| ▲ | orf 3 hours ago |
| Sure, but the point is results are not relevant at all? It’s cool though, and really fast |
|
| ▲ | saltysalt 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| I'll work on that adjustment, it's fair feedback thanks! |
| |
| ▲ | direwolf20 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Unfortunately this is the bulk of search engine work. Recursive scraping is easy in comparison, even with CAPTCHA bypassing. You either limit the index to only highly relevant sites (as Marginalia does) or you must work very hard to separate the spam from the ham. And spam in one search may be ham in another. | | |
| ▲ | saltysalt 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | I limit it to highly relevant curated seed sites, and don't allow public submissions. I'd rather have a small high-quality index. You are absolutely right, it is the hardest part! |
|
|
|
| ▲ | globular-toast 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| What do you mean they're not relevant? The top result you linked contained the word stackoverflow didn't it? It's showing you exactly what you searched for. Why would you need a search engine at all if you already know the name of the thing? Just type stackoverflow.com into your address bar. I feel like Google-style "search" has made people really dumb and unable to help themselves. |
| |
| ▲ | orf 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | the query is just to highlight that relevance is a complex topic. few people would consider "perl blog posts from 2016 that have the stack overflow tag" as the most relevant result for that query. |
|
