http://journeytoforever.org/farm_lib...evicesToC.html

From the little I've checked so far, there's a lot of neat ideas.
But, if you need detailed plans to work from, you're not gonna be happy
at all.



JOAT
A rolling stone gathers no moss...unless it's a hobby he does on the
weekends.

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 12:44:44 -0500, (J T)
wrote:

http://journeytoforever.org/farm_lib...evicesToC.html

From the little I've checked so far, there's a lot of neat ideas.

I have a printed paper copy of this (recent reprint) It's a good read.

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 12:44:44 -0500, (J T)
wrote:

http://journeytoforever.org/farm_lib...evicesToC.html

From the little I've checked so far, there's a lot of neat ideas.
But, if you need detailed plans to work from, you're not gonna be happy
at all.

Once again you have come up with a great site, JOAT! What is
especially fun about this is that my Father In Law uses a lot of these
things daily.

--
"We need to make a sacrifice to the gods, find me a young virgin... oh, and bring something to kill"

Tim Douglass

http://www.DouglassClan.com

Sat, Dec 17, 2005, 12:59pm (EST-3)
(Tim*Douglass) sayeth:
Once again you have come up with a great site, JOAT! snip

It would be even greater if I could come up with stuff like this
on purpose. It's another gem found while looking for something else
entirely. Just another thing to love about google.



JOAT
A rolling stone gathers no moss...unless it's a hobby he does on the
weekends.

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 17:15:33 -0500, (J T)
wrote:

Sat, Dec 17, 2005, 12:59pm (EST-3)
(Tim*Douglass) sayeth:
Once again you have come up with a great site, JOAT! snip

It would be even greater if I could come up with stuff like this
on purpose. It's another gem found while looking for something else
entirely. Just another thing to love about google.

"It's better to be lucky than good"

--
"We need to make a sacrifice to the gods, find me a young virgin... oh, and bring something to kill"

Tim Douglass

http://www.DouglassClan.com

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 18:13:44 -0800, Tim Douglass
wrote:

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 17:15:33 -0500, (J T)
wrote:

Sat, Dec 17, 2005, 12:59pm (EST-3)
(Tim*Douglass) sayeth:
Once again you have come up with a great site, JOAT! snip

It would be even greater if I could come up with stuff like this
on purpose. It's another gem found while looking for something else
entirely. Just another thing to love about google.

"It's better to be lucky than good"

Are others finding Google less and less useful? It seems that just about
anything one searches for returns in excess of 100k hits, and usually more
on the order of 1M hits. Despite claiming that it will return only results
that contain all of the keywords selected, I'm finding more and more that
many of those hits only contain a few of the keywords for which I was
searching, thus cluttering up my search with irrelevancies. It also seems
that if I don't find what I was looking for on the first couple pages, the
remainder of the search results is either repeats or largely irrelevant.


+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Sat, Dec 17, 2005, 7:59pm (EST-2)
(Mark*&*Juanita) one of them wonders:
Are others finding Google less and less useful? snip
Nope. And, I probably make at least half a dozen searches a
day with it.

It also seems that if I don't find what I was looking for on the first
couple pages, the remainder of the search results is either repeats or
largely irrelevant.
Doesn't seem that way to me.

I'm tried probably most of the search tools out there, and I still
prefer google. Yay google.



JOAT
A rolling stone gathers no moss...unless it's a hobby he does on the
weekends.

The Mark & Juanita entity posted thusly:

Are others finding Google less and less useful? It seems that just about
anything one searches for returns in excess of 100k hits, and usually more
on the order of 1M hits. Despite claiming that it will return only results
that contain all of the keywords selected, I'm finding more and more that
many of those hits only contain a few of the keywords for which I was
searching, thus cluttering up my search with irrelevancies.

Searching with Google has some quirks to bear in mind, and requires
some creativity.

Next time you find a page that has only a few of your keywords in it,
check the page source. Chances are you will find those other keywords
in parts of the source that are not visible.

Larry
---
There are 10 kinds of people --
those who understand binary, and those who don't.
-- Uncle Phil

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message

Are others finding Google less and less useful?
snip

Yes, and here's why.
1. More crap links than in the past.
2. Far too many of the first few pages of returns are
suspiciously "commercial" and I suspect google
may have sold out to sponsored hits as yahoo did.
3. Many links are now passed thru an ad server first
(most of which I have blocked) which results in an
error and I have to manually enter the url. It's a
royal PITA.

On the plus side ...
If you precede a search term with a minus symbol
(ie -widget) google will exclude all returns that have
widget on them. This can help to narrow the returns
a lot.

Art

"Wood Butcher" wrote:


"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message

Are others finding Google less and less useful?
snip

Yes, and here's why.
1. More crap links than in the past.
2. Far too many of the first few pages of returns are
suspiciously "commercial" and I suspect google
may have sold out to sponsored hits as yahoo did.
3. Many links are now passed thru an ad server first
(most of which I have blocked) which results in an
error and I have to manually enter the url. It's a
royal PITA.

On the plus side ...
If you precede a search term with a minus symbol
(ie -widget) google will exclude all returns that have
widget on them. This can help to narrow the returns
a lot.

Art



You can do a lot more than that to narrow your search. Most of the possible
search parameters are on the advanced search page, but you can construct a
search much mor quickly just by typing it in. For example:

(plan,kit) (boat,ship) (wood,wooden) -model

will find pages with:
plan OR Kit AND boat OR ship AND wood OR wooden ANDNOT model

The same syntax also works on e-bay and most other search engines. A
properly conducted search can save hours of digging. 'Course you do miss
some wierd stuff.

Mark & Juanita wrote:

Are others finding Google less and less useful? It seems that just about
anything one searches for returns in excess of 100k hits, and usually more
on the order of 1M hits. Despite claiming that it will return only results
that contain all of the keywords selected, I'm finding more and more that
many of those hits only contain a few of the keywords for which I was
searching, thus cluttering up my search with irrelevancies. It also seems
that if I don't find what I was looking for on the first couple pages, the
remainder of the search results is either repeats or largely irrelevant.

The old computer adage, "GIGO" (garbage in, garbage out) applies to
searching with Google and others as well.

You need to refine your search. If you haven't already tried it, try
using the advanced search feature of Google and carefully craft your
search parameters.

Using just the single search line and putting in sabre saw will net you
your million or so hits. By adding a bit of specificity to the search
you'll quickly pare that down and receive a more meaningful, useable result.

As for the first couple pages being more relevant to your search?
That's the way Google is supposed to work. The way it tells you it's
working.

Here's a link to their help page on refining your search:

http://www.google.com/help/refinesearch.html

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 19:59:43 -0700, with neither quill nor qualm, Mark
& Juanita quickly quoth:

Are others finding Google less and less useful? It seems that just about
anything one searches for returns in excess of 100k hits, and usually more
on the order of 1M hits. Despite claiming that it will return only results
that contain all of the keywords selected, I'm finding more and more that
many of those hits only contain a few of the keywords for which I was
searching, thus cluttering up my search with irrelevancies. It also seems
that if I don't find what I was looking for on the first couple pages, the
remainder of the search results is either repeats or largely irrelevant.

Yes, I'm finding the same thing. And when I switched to A9, it came
up with precisely the same hits as Google. The only advantage is that
it also qualifies me for a 10% discount on all Amazon purchases, even
on used books from their resellers!

We need to whine to them, not to ourselves, though. Let's all send
them email detailing our gripes. If they get quite a few at one time,
it just might sink in.

--
Don't forget the 7 P's:
Proper Prior Planning Prevents ****-Poor Performance
----------------------------------------------------
http://diversify.com Website Application Programming

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 00:52:08 -0600, with neither quill nor qualm, Oleg
Lego quickly quoth:

Searching with Google has some quirks to bear in mind, and requires
some creativity.

Next time you find a page that has only a few of your keywords in it,
check the page source. Chances are you will find those other keywords
in parts of the source that are not visible.

The fact that site pages are spamming Google with keywords does
nothing to help us with our seareches, PulledLeg.

--
Don't forget the 7 P's:
Proper Prior Planning Prevents ****-Poor Performance
----------------------------------------------------
http://diversify.com Website Application Programming

Sun, Dec 18, 2005, 12:03am (EST-3) (Wood*Butcher) doth
advisth:
snip If you precede a search term with a minus symbol (ie -widget)
google will exclude all returns that have widget on them. This can help
to narrow the returns a lot.

True. But, I seldom use a minus sign, because sometimes I find
some of the most interesting sites that way. I only use that when I'm
really, really, intensely looking for something specific. In fact, if I
mis-spell a search word, sometimes I'll let it go, just to see what
comes up.

For one project, for myself, I searched for around 6ix month. With
no usable results. Changed search words, and search phrases, quotes,
no quotes, minus sign, every pertinent word I could think of. Zip
results. Then one day happened on a site that had something related,
with a word I would never have suspedted related. Stuck that in my
search words, and within three days had all the information I was after,
and more.

Sometimes if you don't find what you're looking for, it's not
google's fault; it's yours - because you're not using the right buzz
word(s). It ain't rocket science, just means you're not being patient
enough. Or maybe just not using your imagination - that seems to happen
a lot arond here.



JOAT
You'll never get anywhere if you believe what you "hear". What do you
"know"?.
- Granny Weatherwax

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 08:17:36 GMT, with neither quill nor qualm, Lobby
Dosser quickly quoth:

You can do a lot more than that to narrow your search. Most of the possible
search parameters are on the advanced search page, but you can construct a
search much mor quickly just by typing it in. For example:

(plan,kit) (boat,ship) (wood,wooden) -model

will find pages with:
plan OR Kit AND boat OR ship AND wood OR wooden ANDNOT model

The same syntax also works on e-bay and most other search engines. A
properly conducted search can save hours of digging.

Right you are, + you can stack ANDNOTs, too.

-(model,balsa,brass)


'Course you do miss some wierd stuff.

And that can be the worst outcome ever. I've found so MANY neat items
which were misfiled or misspelled.

--
Don't forget the 7 P's:
Proper Prior Planning Prevents ****-Poor Performance
----------------------------------------------------
http://diversify.com Website Application Programming

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 08:17:36 GMT, Lobby Dosser
wrote:

"Wood Butcher" wrote:


"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message

Are others finding Google less and less useful?
snip

Yes, and here's why.
.... snip

You can do a lot more than that to narrow your search. Most of the possible
search parameters are on the advanced search page, but you can construct a
search much mor quickly just by typing it in. For example:

(plan,kit) (boat,ship) (wood,wooden) -model

will find pages with:
plan OR Kit AND boat OR ship AND wood OR wooden ANDNOT model


Thanks for that short-cut. One problem I'm seeing is that as often as
not, I will get links, using your example, that despite the AND function
return results that only contain "kit" or "wooden" and none of the other
required AND'ed terms. That is where I get frustrated.


The same syntax also works on e-bay and most other search engines. A
properly conducted search can save hours of digging. 'Course you do miss
some wierd stuff.

When one has time, the wierd stuff is fun and often useful. But there
are times when one wants (or needs) *the* answer and needs it *now* not
after wading through several hundred pages of irrelevancies.


+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 15:29:55 GMT, Unquestionably Confused
wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote:

Are others finding Google less and less useful? It seems that just about
anything one searches for returns in excess of 100k hits, and usually more
on the order of 1M hits. Despite claiming that it will return only results
that contain all of the keywords selected, I'm finding more and more that
many of those hits only contain a few of the keywords for which I was
searching, thus cluttering up my search with irrelevancies. It also seems
that if I don't find what I was looking for on the first couple pages, the
remainder of the search results is either repeats or largely irrelevant.

The old computer adage, "GIGO" (garbage in, garbage out) applies to
searching with Google and others as well.

You need to refine your search. If you haven't already tried it, try
using the advanced search feature of Google and carefully craft your
search parameters.

I'm quite aware of the advanced search features of Google. That is what
is causing my frustration. If I tell Google that I want references that
contain A AND B AND C but NOT D, I don't appreciate getting hits back that
contain A AND B but NOT C or even worse, some combination of A, B, and C
and also including D.

(Caps aren't shouting here, only added to indicate the boolean function)

Now, some of this may not be Google's fault, but it may be people burying
other possible key words in their html source in order to increase hits to
their sites. But that doesn't make the Google search any less useless or
time-consuming.



+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Mark & Juanita wrote:

Thanks for that short-cut. One problem I'm seeing is that as often as
not, I will get links, using your example, that despite the AND function
return results that only contain "kit" or "wooden" and none of the other
required AND'ed terms. That is where I get frustrated.



I'v run into the same thing. In some instances the ANDed word seems to be
on another page at the same site. What I'd like to see is a 'proximity'
search - (Boat AND Kit WITHIN 10 WORDS), for example. AFAIK, none of the
common search engines allow this or something similar.

Quite often I will do the initial search and then re-do to exclude a lot of
the junk. Sometimes I'll refine an e-bay search several times; particularly
if I'm going to save the search.

Mark & Juanita wrote:

Now, some of this may not be Google's fault, but it may be people
burying
other possible key words in their html source in order to increase
hits to their sites. But that doesn't make the Google search any less
useless or time-consuming.



Have you tried WebFerret? Sometimes I have better luck with it and it can
hit all the major search engines in one hit.

(J T) wrote:

Sometimes if you don't find what you're looking for, it's not
google's fault; it's yours - because you're not using the right buzz
word(s). It ain't rocket science, just means you're not being patient
enough. Or maybe just not using your imagination - that seems to happen
a lot arond here.



At one time, there were professional searchers - perhaps there still are.
Back in college a friend of mine was a librarian and she specialized in
searches. Back then electronic searches and data bases were a Spendy
proposition and you were required to use the Pro for your search ($), Then
you had to pay for the search time ($), then you had to pay for the short
descriptions of the results ($$), then pay for the abstracts ($$$). I
learned quite a bit about searching while doing my MS on my own dime.

On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 01:42:32 GMT, Lobby Dosser
wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote:

Now, some of this may not be Google's fault, but it may be people
burying
other possible key words in their html source in order to increase
hits to their sites. But that doesn't make the Google search any less
useless or time-consuming.



Have you tried WebFerret? Sometimes I have better luck with it and it can
hit all the major search engines in one hit.

Thanks, I'll give that a try.



+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 14:20:22 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:

But that doesn't make the Google search any less useless or
time-consuming.

Yeah, I canceled my Google subscription and what I do now when I need
to search for information is drive from town to town across the
country knocking on doors and asking folks at random. Much more
useful and much less time consuming.



Ricky (who'd give up sliced bread before Google any day)

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 21:36:29 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:

Thanks, I'll give that a try.

And, of course, if nothing else works:

http://answers.google.com/answers/

Ricky (never used it, btw)

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 14:14:56 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:

Thanks for that short-cut. One problem I'm seeing is that as often as
not, I will get links, using your example, that despite the AND function
return results that only contain "kit" or "wooden" and none of the other
required AND'ed terms. That is where I get frustrated.

Remember that the term can appear anywhere on that page, not just in
the visible text, but in the source code comments and the header
terms. Many web sites use a standard header that contains key words
for *all* their pages, resulting in every single page on their site
meeting your search terms. Those that have your terms (or some of
them) in the text will be ranked higher (usually) but a lot of those
late pages fall in this category.

That's the why - don't really know what to do about it. I was thinking
just yesterday about a pay-per-search system where you could make a
request to a real person (probably in India, natch) who could do the
hard work for you.

One trick that helps is to put together a phrase and include it in
quotes. "wooden car", for example.

--
"We need to make a sacrifice to the gods, find me a young virgin... oh, and bring something to kill"

Tim Douglass

http://www.DouglassClan.com

On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 16:53:39 -0800, Tim Douglass
wrote:

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 14:14:56 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:

Thanks for that short-cut. One problem I'm seeing is that as often as
not, I will get links, using your example, that despite the AND function
return results that only contain "kit" or "wooden" and none of the other
required AND'ed terms. That is where I get frustrated.

Remember that the term can appear anywhere on that page, not just in
the visible text, but in the source code comments and the header
terms. Many web sites use a standard header that contains key words
for *all* their pages, resulting in every single page on their site
meeting your search terms. Those that have your terms (or some of
them) in the text will be ranked higher (usually) but a lot of those
late pages fall in this category.


Yep, and that is a problem.

That's the why - don't really know what to do about it. I was thinking
just yesterday about a pay-per-search system where you could make a
request to a real person (probably in India, natch) who could do the
hard work for you.

One trick that helps is to put together a phrase and include it in
quotes. "wooden car", for example.

I do that quite often. It helps some, usually reducing the results from
on the order of 800,000 down to a more manageable 250,000. :-)




+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Mark & Juanita wrote:

On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 16:53:39 -0800, Tim Douglass
wrote:

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 14:14:56 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:

Thanks for that short-cut. One problem I'm seeing is that as often
as
not, I will get links, using your example, that despite the AND
function return results that only contain "kit" or "wooden" and none
of the other required AND'ed terms. That is where I get frustrated.

Remember that the term can appear anywhere on that page, not just in
the visible text, but in the source code comments and the header
terms. Many web sites use a standard header that contains key words
for *all* their pages, resulting in every single page on their site
meeting your search terms. Those that have your terms (or some of
them) in the text will be ranked higher (usually) but a lot of those
late pages fall in this category.


Yep, and that is a problem.

That's the why - don't really know what to do about it. I was thinking
just yesterday about a pay-per-search system where you could make a
request to a real person (probably in India, natch) who could do the
hard work for you.

One trick that helps is to put together a phrase and include it in
quotes. "wooden car", for example.

I do that quite often. It helps some, usually reducing the results
from
on the order of 800,000 down to a more manageable 250,000. :-)

Someone mentioned MetaCrawler. Tried it today and it is way better than
Google for getting relevant hits. I used the example I gave earlier in
the thread. YMMV.

Here's the url:

http://www.metacrawler.com/index.html

On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 10:39:19 GMT, Lobby Dosser
wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote:

On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 16:53:39 -0800, Tim Douglass
wrote:

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 14:14:56 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:

.... snip

One trick that helps is to put together a phrase and include it in
quotes. "wooden car", for example.

I do that quite often. It helps some, usually reducing the results
from
on the order of 800,000 down to a more manageable 250,000. :-)

Someone mentioned MetaCrawler. Tried it today and it is way better than
Google for getting relevant hits. I used the example I gave earlier in
the thread. YMMV.

Here's the url:

http://www.metacrawler.com/index.html

Thanks! That's a keeper. I just tried it with one of the search items
that indicated how bad using Google has become:

In google, typing in "John Deere 420 tractor operator manual" returns
60,800 hits. With metacrawler, the same search phrase returns 50 hits. A
cursory look indicates that the top hits with metacrawler are equally, or
more relevant than the ones with google.



+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

The Mark & Juanita entity posted thusly:

http://www.metacrawler.com/index.html

Thanks! That's a keeper. I just tried it with one of the search items
that indicated how bad using Google has become:

In google, typing in "John Deere 420 tractor operator manual" returns
60,800 hits.

That's because you didn't enclose the string in quotes.
Try the same phrase in quotes and you'll find it returns 4 (Yes, only
4 (four)) hits, and ALL of them are relevant.

With metacrawler, the same search phrase returns 50 hits. A
cursory look indicates that the top hits with metacrawler are equally, or
more relevant than the ones with google.

That search returns quite a number of irrelevant hits.

Methinks you are too hard on Google.


Larry
---
There are 10 kinds of people --
those who understand binary, and those who don't.
-- Uncle Phil

On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 21:08:53 -0600, Oleg Lego
wrote:

The Mark & Juanita entity posted thusly:

http://www.metacrawler.com/index.html

Thanks! That's a keeper. I just tried it with one of the search items
that indicated how bad using Google has become:

In google, typing in "John Deere 420 tractor operator manual" returns
60,800 hits.

That's because you didn't enclose the string in quotes.
Try the same phrase in quotes and you'll find it returns 4 (Yes, only
4 (four)) hits, and ALL of them are relevant.


That may be the case, but by enclosing that in a quote string would
preclude hits that include things like:
Operator Manual for Tractors: John Deere 40, 50, 70, 420, 520, 720
Tractor operator manuals: John Deere 420U, 420W, 420T
Manuals for sale, tractor operating, John Deere 420

All of which would have been relevant but would not have met the strict
quoted search criteria. I have done searches like that only to have *no*
results returned. Loosening the criteria by one or two words, or
permutations of those words is both time-consuming and often results in a
step increase in results (as in from none to 10,000+)

With metacrawler, the same search phrase returns 50 hits. A
cursory look indicates that the top hits with metacrawler are equally, or
more relevant than the ones with google.

That search returns quite a number of irrelevant hits.


50 hits is a whole lot easier to sort out than 60,000+

Methinks you are too hard on Google.



The above was offered as one simple example of why Google search results
are becoming problematic. It was not meant to be all-inclusive. As I
indicated above, yes, one can really tighten down the search criteria by
requiring exact matches to quoted strings, the problem with that is that
one then may miss something that is completely relevant but misses by only
one character. OTOH, when submitting a search request to find *all* of the
words in one's search, getting results in which only 80% of those words are
visibly present for the searcher is a signifcant source of the data
overload. Whether that is due to the web site spoofing the keywords with
the html source code, or Google returning results that include those words
on referenced pages in the search result doesn't matter to the end user, he
is still overloaded with data.

Larry
---
There are 10 kinds of people --
those who understand binary, and those who don't.
-- Uncle Phil


+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

The Mark & Juanita entity posted thusly:

On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 21:08:53 -0600, Oleg Lego
wrote:

That's because you didn't enclose the string in quotes.
Try the same phrase in quotes and you'll find it returns 4 (Yes, only
4 (four)) hits, and ALL of them are relevant.


That may be the case, but by enclosing that in a quote string would
preclude hits that include things like:
Operator Manual for Tractors: John Deere 40, 50, 70, 420, 520, 720
Tractor operator manuals: John Deere 420U, 420W, 420T
Manuals for sale, tractor operating, John Deere 420

Well, to me, that falls under the general category of using the tool
correctly. If you are trying to saw wood, a file will work, but it
isn't the best way.

All of which would have been relevant but would not have met the strict
quoted search criteria. I have done searches like that only to have *no*
results returned. Loosening the criteria by one or two words, or
permutations of those words is both time-consuming and often results in a
step increase in results (as in from none to 10,000+)

It's an art form. Combining exact phrases with single words can result
in excellent filtering, as can specifying "without" words and
limiting the search to title only, text of page only, etc.

Hmm.. you ARE using "Advanced search", aren't you?

Methinks you are too hard on Google.


The above was offered as one simple example of why Google search results
are becoming problematic. It was not meant to be all-inclusive. As I
indicated above, yes, one can really tighten down the search criteria by
requiring exact matches to quoted strings, the problem with that is that
one then may miss something that is completely relevant but misses by only
one character. OTOH, when submitting a search request to find *all* of the
words in one's search, getting results in which only 80% of those words are
visibly present for the searcher is a signifcant source of the data
overload. Whether that is due to the web site spoofing the keywords with
the html source code, or Google returning results that include those words
on referenced pages in the search result doesn't matter to the end user, he
is still overloaded with data.

See comments on limiting search to certain parts of a page.


Larry
---
There are 10 kinds of people --
those who understand binary, and those who don't.
-- Uncle Phil

snip
I'm tried probably most of the search tools out there, and I still
prefer google. Yay google.


http://www.copernic.com/
Try Copernic... it uses multiple engines simultaneously and the paid for
version roots out bad links, etc.
Tom

Wed, Dec 21, 2005, 5:50am (Thomas*Bunetta)
doth adviseth:
http://www.copernic.com/
Try Copernic... it uses multiple engines simultaneously and the paid for
version roots out bad links, etc.

Tried it, long ago. I only use stuff like that on the very few
occassions when I'm really, really, intensely, searching - along with
Northern Light, Dogpile, and so on - told you, I've tried about all.
Otherwise, still prefer google. Yay google.



JOAT
You'll never get anywhere if you believe what you "hear". What do you
"know"?.
- Granny Weatherwax