[webmasterraj]

Maybe. Search is a resource-intensive algorithmic problem. So you need one of two things to beat Google: more resources or a much better algorithm.

You're not going to get the first unless you're Facebook or Amazon or God, but maybe you can build a smarter algorithm. You are up against an army of some of the smartest computer scientists and mathematicians ever assembled -- but what you have going for you is a complete lack of inertia or legacy. You could try crazy things that Google might not, because they won't think it'll work. If you get lucky, one of those blows up. But you have to get very lucky (this is the Innovator's Dilemma in a nutshell).

Anyone want to give it a shot?

[jib]

You can also niche your space. Hoogle would be an example of that. If you know the searcher cares about Haskell functions only I imagine you can beat Google in that space. That solution probably expands to other interest spheres.

[dragandj]

Additionally, you'll still have to find a way to make money. Even if you manage to get on par with Google's search results, it is difficult to replicate their advertising cash cow, and even more difficult to invent a completely new monetization strategy and make it successful.

[vmorgulis]

> ..more resources or a much better algorithm.

Or a limited search space. For myself, it could be HN, SO and Wikipedia.

Content can even be static and downloaded once or regularly.