Dipsie Search Engine Stirring Some Hype

[Brett_Tabke]

[researchbuzz.org...]

Anyone know some details?

[lgn1]

With a name like that, it doomed for failure.. Sounds like a real sinker to me. :)

[MarkHutch]

Sometimes, that kind of bait will really bring in some big fish. Maybe SE's are the same way. I remember a few years ago when I thought there's no way a search engine could make it with a name like "Google". :)

[lgn1]

I believe Google was derived from the mathmatical number Googol, which is the largest mathamatical number with a name (or was the last time i checked). This would give the impression that Google was large and all encompasing. Which is the impression you want to give with a search engine.

What does dipsie bring to mine. Still think its going to flounder :)

[RBuzz]

I think there's some kind of law that search engines have to have goofy names. :->

Like I said in my writeup, they can say anything they want to in the pre-launch hype. It's what they actually present that's going to tell the story... and I will be keeping a close eye on this....

[mbauser2]

So, basically, you're saying you wrote a story about nothing?

[RBuzz]

No. I wrote the story because I'm interested in the amount of buzz that the search engine is already getting, and to wonder out loud about a couple of statements made on the site -- about 1% of the "web content universe" being indexed, and "over 50% of search queries don't yield the desired results."

They weren't sourced, and I've never seen statements like that before.

Further, I think it's important to remember -- and Dipsie is just one more indication -- that the search engine wars are far more than Google/MSN, and that there are other contenders out there, launched or not.

[jeremy goodrich]

They've been hyped by a number of publications. My take is that anybody that can "stir the pot" with *nothing* to show for it, will only lead the techno savvy down the path of contempt, as it will never live up to our wildest dreams, which is what they are shaping themselves as.

"Get where you want in 2 clicks..." m'kay. This search engine will need to read my mind to do that.

[mbauser2]

They weren't sourced, and I've never seen statements like that before.

So you wrote a story because of unsourced, undocumented, and untestable marketing blather on a website that nobody uses? That's your defense?

Did you even try contacting Dipsie for some real information, or do you just believe everything you read on the Internet?

[papamaku]

the site's been like that for months:

[webmasterworld.com...]

they might as well have some old style cheesey 'under contruction' sign on the front page :-)

[Bobby_Davro]

No doubt it will turn out to be an Overture/Inktomi affiliate site when it is launched ;-)

[jonathanleger]

Here's a claim:

BusinessWeek, Nov 10, 2003:

"The developers of new search engine "Dipsie" claim that when it goes live next July the program will search 10 billion web pages, triple the number that Google searches.

"Most search engines search out "static" web pages but the majority of websites are dynamic, including sound and motion.

"Dipsie's secret - all search engines use algebra to prioritize relevant items. Dipsie adds language-based or semantic analysis to the equation sensing content and context. This improves the odds for spot-on results."

Found at:
[mecgroups.com...]

[papamaku]

To search 10 billion docs, they must have done some hefty crawling.

Has anyone been hit by them? If so what IPs has the dipsie.bot (u gotta chuckle) come in on?

It'll probably turn out to be just another meta!

[RBuzz]

> So you wrote a story because of unsourced,
> undocumented, and untestable marketing blather
> on a website that nobody uses? That's your
> defense?

Defense?

If you'll read the writeup you'll see that I was questioning the source. That's part of the story -- that it WAS undocumented, and that I was wondering WHY it was undocumented.

> Did you even try contacting Dipsie for some real
> information, or do you just believe everything
> you read on the Internet?

No, I don't. That was sorta the point.

[Oaf357]

This would give the impression that Google was large and all encompasing.

I tend to think "alltheweb" is a better term for all encompassing when it comes to a search engine.

about 1% of the "web content universe" being indexed

I've heard this before. A long time ago, probably before Google hit the scene.

"Get where you want in 2 clicks..." m'kay. This search engine will need to read my mind to do that.

Two clicks on the dipsie site? Two clicks from entering dipsie to arriving at my desired result? Seems more like a marketing ploy to me.

To search 10 billion docs, they must have done some hefty crawling.

Haven't seen them in any of the logs I've been looking at.

It'll probably turn out to be just another meta!

You might be right. If they could get all the major players on board they might hit 10 billion pages indexed. Oh, wait they didn't index them and chances are they won't hit 10 billion unique pages.

[Bobby_Davro]

3.3 billion from Google, 3.3 billion from Fast, 3.3 billion from Altavista that makes 10 billion, right? lol, I really hope that this isn't the dubious maths they have used or they are going to get ridiculed by me for one ;-)

[cyanweb]

Heh heh - 2 clicks and you're there - click once to search - and once to arrive at a web site - yes easy - but to have click 2 to arrive at the "right" site... remains to be seen... 100 search results to a page default?

[sidyadav]

This is a gag.

They claim to have an index of 10b pages when they launch, and their launching date is 2004. Well, its already 2004, so they must be upto atleast 3 billion? Although, in that 3 billion, I have never seen their bot crawling any of my sites or any sites I know. Are they sure they didn't mean 10b porno-sites? ;)

Sid

[percentages]

>This is a gag.

Sorry to say you won't be performing for us this year......sounds like Simon "The Coke Man" Cowell...does't it?....next please!

This one is a non-story!

[jmccormac]

Sounds like a typical vapourware SE. The problem with a search index of any size is that about 75% of it is crap that often has not been updated for years. Without having strong sorting and search prioritisation algorithms, any new search engine is really just repeating the mistakes of its predecessors. To date, the main market search engines have a lot in common with the 'infinite number of monkeys at an infinite number of word processors' scenario. As for this dipsie.bot - never seen it. :)

Regards...jmcc

[elguiri]

A few years back I asked someone where I could get a particular piece of software. The reply was "try googling". It was the first time I'd heard the verb. If on the other hand the guy had said "try dipsying" he'd probably have received a slap in the chops.

[elguiri]

A few years back I asked someone where I could get a particular piece of software. The reply was "try googling". It was the first time I'd heard the verb. If on the other hand the guy had said "try dipsying" he'd probably have received a slap in the chops.

[elguiri]

...I also see they're wanting to hire a Software/Application Developer with a "Take no prisoners attitude". Since when did geeks get like that?

[jmccormac]

The phrase 'dipsie' is a marketing nightmare especially in the English lanaguage areas. Phonetically it is too close to 'tipsy', a nice way of saying slightly drunk. And of course a dipsomaniac has an insatiable craving for alcoholic beverages. It really makes you wonder about the marketing department that came up with the name. Perhaps if they marketed as a beer search engine, they may be on to a good thing - if they actually have any search technology. :)

Regards...jmcc

[ronin]

They'd be better off cutting out the 'cute' element and calling it DeepSea.

[Chris_D]

....or a car engine, search engine and calling it 'dipstick'.. :)