[Mini-WWW]

Relying on a manual review process would be a failure only in the case you want to include into your search engine the whole Web. In contrast, the proposed niche is for a small Sub-Web, where a slow, - yet quality! - manual reviewing would be quite sufficient: http://mini-www.com/blog/next_big_thing-be_small/

Use Google to access the Web. And Mini-WWW for the "Mini Web"

[NathanKP]

The problem is that such a slow reviewing process means that the results are likely bad, because only manually submitted pages are indexed. For example:

http://mini-www.com/search/?find=c%2B%2B

The results are currently terrible, and at $1 per page indexing fee, or a backlink to mini-www.com required I expect the results will stay bad for a long time, perhaps forever.

[Mini-WWW]

Who said the actual implementation for the Mini-WWW search would be the same next week? And WHO SAID THE MINIMAL INTRODUCTION PRICE OF $1 IS FOREVER?!!

[adambyrtek]

Don't shout, please.

[Mini-WWW]

OK, I will not :-) I'm somewhat confused why some my answers I think are very important for this topic are down-voted ...

[joelhaasnoot]

Manual reviewers are people. You'll still need guidelines to determine what's minimal. People are points of failure... Will be hard to determine what really is minimal.

[mahmud]

It's not too hard to measure what might be considered a "minimal" page, if he means simple, uncluttered web pages.

Here is what you do; number-of-CSS-blocks + number of images + javascript-dependencies + some magic function involving unique HTML elements in pages = minimal#

The lower the minimal# the better.

You can also throw in some weight products as well, to skew the results and penalize specific components (say flash=1000, gif=300, java-applet=1000, real-media=2000, etc.)

[Terretta]

Yahoo! Directory is new again.