<jj...@remooooooooooooooovethisdrizzle.com> wrote: >Steve Hayes wrote: >> On Thu, 15 May 2008 07:50:42 -0500, "Texas Gen" <texas....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Wow----I used Altavista and you are right. When you are doing a genealogy >>> search maybe use both and whatever other good search engines?
>> The thing about Altavista is that my Growden page is specifically about the >> family history and genealogy of that particular family, so if someone is >> looking for that, it should come up in the first page or two.
>> On Altavista, it came up with a page of relevant search results.
>> On Google that particular page still hadn't come up after 17 pages. There were >> quite a lot of pages dealing with papers by a neurologist Dr Growdon who >> referred to the family history of his patients and research subjects -- fair >> enough. There was some stuff I could use, even on page 16 and 17.
>So by your own admission, Altavista eliminated many sites that google >shows you (to make up your own mind) and tells you those that are >relevant to your search. Google is better as it lets me control more >data. Is there a setting on Altavista that lets you increase your hits ? >With google, you can easily add -Dr. Growdon with the minus sign to cut >out all those hits. But I would not do that out of hand.
My "own admission"?
I think you've missed the point somewhere.
Firstly, I wasn't complaining about those things being listed in the search, just noting that they were.
Secondly, putting -Dr would not elminate most of them from the search results because many of the authors of the academic research papers are listed without their academic titles -- as "Growden, JH" for example.
I tried another experiment, sugested by another poster on the list, and entered "growdon genealogy" in both Google and Altavista.
The first page on Google brought up a bunch of generic commercial sites, while the first page on Altavista produced relevant results.
Growden is a fairly rare surname, and Growdon is a less common variant. Perhaps others researching uncommon surnames could try a similar test and see which search engine comes up with the most relevant results.
<|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: >Commercial players all know the basic ranking tricks so if you put a >place name into Google the first page will often include property in X, >florists in X, hotels in X and if you are really unlucky lapdancing >clubs in X (never mind that X may be a hamlet with just 6 houses).
<snip>
>It is always worth trying different search engines if you don't find >things or get too much chaff with your favourite. Google and Altavista >are sometimes complimentary. No one size fits all solution exists for >what is at best an ambiguous search problem in a vast sea of indexed >data. Judicious use of "+" and "-" with keywords helps.
Indeed one size doesn't fit all: while Google may be good for lapdancers, Altavista seems better for genealogy.
My point is that phrases like "Google is your friend" and "go and Google for it" (which one often sees in genealogy forums) imply that "one size fits all", yet may not be the best advice to give to genealogy newbies.
Steve Hayes wrote: > and on a search for "beauregard genealogy"
> Altavista 332 results
> Google 217 results
and on a search for "cheese crackers"
Altavista 13,100,000 results Google 690,000
As I recall, the reason I quit Altavista and others is that the multiword searches I did often (if not always) came up with only some of the words I searched for, sometimes only one of many was found on the pages I was sent to. Unfortunately I seem to be running into that with Google these days.
-- Barack Obama, May 9: "I've now been in 57 states? I think one left to go."
> On Thu, 15 May 2008 15:04:36 +0100, Martin Brown > <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>Commercial players all know the basic ranking tricks so if you put a >>place name into Google the first page will often include property in X, >>florists in X, hotels in X and if you are really unlucky lapdancing >>clubs in X (never mind that X may be a hamlet with just 6 houses). > <snip>
>>It is always worth trying different search engines if you don't find >>things or get too much chaff with your favourite. Google and Altavista >>are sometimes complimentary. No one size fits all solution exists for >>what is at best an ambiguous search problem in a vast sea of indexed >>data. Judicious use of "+" and "-" with keywords helps.
> Indeed one size doesn't fit all: while Google may be good for lapdancers, > Altavista seems better for genealogy.
> My point is that phrases like "Google is your friend" and "go and Google > for > it" (which one often sees in genealogy forums) imply that "one size fits > all", > yet may not be the best advice to give to genealogy newbies.
And the same applies to the statement made in the subject line of this thread. What works for one is not necessarily the best for every one in every instance. I didn't find Alta Vista and better or any worse than Google for the searches I have been doing...
Jeff wrote: > JJ206 wrote: >> Jeff wrote: >>> Don Moody wrote: >>>> What I am addressing is the reality. The vast majority of PCs in the >>>> UK come with Google installed.
>>> That isn't reality, it is plain wrong.
>>> 1: PCs DO NOT come with search engines "installed"
>> Wow, you should google something before saying it.
> No need. I knew I was right. There is NO web search engine installed in > the circumstances you describe, merely links to it.
Sorry you feel that you are correct. You are wrong. Google Toolbar is an executable and is downloaded. Therefore if Dell, one of the larger PC sellers sells their PCs "pre-installed" with Google Toolbar, then it was installed at some point and you are in error. No big deal.
Click on the button and an install window comes up. If you install it, it changes the program layout at the top of the browser. Try it and see.
Not sure where you learned computing, but an exe file is an executable and is not the same as a web page that you enter somewhere as your search button. You seem to be confusing the two. Now you can say that HP and Dell don't make very many computers, but you would be wrong there as well. Perhaps you should provide links to prove your point ?
I tried what you suggested with one or two of my more unusual surnames and over all would say that Alta Vista had more relevant results among those presented first. I did not explore things thorought enough to see if it missed any relevant ones that Google found.
I appreciate being reminded about another tool that I had forgotten.
>>Steve Hayes wrote: >>> On Thu, 15 May 2008 07:50:42 -0500, "Texas Gen" <texas....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Wow----I used Altavista and you are right. When you are doing a genealogy >>>> search maybe use both and whatever other good search engines?
>>> The thing about Altavista is that my Growden page is specifically about the >>> family history and genealogy of that particular family, so if someone is >>> looking for that, it should come up in the first page or two.
>>> On Altavista, it came up with a page of relevant search results.
>>> On Google that particular page still hadn't come up after 17 pages. There were >>> quite a lot of pages dealing with papers by a neurologist Dr Growdon who >>> referred to the family history of his patients and research subjects -- fair >>> enough. There was some stuff I could use, even on page 16 and 17.
>>So by your own admission, Altavista eliminated many sites that google >>shows you (to make up your own mind) and tells you those that are >>relevant to your search. Google is better as it lets me control more >>data. Is there a setting on Altavista that lets you increase your hits ? >>With google, you can easily add -Dr. Growdon with the minus sign to cut >>out all those hits. But I would not do that out of hand.
>My "own admission"?
>I think you've missed the point somewhere.
>Firstly, I wasn't complaining about those things being listed in the search, >just noting that they were.
>Secondly, putting -Dr would not elminate most of them from the search results >because many of the authors of the academic research papers are listed without >their academic titles -- as "Growden, JH" for example.
>I tried another experiment, sugested by another poster on the list, and >entered "growdon genealogy" in both Google and Altavista.
>The first page on Google brought up a bunch of generic commercial sites, while >the first page on Altavista produced relevant results.
>Growden is a fairly rare surname, and Growdon is a less common variant. >Perhaps others researching uncommon surnames could try a similar test and see >which search engine comes up with the most relevant results.
On Friday 16 May 2008 19:52, Steve Hayes (hayesm...@hotmail.com) allowed as how:
> On Thu, 15 May 2008 15:04:36 +0100, Martin Brown > <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
> My point is that phrases like "Google is your friend" and "go and Google > for it" (which one often sees in genealogy forums) imply that "one size > fits all", yet may not be the best advice to give to genealogy newbies.
The phrases have become so much a part of every day usage that I'd be inclined to say they're like "I'll make a xerox of that". They've attained a generic meaning having more to do with the search than with the engine. I don't think that generic meaning implies "one size fits all", at all.
WRT the test results, I personally have found no significant SUBJECTIVE difference between Google and AltaVista. Both throw up commercial links at the head of every page, followed by possibly relevant non-commercial links. In either case there was a lot of cruft to wade through. That doesn't mean, of course, that there are no differences, just that my quick'n'dirty test found none that I felt to be significant.
Scientific Ol' Bob
-- Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas ----- Thinking is the hardest work there is, which is the probable reason so few engage in it. -- Henry Ford
On Fri, 16 May 2008 15:43:22 GMT, Jeff <jorg...@hotmail.com> wrote: >No need. I knew I was right. There is NO web search engine installed in >the circumstances you describe, merely links to it.
The Google toolbar installed with Firefox allows links to other sites - Wikipedia, for example, but not Altavista.
Steve Hayes wrote: > On Thu, 15 May 2008 19:12:43 +0300, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:
>> Doing a search for Denis Beauregard (exact phrase):
> and on a search for "beauregard genealogy"
> Altavista 332 results
> Google 217 results
I searched both for "Growdon family tree" and google was better.
4 hits with google and only one with altavista.
I searched both for "Zollinger family tree" and altavista was barely better.
14 for altavista and 11 for google.
Sometimes google is better and sometimes altavista is better. Just depends on the last name. I would not send newbies to altavista because it has less tools and is less well known. I also send newbies to more well known family tree software, rather than sending them to some less common one. Better to let newbies sift through some spam and teach them how to recognize it. (Which they do pretty quickly and then avoid.) Altavista might be good for a brick wall attempt at some point, but my time is better spent at the national archives or at the library locally.
Steve Hayes wrote: > On Thu, 15 May 2008 15:04:36 +0100, Martin Brown > <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> Commercial players all know the basic ranking tricks so if you put a >> place name into Google the first page will often include property in X, >> florists in X, hotels in X and if you are really unlucky lapdancing >> clubs in X (never mind that X may be a hamlet with just 6 houses). > <snip>
>> It is always worth trying different search engines if you don't find >> things or get too much chaff with your favourite. Google and Altavista >> are sometimes complimentary. No one size fits all solution exists for >> what is at best an ambiguous search problem in a vast sea of indexed >> data. Judicious use of "+" and "-" with keywords helps.
> Indeed one size doesn't fit all: while Google may be good for lapdancers, > Altavista seems better for genealogy.
> My point is that phrases like "Google is your friend" and "go and Google for > it" (which one often sees in genealogy forums) imply that "one size fits all", > yet may not be the best advice to give to genealogy newbies.
