My search engine

[Burf.com]

Hello People

I have been working on a new search engine in a software package called equinox. the reason i decided to make one is because no one has ever made one in equinox.

Currently it is a meta engine, But i am currently indexing body text. (thats why its running slowly)


Well any help would be cool

[Burf.com]

Just had a redesign!

[minstrel]

• it's slow as molasses to load the home page
• the home page is too wide for the screen at 800x600 and your scroll bars don't work
• clicking on the link for Search Engine doesn't DO anything
• after that I gave up

[rescom]

Just tried to use and nothing happened.

Also, I am set on 800 x 600 and can not see part of the site...no scroll bars or any other means of seeing the rest of the page without adjusting my settings.

[hawkwind dave]

hi Burf.com

I think theres far too much in the way of logo/design.

Theres only a tiny (tichy tiny) frame at the bottom for the results to be viewed in, personaly, I think it would look and feel much better if you gave 70-80% of the page space to the results, as this is what people look for on a search engine, your results are your 'product', so why give them so little space?

Good luck with it though.

[pedstersplanet]

You running it on your own pc/server?
Hence this ( http://burf2000.dyndns.org )
Just curious

[AlexDP]

I tried your search engine. I couldn't even see the results! (Running at 800x600).

Also, when re-sized screen to take a look, the add your site for free link produced an error 404 page.

I think you need to make some improvements. Scale everything down a bit so that it can be seen on 800x600 screens (I think most people use that).

Alex

[minstrel]

Originally Posted by AlexDP

Scale everything down a bit so that it can be seen on 800x600 screens (I think most people use that).

There have been several debates about this and it's pretty clear that it does depend on the particular website (e.g., sites like this that attract more techies and web designers are more likely to have higher screen resolutions).

For a long time, 800x600 did seem overall to be the most common. Sometime earlier this year, it seems that fell to second place. It is nonetheless still prudent to design for 800x600 because (1) that resolution still accounts for something like 45% of visitors, again depending on the site; and (2) someone user a higher resolution has no difficulty viewing an 800x600 page, even in a window, but at 800x600 to view a larger page requires side-scrolling -- like me, many people won't spend a lot of time on a site that requires zipping back and forth to read the content.

[Deep13]

I searched for Search Engine Optimization and got this:

Sorry no matches found, please try later

I searched for burf..and got this..

Welcome to Burf.com, the NEW Search Engine
http://burf2000.dyndns.org
Description: burf, network, hacking, message forum, forum, ftp, news, simon burfield, web design,search engine , downloads, ppc, dating, picture uploader, gallery
Keywords: The New Burf Search Engine, features everything from cats to computers, news ,PPC and message forum for free.

so my point is..people are not going to search for burf... :) need some improvements, from server to design and search results :)

take care
Deep

[ronniethedodger]

This thread needs to be moved to Site Reviews. I cannot see any point in remarking on the search engine without being able to figure out how to use it first.

His second post "Just had a redesign!" comes several months after the first. That post hints of "site review" all over it.

[jawn_tech]

For a long time, 800x600 did seem overall to be the most common. Sometime earlier this year, it seems that fell to second place.

minstrel, thanks -- I didn't know this. What is first place?

[jawn_tech]

Hey I tried out the search engine. It was functioning for me. I tried a few sample keywords and could only find one result, but I imagine in time your index will grow. Best wishes to your new search engine.

I submitted a couple sites to your index. Glad to be one of the first.

My question is, what is "burf"? I'm guessing it was just a good grab to get a 4-letter domain. But good way to step out of the box --- everyone wants domains that spell a dictionary word. But someone has to be the one to start trends -- after all, before they came along, who else wanted the domain names like "ebay" or "google" or "yahoo".

Want some free marketing advice? Lose the graphics, and either draw - or hire someone to come up with - a trademark character, 'burf'. Give the site name-brand recognition, it will catch on. Lower the amount of graphics and it will speed things up to compensate for download time. With design, less is more.

[sfowler]

It definitely should be moved to site review. I just submitted sites to the directory and they get displayed very strangely!

[Jade456]

Nice idea but you have a ways to go yet.

[Burf.com]

Hello people
Well i am surprised to see so many people on 800 by 600? I thought the standard was 1024 by 768 now? am i wrong

Yes i am redesigning it again and making less graphical

I currently index the url, title, keywords and 10 special words

I let ya know when its ready for you to test

If any of you do have websites please add them to the directory which is free

[braknews]

I just tried to add my site to your Sport category & received the following error: "Error finding category"

If you want to see your site at different screen resolution & sizes try this -> http://www.wpdfd.com/restest.htm

[TN Todd]

tried addding a site to sports category got "Error finding category"

Also I added a site to the pet category but I didn't include the http:// now the link doesn't work.

As far as resolution size I don't see myself or most of my customers ever changing from 800x600

[Burf.com]

I will add the http for you in later and try the sports catergory for you

[Burf.com]

Well i work for a software house and everyone is on 1024 768 +

Some are on 1400 by 1024

[Burf.com]

I have just fixed the sports!
Thanks for the error reporting

[pne]

Burf,

Kind of accept your point about screen res. However the point is not dissimilar to that about browsers. You can design only for the latest version of, say, IE but you stand the very real possibility of missing those people with older versions.

My view about screen res is this. If +40% of people are using 800x600 then they are my "base-load", it's a similar argument to dial-up versus broadband and it comes down to the same thing. We are (or should be) designing sites for users. If just under half of the people likely to view your site are using a screen res of 800x600 then tou ignore their needs at significant peril to your business.

What people "should" do and what they actually do are two separate things.

pne

[Burf.com]

Mate your spot on, i was not complaning, just in shock (sorry)

My new site will work in 800 by 600 and everyones help is very useful!

[Burf.com]

The new design is now live and should be 800 by 600 compatiable

Its not finsihed in content yet but the search engine is running alot better(currently indexing so will be slower)