Show HN: Google Blade – discover, create, and share custom search engines
googleblade.com
googleblade.com
EDIT: I hit my HN rate limit for the morning, so my response to your comment below follows:
AppleInsider is extremely unlikely to be confused with an Apple website, however. Particularly since it's style is very different, and a "news and rumors" site about Apple isn't likely to be confused for an Apple site. (And as a sidebar, even if Apple did want to C&D them, they'd have a much harder time C&Ding a journalistic presence.)
In the case of yours, I had to check the copyright fine print to determine it was not a Google website.
Even changing the logo and site design from the standard Google corporate style would help.
What you've done is the equivalent of saying "DISCLAIMER: I DO NOT OWN THIS VIDEO" on a youtube video of a tv show. Just because you're saying you don't own it and your intentions (may be/are) good does not mean the holder of the trademark or copyright will just say 'oh he seems nice, let him keep it up'.
(note the update)
You have a much more difficult defense in that you've produced something that does what the layperson associates Google with: search. Even worse, you are using Google's name and logo. It's been awhile since I've read through Google's TOS, but generally, TOS are very explicit about not using their trademark name or logo in such a way that implies endorsement.
I'm sorry for any confusion I may have caused in making you think it was a service of Google's. I viewed it as a tribute to one of my favorite services of theirs (custom search engines) and let that cloud my legal perspective.
Anyway, I didn't hear from Google, but also didn't want them to have to engage their legal team, so I went ahead and rebranded today.
Lesson learned, and thanks again everyone for the great feedback yesterday.
It's a cool project, but using Google's name to add prestige and an implicit endorsement is not something that Google can easily abide.
But I don't think the law (or large company reaction) is cut and dried in cases like this. See 9to5Google, AppleInsider, etc.
GoogleBlade.com is a tribute site, featuring only an existing product of Google (CSEs), and trying to make them better and more discoverable.
Here is the default url of a Google CSE:
https://cse.google.com/cse/publicurl?cx=01056188319074391687...
and here is a Google Blade:
https://linkedin.googleblade.com
Google has paid so little love to this product that CSEs are still displaying their old logo in the search box, and there is no central hub where you can discover great CSEs.
I was thrilled when Google released CSEs back in 2006, and I've used them ever since. I hate to see them neglected and hard to discover, though, and most people I talk to have never heard about them.
Google Blade is my attempt to shine some light, and love, on them. If Google wants any changes made, I'll comply asap.
AppleInsider and 9to4Google are publications that are clearly not owned by the companies they are referencing. This literally looks like a page from Google's developer lab sites.
The disregard of Google's legal rights is bad enough. What's worse is that this blatant-coattail-riding is completely unnecessary for making an impact. Plenty of companies have used bigger companies' APIS to create amazing (or at least successful) services. We wouldn't have Airbnb or Tinder if they had branded themselves as Facebookings.com or FACEFUCK.com, even though FB's APIs were essential to their MVP.
If the answer is yes, you're infringing. It doesn't matter how great your service is, where your heart is, or whether other businesses use the name as well. What matters is that you're 1) using the Google name, 2) the Google logo, and 3) a Google inspired aesthetic which combine to create an ambiguous and potentially confusing customer experience.
No one visiting 9to5Google is going to confuse it for a Google property, same for AppleInsider. They are distinctly NOT official properties, and no reasonable person would thus be confused.
The primary concern is that a random visitor might have a horrible experience on your site, and confuse that experience for something provided by Google.
Although this works, too: https://googleblade.com/blades/search/ruby
I'm trying to bring attention to them, and make them more discoverable. If Google wants me to change the name, I will - but it's a tribute project.
You've got 70 pages indexed there, so you should see some results once you make a search.
Update: 39 results now for searching "a" at https://lectures.googleblade.com/
Anyways, my first application of it was for toolbars downloads for webmasters with CSE for custom searches just like your blades. Profit from each download and the Adsense. It brought about 22k in a year between CPI, Adsense earnings and some built in afflinks for hosting and domain tools plus Amazon cookies for about 6 hours of work and marketing.
The point. The joy of CSE is that you can brand as you please, what you are making and the exposure you just got for this concept could be a decent passive income so there is no good reason to risk infringement and repercussions on the Adsense side when your project could easily give you some cash, if you don't need it, then donate it but why risk that aspect, Google doesn't need the help for promoting the product, it powers many an internal website's search for the paid product. Buy an alternate "bladesearch" domain and redirect it and see if it gets any love on the merit of the search concepts you devise.
ps. If you could share how you did your agent locator by zipcode, I'd be really interested to hear about it. hello at above domain.
Also, FWIW, the HackerNews blade doesn't return anything (I tried some pretty basic searches on it.)
It can do something as simple as a site: search on Google, but you can string configs together to join up 20-30 sites together, create tabs to split out by sentiment, split out by number or dollar ranges, etc. etc. I have barely scratched the surface with the Blades there now, hoping to see some creative ones surface.
These are just links to those operators.
But there are some other subtle differences: you get thumbnail images with search results (if available) with Blades, and you don't get a captcha to prove you're human if your search volume or rate is out of bounds on a Blade. (These are features of CSEs, not something I've hacked.)
https://twitter.com/GoogleBlade/status/811681152046141441
About 1,000 uniques so far, 20 signups.
I'm sorry for any confusion I may have caused in making you think it was a service of Google's. I viewed it as a tribute to one of my favorite services of theirs (custom search engines) and let that cloud my legal perspective.
Anyway, I didn't hear from Google, but also didn't want them to have to engage their legal team, so I went ahead and rebranded today.
Lesson learned, and thanks again everyone for the great feedback yesterday.
Edit: Unfortunately I have to go to bed, if I find anything else tomorrow I'll drop you an e-mail.
Sadly there is no perfect way to validate an email address. You can either optimise for false positives or false negatives, but perfect precision is beyond hope.
Also note, the more validation you require, the more users you deter.
That said, I hope everyone involved just relaxes and lets it grow! Good luck!
Isn't it cool enough that they make it reasonably easy for you to build an interesting service off of their technology? Why are they obligated to also lend you their reputation just because you believe you have their best interests at heart? What if there's a security hole in your service that causes a PR disaster for them?
Google gets plenty of positive attention when you follow their rules about crediting their API and data. It is not necessary to use their name in order to pay tribute.