The following is the fourth and final part of my searchme.com assessment, a distinctly different search engine.
As someone with the right hard/software, I absolutely love searchme.com. The presentation of screenshots, embedded videos, and images in a rolodex style makes for a truly unique searching experience.
Site Screenshots Rock!
In
particular, I enjoy seeing screenshots of sites before I visit them.
This is a feature I’ve always wanted in a search engine. How often have
you Googled a site, the details seem right, but when you visit the
site, it’s crap or spam? The downside I see to this feature is that the
screenshots work best for sites with less-frequent updates. Blogs might
not serve up the most accurate screenshots. Which raises my next
concern…
Blogs Rank Low
Very
few, if any blogs appear in searchme.com’s results. Perhaps this is
part of their approval policy. Blogs change so frequently that their
authority is questionable. Google used to prefer static pages, taking
the tack that sites that have been around for awhile with no updates
and are linked to constitute authoritative sites. Whatever the case,
bloggers of all types will probably not run to promote searchme.com, as
we are the ugly stepchildren.
Questionable Ethics of Site Reviews
As
mentioned in my first post, searchme.com employs a human-review process
for all sites submitted to their list of available sites. Although I
like that this removes the possibility of bots tricking the system,
this raises some ethical concerns for me:
1. What are the criteria for “quality”?
You
can spot spam and scams easily enough, but what about sites that offer
quality information that is chockfull of typos. A curmudgeon would oust
it immediately. But just because an author offers info written in text
message format doesn’t mean the info is wrong or not quality. Then
there’s the web design aspect. Do all the sites accepted by
searchme.com have to adhere to a modern design, dumping any pages
created with, say, the lackluster GeoCities software?
2. Where does this leave “adult” sites?
This
question has plagued every search engine or social network since they
became popular. Filters help in the acceptance of adult sites that
don’t violate the more intensely illegal forms of pornography like
pedophilia or bestiality sites. But, what of those sites that walk the
line? Who makes the call?
3. Do the “giants” automatically get ranked higher?
I
know that searchme.com is just getting started. Of course, they would
opt to fill their search results with images from the ever-popular
Flickr, YouTube, and Wikipedia. But, will searchme.com create an
algorithm that produces organic search results that account for other
sites besides the giants?
Overall, I give searchme.com highest
marks and look forward to seeing how they progress over the next couple
years. Check them out!

TELL A FRIEND!