Don Busca

[pedja]

We (4C Software) have launched a new metasearch site Don Busca, http://www.DonBusca.com, and we would like to have your input about this site.
Few details about site:
-search in three categories (Web, News and Software)
-access to the DMOZ directory exchanged with thumshots
-clustering results for focusing in the found results and expanding search with related terms
-displaying first three Wikipedia articles if available
-offering a very useful tools for every result : Cached, Archive, Site info (Google pagerank, Alex info, Whois information, DMOZ listing...)
-possibility to add each result directly in the favorite bookmark manager (Furl, Yahoo, Simpy)
-putting results in "Fast Surfer" mode which enables a very fast browsing through all search results without leaving current window
-displaying related categories for the search from DMOZ directory
-displaying thumbshot for sites in the results, if available
-multilanguage interface (6 languages)
-voayer, displays current searches at Don Busca
-100 most searched terms

Thanks!

[orion]

Hi, DonBusca


Here is my feedback. The site has some good things and some room for improvement. I have organized the analysis without assigning absolute scores (points).

DESIGN

1. Layout = Good
2. Colors = Good
3. Overall = Good

CODING

1. HTML = W3C Not Valid as of 10/19/04
2. CSS = W3C Not Valid as of 10/19/04
Overall = poor

USABILITY

1. Links = Some links send users to password required logs (e.g., "Yahoo It", "Furl It", "Simply It")
2. "Site Info" link merely uses inline frames to show results from Whois.sc site
3. Redirections = Too many link redirections presented as features (e.g., "Cached" (Google), "Archive" (Archive.org), "Site Info" (Whois.sc), etc)
4. "Cached" feature = This feature should only be enabled for cached pages. If the target page has not been cached by Google, users waste their time with this feature.
5. Help and Preference links are placed at the bottom of the page. This is a no-no with new users.
6. Overall = Poor

DATA PROCESSING

1. Speed = Too slow
Overall = bad


RANKING SYSTEM

1. HELP PAGE (http://www.donbusca.com/help.shtml) discloses its ranking system. The ranking system uses the sorted results from other search engines. The Help page does not provide any scientific basis for the weighting scheme used (10 points, extra 15 points, etc).

The Help page states
"In the case of CNN CNBC, for example, if some URL from AltaVista stands in the 3rd place in our search, this will give 10 points to the URL. However, if the same URL stands in the 2nd place in Google's search, then it gets an additional 15 points. Further more, the number of points obtained after counting the number of searched words in the title, description and address of the URL are added to the total sum of points."

Some search engines used by the site already take into consideration the above page descriptors and identifiers. Thus, counting them overweights their contributions. Also note that some search properties are powered by a common search engine.

Overall=poor


ADVANCED SEARCH

1. No advanced search features = Bad
Overall = Bad


Grand Overall = Poor


I believe that after improving the above, they could make it in the meta search field. (They may need other revenue streams) Happy to see new search players. I wish DonBusca good luck.


Orion

[pedja]

Hi Orion,

i want to thank you for this detailed feedback!
We are going to try to improve some of this comments.
Thanks!

[orion]

Hi, DonBusca

I'll be happy to do a second review. Just let me know. We are all here trying to improve the search engine field from both the human and machine side.

Another suggestion.

The logged search terms are numbered and listed from left to right. Most users read lists from top to bottom. This is an usability issue. You may want to list terms in columns of fixed lengths. Numbering is optional, but helps if numbers correspond to a time sequence.

Keep the hard work.

Cheers

Orion

[pedja]

Hi Orion,
We have applied some of your comments in Don Busca so if you interested....
Answers:
CODING

1. HTML = W3C Not Valid as of 10/19/04
"Mission impossible" I didn't see any search engine that is W3C valid, even this site is not valid according to W3C :
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.searchenginewatch.com%2 F
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F

2. CSS = W3C Not Valid as of 10/19/04
Fixed!

USABILITY

1. Links = Some links send users to password required logs (e.g., "Yahoo It", "Furl It", "Simply It")
Any bookmark managers require login information, but they also offer possibility to stay logged in.

2. "Site Info" link merely uses inline frames to show results from Whois.sc site
Site info include also Google pagerank information and Alexa rating information at top of the page

3. Redirections = Too many link redirections presented as features (e.g., "Cached" (Google), "Archive" (Archive.org), "Site Info" (Whois.sc), etc)
Well, its true but we are metasearch engine that means that we must pull information from another places. It's not a bug, it's a feature:)

4. "Cached" feature = This feature should only be enabled for cached pages. If the target page has not been cached by Google, users waste their time with this feature.

Not all the time, after few tests i think that approx. 50% results retrieved from non-google engines exists in google cache

5. Help and Preference links are placed at the bottom of the page. This is a no-no with new users.

Fixed!


DATA PROCESSING

1. Speed = Too slow

It is decision between collecting results form many engines (3 seconds) or collecting quickly results form few engines (1 seconds).
We have choosed first option.

RANKING SYSTEM

1. HELP PAGE discloses its ranking system.

Well i think you must compare relevance of the our ranking with other metasearch engines and then you get real impression about our ranking. We very satisfied with results relevancy.

ADVANCED SEARCH

1. No advanced search features = Bad

Fixed!

The logged search terms are numbered.....

Fixed!

I want to say that I really appreciate your feedback.

Kind regards,
Pedja

[orion]

Hi, there

First, I want to thank you for your prompt response. I have to give you credit for working hard and taking the time to fix/improve the site in the areas of coding and usability.

As for the HTML Validation part, I agree with you that most search engines and sites have html code that is not W3C Valid. This is actually a sad thing and a real shame. I have seen many "seo expert" forums sites that are not W3C Valid, too. Adding insult to injury, even from time to time one can see seo/sem sites talking about and promoting W3C validations but their own sites are not valid.

Only because others web properties are not HTML-valid doesn't mean that my property has to be designed in that way. Just my opinion. I always try to include W3C validations in my work and with clients.

About features. You have the right to call links pointing to other sources "features". That's fine. One can see plenty of sites with links passing name=value pairs and calling the link mechanisms "tools" and "features". One can even see some search tools using this sort of mechanisms and calling that a search engine or a metaengine. In my view, anyone with a browser can replicate the action of these mechanisms.

About Speed. I believe this is something relative and to be decided by users accessing a site from different connections and different timezones from around the globe. A cardinal rule is to never compare onsite speed with the actual user's search experience from different time zones. You may want to check processing speed with speed checkers available elsewhere to sense what average users sense. Doing this at hours of high traffic helps (check your log files).

About the Cache feature.

Many sites (my one, for example) use the googlebot nocache meta tag. Google does not list my site pages in its index with a cache link next to it. So there is no reason why my site should be listed in DonBusca with a cache link next to it. Evidently, the "New window - Cached - Archive - Site info - ...etc"
are dynamically appended to each entry in DonBusca, regardles of if the site was cached by Google. A suggestion is to write a regular expression that will check for the cache expression in the Google results and dynamically disabling its write up on the results page of DonBusca. This can be done with few lines of JavaScript. I must conceed I may be asking for too much from a new site.

About relevance/ranking.

"Well i think you must compare relevance of the our ranking with other metasearch engines and then you get real impression about our ranking. We very satisfied with results relevancy."

The ball is on users court. Users' point of views must decide this, I think. I still don't understand the scientific basis of the ranking scheme of adding points base on where a page ranks in a given search engine. I need help here.

Overall, DonBusca is welcome to the scene. I think it is a good addition to my bookmark. Honestly.

Orion

[glebarr]

keep up the good work

[guido1977ahs]

I tried entering "iceland" into your search form on your home page, and the result was very cool. The variety of search results is incredible. Don Busca has a lot more personality than I ever see on Google or Yahoo. I notice that your results allow users to "Furl it", "Yahoo it", or "Simpy it". I am curious, how did you decide on these three bookmarking managers? Are they the best ones that you have found. I never heard of Simpy before discovering your site.