1. While you are free to lurk, we welcome you to register for a (free) account so that you will be able to participate in forum discussions.

Meta searching

Discussion in 'Meta Search Engines' started by toradrake, Oct 31, 2014.

  1. toradrake Member


    I used to use a meta search engine (metasearch.com) and to be honest...I liked it. However like the rest of the globe, Google got me on the band wagon. Until I noticed this blog space for meta search engines I had not really though about them since. Now I'm considering going back and trying it out again to see how it still fairs. I will let you know my findings.

    Ok, tried different meta searches. Some where Ok, some were horrible. I think I will stick with Google and Bing.

    Last edited: Nov 1, 2014
  2. toradrake Member


    Did a little more through investigation on meta search engines on the net. From what I am seeing so far is that their efficiency has declined quite significantly since I used them years ago. Out of 100 results of most queries I submitted, I received maybe two relevant sites. When doing the same search query in a regular search engine, I got a least 15 out of 100 relevant sites back.

    Perhaps my results were because of the queries I was using, or maybe it was the meta search engine I was utilizing, I don't know. I do know, however, that I believe that I should just stick to regular search engines for now. Maybe in a few more years I will be prompted to try again and see what happens then.

  3. fastreplies Original Member



    Metasearch engines basically scrappers that crawling known SE to build Index
    as you browse whereas normal SE have establish Index of permanent links.

    I like the fact that metasearch.com pulled our sites for term: best web directories
    • bestwebdirectories.net
    to the very top of the list in front of DMOZ and others "best directories"



    Converse likes this.
  4. hiepelines New Member


    yeah ! you have 3 sites very good, i try to use now

  5. ducklord Member


    Hmmm... Now you reminded me that the best ways to meta-search in the days of old weren't the meta-search online solutions, but some meta-tools found as desktop apps. I vividly remember one of them (but not its name, it had some compass in its logo) that "pulled" results from 10 search engines and not only presented them to you in lists, but also categorized, split or filtered in many ways, to help you find results.

    I was actually in the process of defining a skeleton structure for such an app, 'cause one of my dream projects is building a content creators, curators and marketers "dream app" that would ALSO include search and comparison of anything, and that would have to get waaaay "meta" to be as useful as I envision it.

    Are there any current tools for multi-searching and finding results today, for desktop use? I can't even find a proper RSS client - they all look like they came from the 90's... :-(

  6. Converse Active Member


    That would probably be Copernic. I don't think they use the same logo, but it is still available, but not for the Mac, unfortunately. Copernic was one of the favorite tools of DMOZ editors while we were building that directory.

  7. ducklord Member


    Yeap, that was it! Ah, the days..!

    From what I see on their site, they've turned it to some kind of "global indexer of data you may search", including desktop files, mails, everything - something like Google Desktop Search or whatever it was called. It was an expected change in this day and era, I guess.

    I won't even try it, though, for this same reason. I don't have the HDD (or rather SDD) space for a tool like that to start indexing everything it sees. That will take precious GBs of storage I can't just give up for something like this, even if it's cool and somewhat useful.

  8. Sly14Cat New Member


    So what does meta search engine do? Get results from all other engines and display it to you? Also last time I checked, Bing is stealing results from Google so you might as well just use Google if you had to choose between the two.

  9. Converse Active Member


    That was in 2011, wasn't it? That's when Google made that claim, but I don't think that it was ever verified at the time. Those sort of claims are not uncommon between rival companies, and there is often something to it. Apple claimed that Microsoft stole its interface when they created Windows. They did hire a lot of people away from Apple not long before coming out with Windows, but I'm sure that was coincidental.

  10. ducklord Member


    @Sly14Cat Yep, that's, more or less, what "meta" search engines (and tools) do.

    @Converse: Yep, that's, more or less, how I remember it too. But Microsoft DID "steal" Apple's "interface", in exactly the same way Apple "stole" Mac's interface from the computers at Xerox Parc research :-D

    "Stealing" ideas is quite common in the field of tech, and those who win aren't usually those who come up first with an idea, but those who can last longer in some court of law while fighting for patents. Or, to put it shortly, "those with the deeper pockets".

    I remember, some seven - eight years ago, a company "selling" an awesome idea and product I unfortunately never had enough money to buy. They were, if I'm not mistaken, "fingertouch" (their name, or something like that), and the product was a keyboard for your computer that also worked as a touch interface. On it you could either press virtual keys, or just move your hands around, using different combinations of fingers, to "undo-redo" stuff, copy-paste, yadda-yadda-yadda.

    Some years ago they stopped accepting orders. A little later, they disappeard from teh internetz. And, lo and beholf, two years later we saw a new gadget. It was called "The iPhone".

    Yep, Apple had bought them. The iPhones "gesture interface", that was actually the biggest difference in how you used it compared to Windows Mobile (who then reigned supreme), was fingertouch's (or however the heck they were called - gosh, I'm old) creation. No-one knew them. No-one cared for their products. They were a failed company. And their tech gave us THE device that shook the whole tech landscape, killed "dumbphones", got everyone into casual gaming and has pushed computers to the backseat.

    Maybe it was "fingerworks".


    I'm bored to do a search now. I dunno what that says about me. "He's bored to type something in the search box of his browser, but he CAN write walls of text"... Gee, I'm getting TOO old, indeed... :-D

  11. Converse Active Member


    Years ago, Windows stole a third-party compression utility from a company and added it to a new release of its Windows OS without bothering to remove some of the code that identified where it came from. I believe they settled out of court on that one. I'm not saying that Bing didn't steal something from Google; after all, I am sure that it's pure coincidental that we have Google Webmaster Tools and Bing Webmaster Tools, all set up identically. Microsoft has been stealing stuff forever. Gates stole the original DOS from the rest of the group of people with whom he developed it. That's no reason not to use something though, since they've probably all stolen something from someone else.

    For that matter, "Africa Online" was using the acronym "AOL" before America Online took it, and had the deeper pockets to win in the international courts.

  12. ducklord Member


    @Converse Nope. That's a myth, right there. Bill DIDN'T "steal DOS code". I still don't understand why you people would say that without looking it up - it's common knowledge nowadays. Bill Gates BOUGHT THE RIGHTS to the first version of DOS for peanuts, hiding the fact that he'd sold "something like it" (that when he got DOS became "it") to IBM. That doesn't make him a thief, it makes him a successful businessman: he bought for less and sold for more.

    Problem is, when the makers of DOS found out how much he got for it, they wanted a bigger piece of the pie. He didn't give them a single nut - he didn't have to. And THAT'S how he built an empire. Whenever we say "Microsoft stole stuff", 99% of the time it's stuff they bought from some other company and managed to implement or present or just sell better than they, themselves, had done up to then.

  13. Converse Active Member


    You don't know that any more than I do, @ducklord. It's all a matter of who you choose to believe. This story is interesting, but hardly conclusive. As is this one. However, I do know that I don't blindly accept the official story concocted by the one who has the most money.

  14. ducklord Member


    @Converse Yep, I do. 'cause if you check both articles you mentioned say what I already said: Bill Gates BOUGHT the rights to DOS's code, improved it and passed it on to IBM - to whom he had already sold it for much more than he'd paid for. Both articles - and every account of the story - says the same thing, that Kimdall wanted MORE than he got, after seeing how successful the "new OS" based on his own work was. I'm not saying he shouldn't get more money, but that what Gates did was amoral, unethical, but NOT illegal - like "stealing".

  15. Converse Active Member


    Those who win the war write the histories.

  16. ducklord Member


    @Converse Well, what's known doesn't come from "his enemies", but from ALL sources of the story. The only ones supporting Kimdall's version of the story were him and his wife :)

    It's like me saying "I'm God re-incarnated, trust me, I'm saying so - and so is my wife". Not the most concrete proof, right? :-D

  17. xTinx New Member


    Google already has a market monopoly. It's all right to consider Bing and Yahoo but since Google's way too big - call it an economy of scale - it's too hard to not follow its rules. Of course, you can also optimize for Bing and Yahoo but much of the focus will always remain on Google. If you do well in Google and the other two key players in the search engine industry, then I suppose it follows that you will also do well in meta search engine results (unless those engines are using an entirely different algorithm).

  18. toradrake Member


    You mean your not! OMG.... I'm SO going to hell. LOL


    From what I have seen of Metasearch engines so far, they all pull from Google. I think I have only seen a few that claimed to pull from Yahoo, but that is just another way of saying they pulled from Google and now from Bing. I don't believe I have some across a MetaSearch that has its OWN algorithm but rather just pig back off of others.

  19. ducklord Member


    @toradrake That's 'cause that's what "meta" means. If you found a meta-search engine that DIDN'T use other search engines, it wouldn't be "meta" :-D

    "Meta" could be described as "what you do AFTER". Well, not exactly, but... Er... In this case, yeah, that's it.

    "Meta" = "We've got our search results from 10 search engines and now we present them to you. We do our stuff AFTER the other search engines did theirs, to offer you something better than what you'd get by using one of them on its own".

  20. Converse Active Member


    Yahoo might be considered a meta-search that has its own search engine, since it also uses Bing results.


Share This Page