Start-Up Adds a Human Touch

Battling 'Search Spam,' Mahalo Uses Editors To Run Web Queries

It turns out a human being in two, three or four hours can build a search result that's much better than Google, Yahoo or Ask," said Jason Calacanis, a former executive at Time Warner Inc.'s America Online unit, who founded Mahalo (the start-up's name means "thank you" in Hawaiian). Mahalo's results pages include the top seven sites for a query, other categorized information and links to other Web pages -- most provided by a human editor. Full Story »

Posted by Julian Friedland
Tags Help
Subjects: Business, Sci/Tech
Topics: Innovation, Internet
Member Tags: mahalo.com, D All Things Digital
Editorial Help
Posted by: Posted by Julian Friedland - May 30, 2007 - 10:15 PM PDT
Edit Lock: This story can be edited
Edited by: Julian Friedland - May 30, 2007 - 10:17 PM PDT

Reviews

Show All | Notes | Comments | Quotes | Links
Rory O'Connor
2.9
by Rory O'Connor - Oct. 1, 2008

Interesting but would have benefited by including sources other than the owner!

See Full Review » (7 answers)
Kaizar Campwala
3.4
by Kaizar Campwala - Oct. 1, 2008

A side-by-side comparison of search results from Mahalo and a computer search application would have been nice.

See Full Review » (11 answers)
Julian Friedland
4.3
by Julian Friedland - Oct. 1, 2008

Balanced and thorough report of an interesting alternative to artificial intelligence in internet searching.

See Full Review » (12 answers)
Eric Campbell
3.1
by Eric Campbell - Oct. 1, 2008

What's in the story is good - it's what is left out that is a problem. What is the critical mass of queries you need pages for in order to make the site worth going to? How long will it take to get there? How much better are their results than Google's? An example would have been illuminating. What is their cost per results page compared with Google and how do they generate the ad income to pay for it?

See Full Review » (7 answers)

Comments on this story Help (BETA)

NT Rating | My Rating

Ratings

3.5

Average
from 6 reviews (50% confidence)
Quality
3.5
Facts
3.3
Fairness
3.8
Information
3.7
Sourcing
3.7
Style
3.0
Accuracy
5.0
Balance
2.7
Context
3.2
Popularity
3.6
Recommendation
3.2
Credibility
4.0
# Reviews
3.0
# Views
1.6
# Likes
1.0
# Emails
1.0
More
How our ratings work »
(See these related stories.)

Links Help

No links yet. Please review this story to add some!