Gossamer Forum
Home : Products : Gossamer Links : Version 1.x :

Links SQL VS Hyperseek 2000

Quote Reply
Links SQL VS Hyperseek 2000
On the internet I have found two affordable search engine scripts. First one is well known Links SQL and second one is Hyperseek (http://www.hyperseek2000.com).

I do not have enough money to buy both these scripts to compare each other. On my previous posting we have discussed about features in Links SQL (http://www.gossamer-threads.com/scripts/forum/resources/Forum9/HTML/000980.html). But I want to know if anyone has used Hyperseek before .

You are welcome to give opinion on both scripts.
Quote Reply
Re: Links SQL VS Hyperseek 2000 In reply to
This has been discussed in the LINKS Discussion Forum before.
Quote Reply
Re: Links SQL VS Hyperseek 2000 In reply to
code wise.. Links SQL

i don't know if hyperseek runs better.. but i doubt it.. Wink

it doesn't build HTML pages i think..

anyways.. Links SQL also has much more modifications and will continue to get more..

alex made it as easy to use as possible..

------------------
Jerry Su
url pdamania.com
email email@jerrysu.com
------------------
Quote Reply
Re: Links SQL VS Hyperseek 2000 In reply to
>> it doesn't build HTML pages i think..

Of course it does....
I'd appreciate it if you'd reserve your comments on Hyperseek vs Links unless you really know the correct answer to the questions at hand.

>> i don't know if hyperseek runs better.. but i doubt it.

Again, with no basis for comparison, this blanket statement is unfounded.
Hyperseek is running some of the net's biggest and fastest search engines
(http://www.thenet1.com and http://www.dizzyduck.com come to mind)

That is not to say that Links SQL doesn't, or can't.....I simply point these
sites out to show you that making claims or statements without knowing
the facts first is bad practice.

I've said this in these forums before...I show you guys a lot of respect, and
really try and keep my distance from the forums, unless I can really contribute
something to the public good. I ask only that you show me (and hyperseek) the
same level of respect. I certainly don't expect you to recommend it over links,
but I do expect you to be truthful when discussing it.

John Cokos, Author: Hyperseek

Quote Reply
Re: Links SQL VS Hyperseek 2000 In reply to
Excuse me.

I don't like to jump in on flame wars, but I think (personal opinion) I DON'T like your attitude.

I probably wouldn't choose Hyperseek _JUST_ on the basis of that, so, as an ardant Links supporter and user, and one who chose Links and Links SQL over Hyperseek, I _THANK_ you very much for your post, since I'm sure it has helped convince several people that the support and friendliness of the Links people, just can't be beat :)

Thanks again for your input :)

Hope to see you around more, "clearing up" the differences between Links/Links SQL and Hyperseek.

(BTW... it probably (may have?) come off better if you started with "Hi, I'm the author of Hyperseek, and....")


Quote Reply
Re: Links SQL VS Hyperseek 2000 In reply to
Not trying to start a flame war at all, nor am I attempting to "give attitude".

What I am trying to do is cancel out the mis-information given in this thread. Period. That's it.

You should know me well enough by now to know that I never come in here pushing hyperseek or degrading links. Ever. In fact, I go out of my way to be right down the middle on everything.

However, in this case, I cannot, from a business standpoint, allow misleading information to be out there regarding our products, as that does the person asking the question no service at all, but rather gives him a jaded view of the facts.

>> (BTW... it probably (may have?) come off better if you started with "Hi, I'm the author of Hyperseek, and....")

Point well taken, my mistake.

Quote Reply
Re: Links SQL VS Hyperseek 2000 In reply to
Being one of the few which runs a site with Links and one with Hyperseek 2000, I thought I would let you know that both programs have strengths and weakness's, neither one is better than the other, it just depends on your own application! I am a great fan of both Systems... It's all upto the individual!

Quote Reply
Re: Links SQL VS Hyperseek 2000 In reply to
I would just like to post a quick bit of information from my own experience with BOTH Links SQL and Hyperseek 2000. As the beta-tester for Hyperseek 2000 I spent almost a year working with Jcokos testing the Hyperseek 2000 platform, and I am a recent purchaser of Links SQL for a sideline "hobby" site I am working on.

Here's the bottom line from my view, and again, this is simply one guy's opinion....not trying to cause any trouble here.....Both pieces of software have their strong points and their weak points....neither one is better, they are different applications for two different levels of users.

I would venture to say this.......
1. Pro-Links SQL....Alex has been very helpful via email in setting up the software and insuring that it is running. Links SQL seems to run pretty well even on a crummy box. The turn-key style templates are great and a huge help to any user.

Con-Links SQL....No real tech support (i.e. phone support) is available and no spider is included with Links SQL which makes mass additions of listings easy for the NOVICE USER. I have 6 years in online business and have not been able to get Links set up the way I want it since purchasing it 3 weeks ago.

2. Pro-Hyperseek 2000- Jcokos and his STAFF have always been very helpful and provide purchasers of his product ample contact with them via email, forum, and telephone. It has so many features for the novice user that it is mind-boggling just trying to learn everything it is capable of doing. A complete retard can administer this package.

Con-Hyperseek 2000- In order to get great speed out of HS2000, plan on treating it like a business, not a hobby...you will need to install it on a system with a lot of available resources if you intend on getting into the multi-million link range, or even several hundred thousand listings.

Both packages run on MySQL, so there is virtually no speed difference side by side. The difference is in number of links, available CPU resources, and RAM.

I have personally dealt with BOTH Alex, and with Jcokos and find BOTH to be great guys with great products and think that "bashing" either is out of line, and a bit unfair. It boils down to this, preferance, implementation, and USER PROFICIENCY IN WRITING AND USING CODE!

Shooter

Quote Reply
Re: Links SQL VS Hyperseek 2000 In reply to
ermm.. ok.. john..

i didn't find anything in your post as offensive as you made it seem in your email..

my post was simply my opinion on your product.. i've seen it once and i remember i didn't like it..

i didn't like banner master either..

those are my opinions.. and not something you should flame someone for.. i'm simply a Links SQL user that supports Links SQL and i base my views on hyperseek on Links SQL..

i'm sure a lot of people like your script and there can be more or less people that don't like it..

since i had a good experience with Links SQL.. i recommended that the guy look into buying Links SQL.. i do beleive it is cheaper as well..

i can say John cokos is a crappy programmer (but i'm not) because i have my own style of programming which some people also do and some people don't.. you probably think you have the best way to program perl out there and think i have the worst programming.. but it's just our views of how we do things.. obviously we'd like our own ways better or we wouldn't do it the way we do..

same goes for Links SQL and hyperseek.. i use links sql because i like it.. you use your program cause you like it.. if you didn't you wouldn't defend it..

also.. i didn't make your Links integration into banner master for you awhile back because 1) i didn't have time to.. 2) i didn't want to.. 3) there was nothing in it for me..

Jerry Su
email@jerrysu.com
http://www.jerrysu.com/
Quote Reply
Re: Links SQL VS Hyperseek 2000 In reply to
Jerry,

The reason for the email I sent you was simply to clear the air just a bit. I was generally concerned that I'd crossed a personal line with you, and wanted to make sure that you knew that it wasn't personal, by any means.

I didn't comment (and I never would) on the quality of code, or the coding style...that's the beauty and power of Perl: many, many ways to do the same thing with the same efficiency.

Regarding bannermaster and links. Recall from our email correspondence there, that the principle reason why I was "fighting" you on the coding part of it was that I did not want to use Alex's DBSQL.pm module on principle, not on code quality/style. It's my opinion that Alex busted his rear end on that module, and I'm in no way entitled to see it, use it, or let our bannermaster program benifet from it. It would have been tough, but professionally speaking, the only "right" way to have done the integration would have been for both Links and Bannermaster to have remained completely code-independant of each other, but aware nonetheless. I'll still persue it but probably on a more direct basis with Alex.

Cheers, and best wishes.

John

Quote Reply
Re: Links SQL VS Hyperseek 2000 In reply to
John,

I don't want to get in on this.... but the motto (one of them) for Perl is "There is more than one way to do it." That's sort of refreshing, since the Pittsburgh motto is "It's just over there, but you can't get there from here."

I like to write more readable code, while others prefer to write terse code.

As for integrating things into Links.....

DBSQL.pm is a wrapper on DBI, and you can see it, and have a copy for the same $450 as everyone else. Of course, it might color your own development, so it's probably a good idea not to.

If you are deveoping for Links SQL, it makes much more sense to use DBSQL.pm to integrate a banner program -- or any program -- because it provides a single, uniform, and easily maintained intefrace to the site. It means only loading that module, and the module can even be pre-loaded, and ready for use, I think, in apache. There would be speed/performance benefits for re-using existing loaded modules and code.

Of course, it means locking the add-on to one program, or development effort. For me, that's fine, since all I want to do is support my own Links development, and not have to deal with all sorts of unrelated installations. Others, might like their own program, and want to see it work on as many platforms and configurations as possible.

The biggest benefit for Links SQL developers and site designers is the uniform programming interface.

FWIW GT seems to be concentrating on site-development tools and libraries, and providing flexible interface base code that the users can use to continue site developlment, rather than single products with targeted audiences and locked feaures. It seems things are moving more and more to package integration, and I like that. It makes following the logic and maintaining my site easier.

I've gone with Links because it was a completely new program -- written from the ground up (mostly) based on experience with a very successful (and suitable for my needs) flat-file database. The new release promises to be a further step away from the flat-file origins, but still benefits from all the past development experiences.

There is room for everyone out there, since no two people will want to do things the same way.

From the users point of view, they would like everything to worktogether right away. But, there is a business side to all this. I look at the small fee as having Alex working for me for a fraction of what he's worth <G>.