Something I don't get about Search Engines...

[Paul Keith]

I'm not trying to create one since I don't know how aside from using custom search engine services but one thing I really don't get is how search engines get adapted.

At one point, I got that Google beat Yahoo because their engine was better and the design was simpler but at the same time, I don't get how tons of search engines like Clusty/Kart00/Pagebull (defunct)/etc. fail yet Microsoft releases a more Ajax-y Bing search engine and people eat it up as an alternative that's even more well known than Scroogle was.

I'd get it if this was purely Microsoft advertising but it's not. Blogosphere tend to advertise Bing more also. Is it because it's backed by a big company and hence predicted to be more stable?

It just hit me right now after using the greasemonkey script that enables Twitter results (above) Google search results quite awhile that there are things that Google hasn't built in and require scripts and yet no one seems to get the flash bulb lit up of just making a clone of Google but adding integrated scripts into the service.

Why is that?

I'm sure wikipedia isn't the only search engine that people would want up top when they're searching for something.

[mouser]

i'm just thrilled that Paul wrote a short post, and i can understand it as well!

i don't really know the answer, but if i had to guess.. i would indeed guess that it was mostly about advertising dollars and the money behind the efforts that governs how well they scale and can be kept up to date.

[sri]

Why should Google place twitter or wikipedia results above the regular search results?

Not everyone wants that. In fact I suspect that majority will be against this idea.

This is where browsers like Firefox with its infinite customization options in the form of add-ons and greasemonkey scripts come in. You can customize Google to add the features that you want.

[rgdot]

What was that ex-google employee one that somehow managed to make it to mainstream TV news when it was launched last year? and to my knowledge it has fizzled...cuil
Some, even with substantial backing, just fail. It's not necessarily marketing or lack of budget but finding room for acceptance.
A slightly off topic example would be Yahoo's twitter equivalent, meme, it opened to the public very recently and I have seen less coverage for it than Apple bugs.

[Paul Keith]

Why should Google place twitter or wikipedia results above the regular search results?

Not everyone wants that. In fact I suspect that majority will be against this idea.

This is where browsers like Firefox with its infinite customization options in the form of add-ons and greasemonkey scripts come in. You can customize Google to add the features that you want.

Uuhhh...Google shows wikipedia links on top most of the time on their own. In fact you need a script in order to remove that.

The Twitter results work because the results don't interfere with the search results and as you said, you can disable it. (which could be implemented no differently than google's more options button if this were a separate service as opposed to a script)

@rgdot

What made Bing acceptable though? Yahoo meme isn't exactly a search engine and those kinds of services are more early bird-friendly.

@mouser

[Stoic Joker]

I'm going with the people are fickle and lazy explanation. Basically if the new engine doesn't either dazzle with better results, or at least get close enough to not annoy ... folks just tend to go back to (their old habits) what they know.

Maybe it's just me, I'd like to step off on Google but It's too much effort to remember to use Bing when I have a custom search alias for Google. I just put g search term in the address bar hit enter and there it is. I've been doing that for years ... and am too lazy to change.

[housetier]

They like bing because it is not google (too big) nor yahoo (too old).

[Paul Keith]

Hmm... I guess these are the best answers that's possible.

Thanks everyone.

[jomanlk]

Google actually does give preference to Wiki articles. They give it more weight intentionally. As for the other stuff, it's not just the search I guess. You'd have to consider not only whether the results are good but what exactly is indexed as well. Some of these search engines may be good but their indexing depth is no match for someone like Google, Yahoo or Bing. Also, it's advertising $$$ that most of the search people spend. Weirdly enough, I read somewhere that Google doesn't advertise their search engine. I don't know whether this is only in TV advertising or something like that though.

[Paul Keith]

Some of these search engines may be good but their indexing depth is no match for someone like Google, Yahoo or Bing.

The thing that makes me skeptical of this idea is that meta-search sites should have beaten Google if indexing depth was the case.

Then again...it could be that many of them don't have the simplicity of Google's ui.

Still...I'm at an end's wit as to what to ask to dig deeper into this puzzle.

[Innuendo]

I'm going with the people are fickle and lazy explanation. Basically if the new engine doesn't either dazzle with better results, or at least get close enough to not annoy ... folks just tend to go back to (their old habits) what they know.

I think this is the number one reason. Google beat Yahoo! because its algorithms were better. Now most people stick with Google because while there have been some good ideas out there from competitors there hasn't been anything that has proven to be significantly better than Google in any area.

Maybe it's just me, I'd like to step off on Google but It's too much effort to remember to use Bing when I have a custom search alias for Google.

Every time I resolve to give Bing a try the results Bing turns up are either the same as Google's or inferior to Google's. Also, any time I haven't been able to find something on Google and try other search engines I have yet to find something on one of the other search engines that Google has failed to find.

[Dormouse]

I tried Bing once yesterday.
3 or 4 word search if I remember correctly.
It didn't have any site that had what I was looking for on the first page.
Google had it on the top.
So a little spike in Bing market share here - but only the once.