New Search Engine.... Vanoogle.com

[DenverKelly]

Your sites ranking well is the most important criteria for Vanoogle!!

[activitysuper]

The other 20% with the yellow pages.

No need for vanoogle, why don't you just go back to the very beginning and use http://www.dmoz.org/.

[SEODinosaur]

It would be nice if they gave you google classic (AKA Vanoogle.com) as an option. That way everyone would be happy.

[activitysuper]

Yeah that would be nice, the nearest thing I got to that is going 'incognito' in chrome.

[EGOL]

I used to have a "clean machine" that I used to check rankings, never signed in and never clicked anything in the SERPs.  That has stopped working because previous searches are stinking up the SERPs.

I want a button to "turn off all bias".

[DougRoberts]

That's all well and good, but how do you get the average man on the street to switch?

For example, my dad has never "chosen" a search engine in his life. He just goes with whatever he browser defaults to / manufacturer set up as a default and failing that "google" because it's the only one he's heard of... He thinks any weakness in the results returned are because he "must have types the wrong thing."

It would be really nice to be freely toggle all the factors your mentioned on/off (and set defaults) so that you could have the search that you wanted.

[EGOL]

Thanks for your dad's perspective.

He thinks any weakness in the results returned are because he "must have types the wrong thing."

That is eyeopening!

Experienced people might enjoy the toggle feature you suggest... that will allow them to filter the "fluff" and get pure results.

[DenverKelly]

For pure results we should have all the sites that match the search term listed in alphabetical order.

[JustDucky]

When I want to access the "official" site without having to dig through the commercialized sites on the SERPS, I use Bing instead of G.   Much more pleased with the results when I'm not searching for "long tail" phrases.  Vanoogle (your idea of a toggle to get "pure" results) is a great  idea but G wants ALL the ad revenues it can bleed out of a page.

[APICDA]

I would most definitely use it!  Dare to dream, dare to dream.................

[DougRoberts]

It would also enable us to see how much better these additional factors make the search results with out own eyes and not have to rely on Google's promise that they do. Show us the evidence and let us come to our own conclusions!

At the moment it's a bit like a kid being told to eat their greens...

[EGOL]

I remember what Google was like a few years ago.  The SERPs were full of relevant information (in my opinion).  Now they have a few relevant at the top and marginally relevant below... and some other things that are tangents.

[Matt-Williamson]

Bulloogle.com would definitely have to be a metacrawler - putting emphasis on metatags - oh the good old days haha!

[Matt-Williamson]

I tested this out myself but couldn't replicate it, however I can imagine it happening - like you and others have said they are testing things all the time.

Maybe they ran out of bananas that day! Just imagine all those years we have spent trying to second guess the algo of Googlebot and the key was a monkey haha.

The only problem with vanilla is that it is easily influenced by other flavours around it don't you think..?

[blacey]

Like SEO Moz has Roger, Bulloogle.com could have this as their mascot http://bit.ly/HUIovX

I think advertising is so overkill and its only getting worse. I really don't like route search engines are taking when showing their SERPs and other content, personally I use google with JavaScript disabled the "page preview" on hover of the link/arrow is useless and really naff.

FYI: The twocents html tag is depreciated and won't help your SERP rankings on bulloogle.com

[zigojacko]

We currently have a browser session on a local server used for serving search results without any of the cr*p that Google like to push. This gives a completely clean and accurate search results page in any brand of search engine (Google, Yahoo, Bing etc) and type of search engine (web, image, maps etc).

This is mainly controlled via the use of query parameters in the URL string. No results are ever clicked on within the session as to not influence rankings. There is no web history, no personalisation, no geo-targeted within the results.

I hate everything Google have done to make search results more 'personalised' or 'targeted'. And that's not just because I work in the SEO industry either.

Granted, stripping back your search experience to the raw criteria as we have done shouldn't be this difficult and I would certainly be a solid user of Vanoogle but what we've done works for us and ensures we don't see skewed results (when we require).

[polarking]

I use Google custom search to filter out a lot of things I do not need or want. You can put as many urls in that you want . Very useful in looking at your competitions SERPS.

[Francisco_Meza]

This has to be the most entertaining thread I have read since Q&A started!

http://blekko.com/ states right on their home page "the spam free search engine

I don't see any adwords stuff on there. Maybe Blekko will take over the world. Oh wait, facebook search might take over. No wait... Bing is taking over...... No no no, my xBox 360 is taking over! Yeah that's it. My xBox 360. Nothing but Bing.

[Alex-Harford]

I wonder how much money Google make per user of their search engine. Would you pay for vanoogle.com? Say, US$20 a year? $50? $100?

TV channels without commercials isn't so strange a concept - here in the UK we have the BBC! Though we have to pay a yearly license. Partly as a result of the lack of adverts, I watch more television on the BBC than all other channels combined. The quality is often higher too. The TV license converts to about US$240.