Would a search engine like this be useful for you?

[flowermei]

Let's say you want to search for a list of TV shows whose first episode was aired in the month of September and whose creator has an alias consisting of the word 'Levine'.

(This is just a simple query. It could get more complex than that)

Let's assume that you want to search for that information in Wikipedia. Using the search box in Wikipedia does not work, right? Using 'site:wikipedia.org' ... in Google does not work too, right?

Therefore, my question is, would a search engine that makes it possible for you to find such information to meet your sophisticated query needs be useful to you?

[BeeDeeDubbleU]

The fact is that if it doesn't work in Google it is unlikely to be found elsewhere.

[topr8]

yes, i would find it useful.

a search engine that could search with an extra layer of complexity would be great - although i imagine it would be complicated working out the interface, unless of course a genius natural language application was developed!

[flowermei]

@BeeDeeDubbleU,
I don't get what you mean. Care to elaborate?

@topr8,
I am pleased to know that you would find it useful.
Actually, I created a demo of such a site and I would love for you to try it out.
Does this forum allow me to post a URL here?

[BeeDeeDubbleU]

@BeeDeeDubbleU,
I don't get what you mean. Care to elaborate?

I am not sure that I am following you?

What I meant was that Google and Bing are already capable of carrying out sophisticated searches like this. If you could not find the information there then it is unlikely to be fond elsewhere.

[flowermei]

@BeeDeeDubbleU,

Are you sure Google and Bing are capable of carrying out sophisticated searches like the one I gave?

Would it possible that you show me the search keywords that you would use to google for "a list of TV shows whose first episode was aired in the month of September and whose creator has an alias consisting of the word 'Levine'."?

[wheel]

Google and Bing aren't having any problems serving complex search results.

I suppose you can construct an example where you couldn't find exactly what you wanted - I've seen the odd case where I couldn't find results either. But nobody is searching on that stuff. They're searching for emergency plumbers boston, and Google and Bing serve those results just fine.

It's great that you have a search engine, but nobody cares.

Or to answer your original question:

Therefore, my question is, would a search engine that makes it possible for you to find such information to meet your sophisticated query needs be useful to you?

No.

[flowermei]

I think a couple of you here do not understand my question except for topr8.

Comparing my use case with Google and Bing is like comparing apples and oranges (fruits), cars and aeroplanes (vehicles).

Just because it is a search engine, you automatically think there is no use for it. Google is one type of search engine. Mine is another type. It serves different purposes.

And to say that nobody cares about my search engine when you two don't even know the use case is simply nonsensical.

Let me quote my post:

"
Let's say you want to search for a list of TV shows whose first episode was aired in the month of September and whose creator has an alias consisting of the word 'Levine'.

...

Let's assume that you want to search for that information in Wikipedia. Using the search box in Wikipedia does not work, right? Using 'site:wikipedia.org' ... in Google does not work too, right? "

Now,

Can you tell me how can you use GOOGLE to search WIKIPEDIA to find a 'list of TV shows whose first episode was aired in the month of September and whose creator has an alias consisting of the word 'Levine'?

I will give you a million bucks if you can show me how!

[flowermei]

Just to be clear this thread is about a search engine that can search Wikipedia.

Please learn to read before carefully before replying.

Most people can read but some who do cannot comprehend.

[flowermei]

Just to be clear this thread is about a search engine that can search Wikipedia using sophisticated queries.

Please learn to read carefully before replying.

Most people can read but some who do cannot comprehend.

[wheel]

I read fine the first time.

You're asking a rhetorical question. You're demanding that people agree that such a search engine is useful.

It's not useful. Is that clear? Maybe Google doesn't do what you're asking - but nobody cares that they don't.

I'll repeat your question, since you're not reading our responses very carefully:

Therefore, my question is, would a search engine that makes it possible for you to find such information to meet your sophisticated query needs be useful to you?

No, it would not be useful.

It's not even useful even if you really really really want it to be useful.

[BeeDeeDubbleU]

How to win friends and influence people, eh?

Please learn to read before carefully before replying. Most people can read but some who do cannot comprehend.

I think a couple of you here do not understand my question except for topr8.

I would guess that your opinion on that may be influenced by that fact that topr8 gave you the answer you wanted to hear. ;)

[tangor]

I have a query:

If sending a boolean query to Wikipedia (already) does not result in the answer, how is the proposed SE going to do it?

Reality check. Can the info "levin" be found?
Can september
can tv show
can first... etc...

More accurately, IS THE INFO THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE?

For results like this on Wikipedia most will have
SHOW TITLE
SHOW EPISODE TITLE
SHOW EPISODE NUMBER
SHOW AIR DATE
SHOW DIRECTORS
SHOW WRITERS
SHOW CHARACTERS
SHOW ACTORS

If I want to use Wikipedia for this kind of search I look for the SHOW first (gives me all the above) then if I want to quickly zero in on "september" CTRL+F and typing "sept" +ENTER takes me to the first entry.

Adding any more complexity of achieving same is not a benefit TO ME.

However, if you're asking for a show that aired this last September and it not yet in Wikipedia, but is a valid info source... maybe...

But that presumes I haven't already tried that info in my Bing search (use that first) or G box (second choice) which generally has that info which is not yet in Wikipedia.

Even is the proposed SE indexes only that content and does not seek out near related, that's going to be one humongous index. So...

How much money do you have to throw at this?

[flowermei]

Most of you get the impression that I am saying that you have to use this sentence into a search box, right?

"List of TV shows whose first episode was aired in the month of September and whose creator has an alias consisting of the word 'Levine'."

That's not what I meant and neither do I meant you search for "What is the square root of bla bla?" type of queries.

What I saying is that can you search Wikipedia effectively to find information that meet these criteria:

- is about a TV show
- the first episode was aired in the month of September
- the creator of the show has an alias consisting of the word 'Levine'.

Do you get me now?

What you guys are responding is like this:

ME : Can I interest you with an apple?
YOU: No, thanks. I already have an orange. Since it is also a fruit, I don't need an apple.

ME : Can I interest you with a car?
YOU: No, thanks. I already have an aeroplane.


Seriously? Things are made for a different purpose.


@Tangor... you said:

"If I want to use Wikipedia for this kind of search I look for the SHOW first (gives me all the above) then if I want to quickly zero in on "september" CTRL+F and typing "sept" +ENTER takes me to the first entry."

But the problem is, you - as a searcher - don't know what show you are looking for. So how would you achieve what I asked for which is to find a list of tv shows that met those criteria?

[flowermei]

And oh, those of you who think it won't be useful, here's a big surprise to you.

Google acquired Metaweb solely to make this type of search useful. This kind of search is called 'structured search', which Google is seriously looking into.

Haha! What do you have to say now?

[flowermei]

@Tangor..

I realised what you meant. You meant that you will manually open each TV show entry in Wikipedia, then use Ctrl+F to find 'september', etc..

Then my question is if there are lots of tv shows, are you going to manually open each one till your fingers bled? :D

Thank you Tangor and topr8 for your kind responses unlike @Wheel, who thinks he/she is representative of the internet population.

@Wheel, I suggest you call up Google to tell them that they made a mistake in acquiring Metaweb. Tell them that structured search is not going to be a good idea. Hahaha!

Anyway, I'm done with this thread. If no one cares about alternative search engines, then this forum topic should not be here in the first place.

I'll go where there are more civilized people.

[wheel]

Haha! What do you have to say now?

Google can afford to do this. You can't.

And it's still a nonstarter with Google. Your trump card is ridiculous - 99% of the stuff Google does is a miserable failure. You need examples? All the companies they bought, nobody's using the stuff.

You want an alternative search engine, go do something niche or local. Striking fear into the heart of Google isn't going to happen with some hypothetical 'somebody might want to search for something and can't find it on Google'. News for you bud, just about everybody (current company excepted) is quite happy with Google search results. There's no white underbelly there.

I'll go where there are more civilized people.

PM me where that is please. I could stand to hang around people that know enough to link their pinky fingers when they drink their tea.

[flowermei]

@wheel..

because I forgot to turn off new reply notifications, i'm alerted to your reply. hence, let me reply to your

"All the companies they bought, nobody's using the stuff."

Let me see now:
- "All the companies"
- "nobody's using"

They bought YouTube. Millions of people are using it.

You're talking nonsense. Don't shove your opinion onto others.

Does anyone else think this guy/gal is credible?

[flowermei]

and I've never said anything about competing with Google.
like i said many times. apples and oranges.
different things for different needs.
you don't need it because whatever it is that you do in your daily life doesn't require it.
sell an aeroplane to someone who doesn't need it would of course be wrong.
that is why there is such a thing called 'target audience'.
geez, learn to comprehend and be respectful of opinions.

[tangor]

But the problem is, you - as a searcher - don't know what show you are looking for. So how would you achieve what I asked for which is to find a list of tv shows that met those criteria?

flowermei, you're taking this personal. And also missing the key start. Most people KNOW what they are searching for (that's why there's a search box) but they don't know WHERE it is. Chicken/Egg thing.

We know the chicken, we just don't know which road they are crossing to lay the egg.

And if that entertaining analogy is over the top...

I know what I want. I just want to get to the page that gives me the answer.

As described... as you have described it... the search fails in Wikipedia (which makes no sense unless it is not in there) and the proposed SE will find it. A non-starter.

Users are dumb, of course, we all know that and do what we can to cater to their low abilities, but this goes beyond the pale.

Heck, I can do this in a cardex (old style 3x5 cards in a really big cabinet with many many little drawers) when I visit the library (Wikipedia is an internet analogy of library) and get the same results.

Any new SE these days is going to have to out Bing or out Google to get traction... else it is a really slick Directory... and an SE that focuses on Wikipedia as a layer above the original source (Wikipedia) is doomed to fail. Why go to "A SE" instead of Wikipedia? Makes no sense.

An SE that focuses on a directory (in specific as offered) genre, it must be better than what the ordinary industry tools can provide (ie, better than Bing or Google or Yahoo)... and that's a tough row to hoe.

Again, and you did not answer, HOW MUCH MONEY CAN YOU THROW AT THIS? If it is enough, HIRE ME. I have ideas and abilities, and the same pie in the sky ideals of how to do things better.

Meanwhile, in topic/genre sites I offer, I include a SITE level search which is more inclusive than any of the big SEs... which for the visitors to my site give more results. You pick and choose which battles/searches you offer. I do it site by site. Which is A DIFFERENT SOLUTION. I am not about to index Wikipedia... nor TV entertainment in particular, and September with an alias of Levin. Frankly, I can't figure that out since I'd start with the show first and... all the rest will appear... if Wikipedia has been updated with the info. If not, there's Bing and G to git 'er done.

Many have tried to reinvent the wheel. So far, the wheel is still round and is anchored on an axle that must interface with a roadway. When somebody comes up with a different, more efficient method that's when I'll get real excited.

[BeeDeeDubbleU]

geez, learn to comprehend and be respectful of opinions.

I had a good laugh at that one.