promising Rated 3 out of 5 stars
Honestly, I don't really use it now as it is because it's still more efficient to 'manually' make requests in a few different Search Engines or websites using their own specific way of working, but I look forward very much to the future improvements of what could be a very useful and powerful addon!
- the main drawback I think at this time is that their is too few SE choices and more important, we can't add any of our choice? (what about ixquick, duckduck go, qwant, or any other or more specific/preferred web search engines)
- in case you add the possibility to add arbitrary number of SE, an other drawback (apart from the time it could take to make the search, but this should be secondary for me) should be the way the results are displayed : 'step-by-step' or 'mixed mode' doesn't make a lot of sense for me. I can believe that defining what is 'best' results is hard but at least could it be possible to use webrank like, keywords matching or something that can sort results in a more 'mixed' relevant way? but maybe there is no simple other way.
As for me, the goal of using multiple SE is to help finding pages that should be hard to find with only one SE, either because these pages are not well known, visited, advertised (thus, they won't appear in major SE)... or because it is (deliberately) not displayed in a particular SE but could be in an other. But let say for example, only the 10th SE have the correct result, even as first result, I won't see it in the first displayed results, which is not related to the relevance of my searched keywords. (don't know if I'm clear... :-) )
- one suggestion: add a 'multi-site' option: that is, in google I use the syntax
"keywords (site:site1.com) OR (site:site2.com) OR (site:..."
but total length of characters and number of site operators are limited (I have to split the query and make multiple requests). But if this could be automated and combined with multi-websearch, that should be very nice!
- and add at least one kind of dark stylish style! :-)
- last suggestion (in a more or less distant future!), don't know if it's a good idea or even if it is possible : 'normalize' (translate in unique box of options or common keywords) google hacks, duck's bangs, etc... custom options/operators to be able to use advanced search options in a unique and simplier request (by date, by type, intitle, etc...). But as not all SE are supporting all possible advanced options, that one could be tricky!
I guess it makes a lot of expectations! perhaps because their is no reliable solution at the moment for what I'm looking for and also because 'market' oriented search are no use for me, but the idea of having multiple SE gathered together by themes could be a good one.
I wish you success! looking for the future improvements...
Iraq-Baghdad Rated 5 out of 5 stars
شكرا لك وادعو الله بشفاء ابنك من مرض السكري كل التوفيق يااخي ❤This review is for a previous version of the add-on (2.20).
Danke kameraden das addon ist ÜBER! Rated 5 out of 5 stars
Seeking an amazing extension..?
You're search can end here as this is one if not the best of the best!
Nice work! Rated 5 out of 5 stars
I waited a long time when someone will come up with something to collect several search engines on one page! Finally, it happened! I am happy - now I'm saving a lot of time! Thank you for your excellent work!This review is for a previous version of the add-on (2.11).
Rated 5 out of 5 stars
Please add DuckDuckGo engine and image/video search.
Thank you for your excellent work.
Good Rated 5 out of 5 stars
I like it for its easy search optionThis review is for a previous version of the add-on (2.11).
Rated 5 out of 5 stars
Спасибо за аддон!This review is for a previous version of the add-on (2.11).
Preety efficient, but design is not cool Rated 4 out of 5 stars
MWB is awesome,but i know that it's not that great with no searches for images and videos.Also try to make more search engines compatible with this.This review is for a previous version of the add-on (2.09).
Images and videos - it is already in the plan for future versions
Прошу добавить опцию Rated 4 out of 5 stars
Хорошая идея, но слишком узкая реализация - у пользователя нет возможности добавить собственные поисковые системы через интерфейс дополнения. Например мне нужен поиск по wiki, duckduckgo, яндексмаркет, allegro а кому-то по отдельным специализированным ресурсам, - форумам, соцсетям и т.д.
спасибо за ваши предложения.
текущий набор поисковиков не является окончательным и будет наполняться по желаниям пользователей.
вы можете посетить форум и предложить/обсудить те или иные нововведения:
Nice idea, fine tuning needed Rated 3 out of 5 stars
Good initiation, but needs a lot of fine tuning to bring it to high level to make it usable more comfortably. Some ideas:
- Search engines need to be made customizable (look at Instantfox)
- Right click access to search for expressions highlighted in on-page text
- It should work independently from a search field (i.e. with a shortcut; i.e. 'ms' for MultiSearch, see Instantfox again), as a search field is not necessarily placed on the bar when the URL bar is used for searching.
thank you for your suggestions
Hopefully it will be able to search for images, videos, etc. (not just web) in the future Rated 3 out of 5 stars
I like the addon but I wish it gave you the choice of searching for images, videos etc. as wellThis review is for a previous version of the add-on (2.04.1-signed).
Yes - it is in the work plan for future versions
Search engine selection Rated 5 out of 5 stars
Very good work, nice and useful extension.
In future releases is possible on the right click feature to give option of search engines.
Thank you !
thank you for your suggestions - I added this in a work plan
Rated 5 out of 5 stars
This is just awesome. When selecting yahoo does it use the URI that would be used from the search bar? Because that way Mozilla gets credit for the search.This review is for a previous version of the add-on (1.05.1-signed).
> When selecting yahoo does it use the URI that would be used from the search bar?
maybe you are right and it is necessary to change in the new version: