Seach Engine Critique

7 views
Skip to first unread message

gregbr2000

unread,
Apr 27, 2004, 5:20:38 AM4/27/04
to

Hi Everyone,
I just finished redisigning this searchengine.
http://www.bsearchengines.com
My focuse wasn't on the content but rather layout. It was done with
Dreamweaver. Can you guys please tell me what you think about the
design, and a final "approve" or "disaprove". Also any additional
comments about this searchengine would be welcome.
your replies will be very appreciated,
thanks,
Greg

--
gregbr2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted via http://www.forum4designers.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
View this thread: http://www.forum4designers.com/message75529.html

gregbr2000

unread,
Apr 27, 2004, 5:21:54 AM4/27/04
to

.

Karl Groves

unread,
Apr 27, 2004, 7:45:15 AM4/27/04
to

"gregbr2000" <gregbr20...@mail.forum4designers.com> wrote in message
news:gregbr20...@mail.forum4designers.com...

>
> Hi Everyone,
> I just finished redisigning this searchengine.
> http://www.bsearchengines.com
> My focuse wasn't on the content but rather layout. It was done with
> Dreamweaver. Can you guys please tell me what you think about the
> design, and a final "approve" or "disaprove". Also any additional
> comments about this searchengine would be welcome.
> your replies will be very appreciated,
> thanks,
> Greg
>

Looks like shit and works like shit.
1) Graphically, it looks like things are missing. It is unattractive.
2) Take off the stupid little javascript clock thing. I have a clock on my
computer and a watch on my wrist. Why do I care about having it on your
site?
3) All the text on the right side and bottom is microscopic and wastes
vertical space, causing scrolling. Meanwhile you have empty space below your
search form widgets
4) The site is just plain stupid. Am I coming here to search for somethin or
"Play Tetris"

The search function works like crap. I hate to break the news to you, but
unless your business model calls for miserable failure, you may as well move
on and forget this "Search Engine" business. I work for a company that does
usability testing. During tests, we'll ask "What would you do if the
information you're looking for isn't listed here?" Almost universally, they
say "Go to Google". Notice they don't say "Go to a search engine" or "Go to
Yahoo" or "Go to Joe Schmoe's noname search engine"? They say "Go to
Google". So unless you have a *massive* advertising budget and a team of
programmers and human factors engineers to design an effective &
user-friendly search algorithm and presentation layer, you're spinning
wheels.

-Karl


Prof. Nyo Onizuka

unread,
Apr 27, 2004, 11:22:29 AM4/27/04
to

> Hi Everyone,
> I just finished redisigning this searchengine.
> http://www.bsearchengines.com
> My focuse wasn't on the content but rather layout. It was done with
> Dreamweaver. Can you guys please tell me what you think about the
> design, and a final "approve" or "disaprove". Also any additional
> comments about this searchengine would be welcome.
> your replies will be very appreciated,
> thanks,
> Greg

covert vector based in gif, not jpeg... save space and clearness for this
project....expecially if u must connect html generated color cell with a
bitmap cell...

--
Nicolò Armato - NyoWorks Multimedia Designer
www.nyoworks.com

"Arriverà il giorno in cui gli androidi miglioreranno la qualità della vita
umana al costo di molti milioni di posti di lavoro non specializzati,
quindi iniziamo a pensarci su...e diamoci da fare...hayaku ikimashoo..."
>


Hywel

unread,
Apr 27, 2004, 12:45:14 PM4/27/04
to
In article <gregbr20...@mail.forum4designers.com>,
gregbr20...@mail.forum4designers.com says...

>
> Hi Everyone,
> I just finished redisigning this searchengine.
> http://www.bsearchengines.com
> My focuse wasn't on the content but rather layout. It was done with
> Dreamweaver. Can you guys please tell me what you think about the
> design, and a final "approve" or "disaprove". Also any additional
> comments about this searchengine would be welcome.
> your replies will be very appreciated,

Too look at, it's bloody awful. The curves on those blue shapes are
terribly drawn, and the curved background for the "News | Weather |
..." section isn't big enough not to be repeated.

Why is the header banner so much wider than the rest of the page?

Here's a screenshot of the middle of the screen:
http://kibo.org.uk/usenet/bestsearch.jpg
It's taken from IE, just to make it less painful for you.

Why so many fonts?

The "Dating Direct" area is wasted, as is most of the page. At 1024x768
maximised most of the screen is whitespace and is still 3 screens long.

The results' page is badly laid out, and you haven't even included the
site logo that you have on the first page.

The graphics that's attached to the "make this your homepage" text isn't
even properly scaled. Even at its correct size (42x43) it looks awful.

Your blurb about pay-per-click is guff. Where do the PPC results
appear? I searched a few times and didn't come across any.

"Best Search Engine" is a tad optimistic.

If the layout was your focus you need to look at http://www.google.com/
- that's what a search engine should look like to the visitor.

Final opinion: disapprove. It doesn't even come close to looking like
it can be taken seriously against Google, Yahoo!, DMoz, AltaVista, and
so on.

--
Hywel I do not eat quiche
http://kibo.org.uk/
http://kibo.org.uk/mfaq.php

gregbr2000

unread,
Apr 27, 2004, 6:38:03 PM4/27/04
to

-------"Why is the header banner so much wider than the rest of the
page?

Here's a screenshot of the middle of the screen:
http://kibo.org.uk/usenet/bestsearch.jpg

It's taken from IE, just to make it less painful for you."------

The screen was like that initially cause one of my tables was set as a
% instead of an absolute value. That was corrected, if u opened the
page previously make sure u refresh your browsers.
Greg

Lilkumquat

unread,
Apr 30, 2004, 4:19:52 AM4/30/04
to

Hywel wrote:
> *In article <gregbr20...@mail.forum4designers.com>,

> gregbr20...@mail.forum4designers.com says...
> >
> > Hi Everyone,
> > I just finished redisigning this searchengine.
> > http://www.bsearchengines.com
> > My focuse wasn't on the content but rather layout. It was done
> with
> > Dreamweaver. Can you guys please tell me what you think about the
> > design, and a final "approve" or "disaprove". Also any additional
> > comments about this searchengine would be welcome.
> > your replies will be very appreciated,
>
> Too look at, it's bloody awful. The curves on those blue shapes are
> terribly drawn, and the curved background for the "News | Weather |
> ....." section isn't big enough not to be repeated.
> http://kibo.org.uk/mfaq.php *


First off, you talk about these big name companies as if there sites
are absolutely fabulous. All they have is million dollar marketing
plans, but no layout. Google and Altavista have no content to their
layout, but they have loads of money and affiliate sites. Yahoo has too
much on their page and is way too cluttered, but because money is what
matters that's why these companies are taken seriously.
www.bsearchengines.com has better layout designs then any of the above
making the layout more appealing to the internet surfer. Sites such as
Google and Altavista have nothing to attract people to their site
except their name and the money that created that name, while
bsearchengines.com has style and personality. GOD FORBID WE HAVE A
LITTLE PERSONALITY!!!! Next time don't be so critical of a site that is
different from the big name sites. Money may make a name, but it can
never make personality.

--
Lilkumquat

Justin C

unread,
Apr 30, 2004, 7:59:26 AM4/30/04
to
On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 03:19:52 -0500, Lilkumquat
<Lilkumqu...@mail.forum4designers.com> wrote:
>
[snip]

> Sites such as
> Google and Altavista have nothing to attract people to their site
> except their name and the money that created that name,

Google started out in a garage with next to no money. Money has got
nothing to do with why Google is taken seriously; it's taken seriously
because it is the best search engine on the web.

> while
> bsearchengines.com has style and personality.

If that is what goes for style in your neck of the woods then I'm glad I
live here. Fonts are too small, drab colour, what *is* that blob all
about? Pay per click advertising should be on another page, it looks
like they just want the money.

> GOD FORBID WE HAVE A
> LITTLE PERSONALITY!!!! Next time don't be so critical of a site that is
> different from the big name sites. Money may make a name, but it can
> never make personality.

And you can never polish a turd.

--
Justin C, by the sea.

Nik Coughin

unread,
Apr 30, 2004, 9:37:19 PM4/30/04
to
Justin C wrote:
> Google started out in a garage with next to no money.

Close, but not quite. Google started out at Stanford using any and every
machine that Page and Brin could get their hands on.

http://www.google.com/corporate/history.html

Oldest Google I could find (1997, via archive.org):

http://web.archive.org/web/19971210065417/http://backrub.stanford.edu/

Before Google was Google it was Backrub:

http://backrub.nerisoft.com/


Toby A Inkster

unread,
May 1, 2004, 4:22:15 AM5/1/04
to
Lilkumquat wrote:

> Google and Altavista have nothing to attract people to their site
> except their name and the money that created that name

... and the fact that they are very, very good at what they were designed
for.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me - http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/?page=132

Lilkumquat

unread,
May 1, 2004, 7:30:01 PM5/1/04
to

Justin C wrote:
> *On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 03:19:52 -0500, Lilkumquat
> Justin C, by the sea. *


Thanks for the critque Justin, but now you rely on extreme exaggeration
to prove a point. Google did not start in a garage with next to no
money... "Google started as a research project at Stanford University,
created by Ph.D. candidates Larry Page and Sergey Brin when they were
24 years old and 23 years old respectively (a combined 47 years old)."
Maybe you should have researched that a bit more. Better luck next
time.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages