Comments on: Snap Rethinks Search

By: MultiZ

MultiZ — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 05:44:53 +0000

How exactly does one promote a search engine? Did Snap just advertise on a bunch of blogs to become known -- or did they try something else? Their keyboard search is kind of like uGuX.

By: web two point oh

web two point oh — Sun, 17 Dec 2006 15:09:58 +0000

Well 6 months after this post snap still sucks.

The preview javascript stuff actually takes longer to load a tiny preview (~4 seconds) so its actually quicker to open the remote link and ACTUALLY VISIT THE SITE.

Presumably their 6 months worth or however long worth of caching has been pointless? Am not talking of previews of small unworthy sites either - huge ones like the BBC.

By: Sprinko

Sprinko — Tue, 05 Sep 2006 02:05:32 +0000

I am use to using Google or Yahoo interface that at first snap appeared complicated due to the features. However, once on it for a while It’s pretty cool. Well, it might just be me.

By: ♣ Search Engine Web

♣ Search Engine Web — Thu, 25 May 2006 21:58:18 +0000

SNAP BLOG Site Stats Public Traffic Trackers.

Just could NOT resist clicking on that sitemeter icon on their New Blog homepage – and voila’, their traffic is PUBLIC…..

Come now, you know you all are curious….

http://www.sitemeter.com/?a=stats&s=s24snapblog&r=11

By: SorenG

SorenG — Wed, 17 May 2006 03:09:01 +0000

Thanks John. It seems that I may be in the minority with this concern. Certainly only picking groups/sites you are interested in helps this quite a bit.

I love my bloggers and want to make sure they make a good living and can continue to do what they do -- and successful advertising campaigns no doubt help them do this. Likewise, one thing bloggers offer to me is honest takes and the freedom to "say it like they see it" and I want to make sure they keep doing this.

I am not sure the answer to this issue, or what FM's policy is. Techcrunch, for example, just gave "ho-hum" review to Google Notebook. Can they still do this, even if Google was paying them big money to help them in an ad campaign or as a sponsor? Does the fact that someone is paying you or is a sponsor ever even slightly impact your view of a site? Can you still remain impartial? I have never been asked to do something like this, so I do not have the diorect experience with it. Maybe it has no impact. Again, I do not have the answer, but it is an issue I feel compelled to raise. Thanks for considering my thoughts . . .

By: Mark McGuire

Mark McGuire — Tue, 16 May 2006 15:24:43 +0000

I salute Snap for “blurring the lines,” as you say John. For commercial search, is there really such a thing as a pure organic result anymore? There aren’t many, in my opinion. Most of the results are dominated by the SEO industry. This isn’t said to bash SEO; they are playing by the rules that have been created. But the simple fact is commercial search results at GYM are dominated by the companies that have paid someone lots of $ to be there (either the search engine for paid links or an SEO for “organic” results). I think this current model is weakening the relevance of commercial search and I salute Snap for realizing this and trying to change it.

By: will

will — Tue, 16 May 2006 04:55:42 +0000

A9 is a meta search engine, so is snap. . . crawling the web requires too much investment in resources due to increawe in size and speed of change of the web in the last 3 years. . . classic economies of scale if there was ever one. . .

By: Techie

Techie — Tue, 16 May 2006 03:30:48 +0000

The interface is hard to get used to. Google uses text results, but to a very effective degree. More results are displayed and you scan through them quickly with your eye. With Snap, you see less results on one page. And even though the images I assume are cached, they still take that split second too long to load.

By: John Battelle

John Battelle — Tue, 16 May 2006 03:28:55 +0000

Thanks Soren, for your comments. While it's true that Snap is paying for ads on the site, and I agreed to comment on their site as part of their promotion, I hope that you'll understand that it in no way colors my thoughts about the company. I have written about every single thing Bill Gross has done. This is no different. I only take advertising from companies I find interesting in the first place. That's the beauty of FM's model.
However, if this crosses a line for you, I will take that very seriously and consider it in the future. Thanks.

By: SorenG

SorenG — Tue, 16 May 2006 03:20:18 +0000

While I think that one should review and comment on a number of sites, I do think that you get into a grey area when you start to review sites that you are paid contributor/advisor to. Fine, if you talk about MSFT, and they have ads here, but if Snap is paying you to post on their site and promote their site, then it gets into the question: Was the above post because you found Snap interesting or because they are paying you? Would you read a review of a movie by someone who was a paid advisor to that movie? I would not.

I personally would rather you let advertisers buy whatever ads they want on this site, but not get into the game of reviewing here sites you are being paid to promote. They can place ads here, but that does not mean you are going to post or comment on them. Otherwise, this makes for a grey area in my view. What about this: have someone that you respect who is not a part of their promotion campaign review their site here? That to me would be a better approach -- and I think we are more likely to get a clean review. I think people want a "messenger" to "say it like it is" and if you are being paid by a company to make comments on their site, I am not sure how good you can do this. WIthout this, where does one draw the line between reporting (saying it like you see it) and promotion (saying it in the best way for a particular comnpany)?