Join 3,436 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


The 99% of the Web?
May 1, 2012 3:30 PM   Subscribe

So, would a search engine be more useful if it just didn't include the Most Popular websites? How about the ONE MILLION most popular websites?
Fortunately, it lets you adjust the filter to exclude the top 100,000, 10,000, thousand, hundred or ten. MetaFilter reappears under the 'thousand' setting.
Via WaxyLinks and HackerNews

posted by oneswellfoop (12 comments total) 40 users marked this as a favorite

 
Finally I can track down the mysterious feline ailment that's causing my cat to have throbbing lips and a strong craving for male chickens.
posted by BrotherCaine at 3:36 PM on May 1, 2012 [5 favorites]


Is this what I'd use if I wanted to find really obscure stuff?
posted by monospace at 3:44 PM on May 1, 2012


I'm so indie, guys.
posted by Askiba at 3:46 PM on May 1, 2012 [5 favorites]


This seems more academic rather than very useful.

What I'd like to see in some experimental search engine is a way to look up error messages from various software without having to sort through 100 pages of content farms and shitty tech blogs rewriting reviews of whichever program is giving the error.
posted by Threeway Handshake at 3:55 PM on May 1, 2012 [7 favorites]


No. A search engine would be more useful if the owners could somehow purchase Google's circa-2004-or-so algorithm and re-implement it.
posted by Thorzdad at 4:32 PM on May 1, 2012 [9 favorites]


Yeah what Thorzdad said. But this did show me a cute Web 0.0 site about aardvarks I'd never seen before, so that's cool.
posted by gubo at 4:57 PM on May 1, 2012 [1 favorite]


My blog comes up when the top million are removed. I'm in the 99%!
posted by COD at 5:10 PM on May 1, 2012 [4 favorites]


I'm not sure how useful Google ca 204 would be anymore. Spammer and domain farms figured out pretty effectively how to game that as well. Google as it currently exists has evolved both in response to be gamed and to improve it from the perspective of Google at-large.
posted by skynxnex at 5:43 PM on May 1, 2012


gubo: "Yeah what Thorzdad said. But this did show me a cute Web 0.0 site about aardvarks I'd never seen before, so that's cool."

"Last updated 13 June 2011"

That's THE site for aardvarks, didn't you know?
posted by Defenestrator at 5:46 PM on May 1, 2012


My blog comes up when the top million are removed. I'm in the 99%!

Yeah, as did 'fairly famous, like second tier, crime writer with name not a lot like mine'... don't think I'll be going back
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 2:50 AM on May 2, 2012


Why not just a search engine that uses crowd-sourced lists to filter out link-farm sites? That's all I need.
posted by Theta States at 9:15 AM on May 2, 2012


This tool has real value for me. Thanks!

This seems more academic rather than very useful.

What I'd like to see in some experimental search engine is a way to look up error messages from various software without having to sort through 100 pages of content farms and shitty tech blogs rewriting reviews of whichever program is giving the error.


I'd like to see a comparison of your Google search with a Million Short search minus 1M, 100K, 10K, etc. to

I also do a lot of software/security string searching on Google and am similarly frustrated. I'm gonna try out some various restrictions on MillionShort to see exactly how valuable it is.

I do think it has serious value for me.
posted by mrgrimm at 9:27 AM on May 2, 2012


« Older Weavrs are a species of new autonomous, emotive, s...  |  Is ESPN columnist Sarah Philli... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments