unsuccessful) search appliance that they had years ago!
By the way talking of number pages -- 50k pages is nothing, hell even 1 mln pages is not a lot!
| 8:12 pm on Jan 16, 2005 (gmt 0)|
50,000 files for 5000 dollars? 500,000 maybe make sense.
| 9:02 pm on Jan 16, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|50,000 files for 5000 dollars? 500,000 maybe make sense. |
You don't mean 500,000 dollars do you? ;)
| 5:56 pm on Jan 18, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I had to pay $5000US for Atomz search across something less than 5000 pages. That was two years or so ago. It may have been as low as 1000 pages; I don't recall.
It was a great service, but too expensive. Note that I am talking about site search for your own website, so that users can local search your website (like having Google search on your website, with a guarantee that everything will be indexed, no ads, and a fair amount of control over the indexing process via a web interface).
I see from their website that you now have to inquire about pricing.
I see cbsnews is using it