[SpectateSwamp]

This program started out as a simple full-text search.
(Every System worth it's salt can export to text)

The flowchart, to do the line wrap and match hi-lights
took 3 days. It worked like a charm. (see the links
to these charts below)

Step 1 complete. Search and display text results.

Next was the ability to search text and call up pictures.
When a match was found on a line and the following line had
the path to a picture, then that picture was displayed.

We scanned in and cataloged 5000+ family pictures and
used that as a test base.

Changes were made to view these pictures as a screen saver.
Then with a RANDOM option, because sequential became boring fast.

Then came VIDEO and Music. Being able to start and stop
anywhere in a video clip, slow motion and freeze frame
are the main features. I've had a mini dvd camcorder for
4 years now. Desktop Search makes computers and video fun.

The very early version (1999) of the search has way less
functionality but is valuable as a stripped down search.
(Source code documentation, details the evolution of this program)

To make this app a NET search, or create Linux, Mac and C versions
should be quite simple. There are just 10,000 lines of Visual Basic 5
code, with lots of comments and deactivated testing lines. Would need
to add the ability to search for multiple users as it cycles thru data.
A URL would be loaded instead of a picture.

It's very scalable. It currently runs as a background job.
A few thousand copies searching designated data sections,
should handle the largest of data searches.

All my notes, emails and net clippings since 1999 amount to 75M
At 20,000,000 cps it takes just over 3 seconds. (4 year old laptop)

Another "must have" feature of any Desktop Search is notepad capabilities.
If you don't keep notes, what do you keep?

Before computer search, people had recipe books, phone and address books.
They kept notes short and to the point. When looking for something they
had to read / scan the text. Recipes were always short, because they were
hand copied when shared. With computer search, you can keep much more
detailed notes and store it all, in one file if you like.

Keep every bit of printed information that is worthwhile. It won't
amount to all that much. Mine's next to nothing at 75M. No need for
indexing desktop search; like Google, Yahoo and Microsoft.

Having all your photos, music and telephone videos readily available
and software to play random selections can be entertaining. It's
quick to add search detail for these files or video segments. It can
flash through photos at 10 per second and faster. Sample your videos,
music, pictures and text in the same screen saver.

This app is relatively SECURE for text. In display mode the text can
not be cut or copied. (The extract capability would have to be disabled.)
Having the original file encrypted and the decrytion taking place on the fly
adds to security.

Other features are: Merge, Search and Replace, Selected photo or song
to copy, directory list, differences between 2 files and some lesser
functions that make searching useful.

I have looked at some of the others. The more I looked the more
I loved this desktop search. The thing I like most, is that all my
searches can be done in full text mode. With search, it is ALWAYS
the context one is looking for. I know the name "Joe Smith" when
I search. It is his phone# or a person I met with him that I am
interested in. Context context context. The other searches give
you gibberish from their index files, before you see the real data.

This search is leading the pack in simplicity, expandability, usefulness
and speed. Gets the data up on the screen fast.

Shortly I'll be explaining and demonstrating this Search using VIDEO;
from the very early source code and Flowcharts to the most recent features.

If this Search goes to the next level and becomes a Net Search, with all
it's multimedia capabilities then look out, to the rest. It will become a
leader on the Net with Random video, random music, random jokes, excitement.

Flowcharts page 1 and 2 below:

http://www.telusplanet.net/public/stonedan/pict01.jpg

http://www.telusplanet.net/public/stonedan/pict02.jpg

[tech blogger]

how much would it cost to pay somebody to build a search engine? and what would be the average cost for hosting fees?

[SpectateSwamp]

Originally Posted by tech blogger

how much would it cost to pay somebody to build a search engine? and what would be the average cost for hosting fees?

The total time for this search is probably a year. It evolved over the first 4
or 5 years. The more the hosting fees the better you are doing.

What ever the cost, search is proving to be worth it.

In a bit I'll make this app open source. Then everyone can take it from here.
There is a list of new features as long as my arm that I want to add.

[robert]

I think the first thing would be to find what is your intent with the search engine, is it to build Search Engine Optimization traffic? Is it to drive ppc traffic, what is it? I once consulted for almost 4 years on a major ppc and I can tell you that focus is very important.

[SpectateSwamp]

Originally Posted by robert

I think the first thing would be to find what is your intent with the search engine, is it to build Search Engine Optimization traffic? Is it to drive ppc traffic, what is it? I once consulted for almost 4 years on a major ppc and I can tell you that focus is very important.

My intent is to get this search engine out there. The only way to do
that, is make it open source. I know that a search, with a random option
creates interest. It's difficult to keep focus when one starts thinking about
the possibilities. Once you have a search, it's not hard to do a replace
option creating a very simplistic accounting system. Focus isn't easy.

[tech blogger]

with the success of google, I wonder why more people are not creating search engines and cashing out

[diddy1]

Because they've tried and failed. I remember when google was starting to be big a lot of people jumped on the bandwagon (much like the directory rush right now) and failed. Simply because they didn't realize that most users weren't willing to give up google or yahoo or even msn for a little unknown search engine. So it takes years to truly establish yourself not to mention a LOT of resources. And we all know people that jump the bandwagons are just looking a quick buck when it gets complicated is when they give up.

Thank You

[SpectateSwamp]

Originally Posted by diddy1

Because they've tried and failed. I remember when google was starting to be big a lot of people jumped on the bandwagon (much like the directory rush right now) and failed. Simply because they didn't realize that most users weren't willing to give up google or yahoo or even msn for a little unknown search engine. So it takes years to truly establish yourself not to mention a LOT of resources. And we all know people that jump the bandwagons are just looking a quick buck when it gets complicated is when they give up.

Thank You

It wouldn't be hard for the 3 to block any real search news.

[worldseochamp]

Cool I have always wanted to build a search engine and challenge google yahoo and MSN.I only need 1 percent of googles money to be rich LOLGoogle makes over $30 million a day 1% = $300,000 a day I would make googe list my results in their result HeHeHe I'll check it out

[tech blogger]

numbers like that really motivate me. I had an idea for a search engine and was going to get somebody from elance to build it for me. I don't even want it to be big like google. But just big enough to get brought out by one of the major search engines.