Comment by rickdeveloper | Hacker News Reader

Comment by rickdeveloper | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Thanks!

Ads are added automatically by Google. The whole thing is little more than a wrapper around the 'Programmable Search Element Control API' which is an HTML element you can just insert into any site, like an iframe. Unfortunately this is the only way to make Programmable Search available at scale as the API is restricted to either 10 sites or 10K queries / day, even when paid!

There is a paid version for the HTML plugin, but that would leak the API key and so it wouldn't work as a business.

There is an option to get a share of the revenue generated by a search engine. Maybe it's time for me to figure out how that works.

I was thinking of making a hosted, ad free, customizable version where people upload their own keys. Not sure if people would like that.

As a side-note, it's super easy to remove ads with 1 line of CSS, but I wasn't sure how Google would feel about that so it's not in the online version. TamperMonkey is an extension that allows people to insert their own CSS on different websites. Hmm.

You can view all offerings in the docs [0].

[0] https://developers.google.com/custom-search/docs/overview#su...

It would be cool if I could take my existing browser history, aggregate by domain, sort by frequency & then create the necessary xml for the programmable search. Maybe with a pick & choose UI so I could decide which sites I wanted.

Right now, looking at your allow-list config, it feels a bit custom to you, but if I had an easy way to limit search to the sites I myself know and trust, I could see how that would be useful.

I know I could probably pick it out of my browser's history UI & poke it into Google's Programmable Search UI, but that seems like a hassle and a half.

That's a good idea! Not OP, but I'm creating a faster search engine for programming queries, depending on the tech searched it will also point to curated sites that could have the answer. Will try to implement your idea as well. Thanks!

Good idea! Would you pay for a premium version where you can customize the whitelist (and additional features) if it were available? Bing charges around $5 per 1000 searches, so I guess it would cost about the same. (Google's API is limited to 10K searches / day, even when paid)

I think just the history->xml conversion would be a bit of a hard sell, but I would be willing to pay for a sub if there were some additional features like:

* easy add to my filter list (like maybe a browser plugin so I can see that the current site isn't in my filter, but I can click a button and now it's in my filter & opposite for remove for when sites start to suck)

* stats on which sites I visit after searching

* aggregate bing+google filtered searches

* curated site lists for different topics, top 100, etc. Maybe like a temporary search using these sets such that I can try them without affecting my own filters. Maybe sharing lists w friends

* some sort of search anonymization/log deletion feature

* integration with browser search on desktop & mobile

* search flags like duckduckgo so I can easily switch filter sets by typing like /news or /nerdshit in the query

* integration with archive.ph & wayback machine

How about using the Bing API? Isn't that more open?

With caching, I think you might be able to reduce the load.

Also, why is w3fools in the list? It's an awful site.

Yes! Maybe I'll build a premium customizable version out of it. Do you think that'd be useful? Bing charges around $5 per 1000 searches, so the premium version would be around the same (with caching covering hosting, maybe).

I think I might be willing to pay some amount of money for it, but not very much. I think a lot of other people would be willing to pay decently.

If you want to be cynical, just do Bing/DDG searches over Tor, and scrape that into the cache. This is $0/1000 searches, though it obviously violates some ToS somewhere. Unless they want to block Tor, you should be good.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com