Altavista better than Google for genealogy searches
Steve Hayes
A distant cousin is organising a GROWDEN family reunion, and I have a GROWDEN
family web page, and was trying to see what there was on the family on the
web.
I entered "Growden family Growdon" (both spellings are used) in both Google
and Altavista (http://www.altavista.com) and Altavista returned far more
relevant results on the first page. My page dedicated to Growden family
history did not show up on the first couple of Google pages at all, but it was
the first one on Altavista. It also appeared on the first page on Dogpile
(http://www.dogpile.com).
"Google is your friend" has become something of a cliche in genealogy
newsgroups, but it is worth remembering that it is not the only search engine,
and for genealogical purposes it is not even the best.
--
Steve Hayes
E-mail: haye...@hotmail.com (see web page if it doesn't work)
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/famhist1.htm
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7783/
Denis Beauregard
<haye...@hotmail.com> wrote in soc.genealogy.misc:
>I entered "Growden family Growdon" (both spellings are used) in both Google
And what about this search ?
Growden OR Growdon family
Denis
--
Denis Beauregard -
Les Français d'Amérique du Nord - www.francogene.com/genealogie--quebec/
French in North America before 1722 - www.francogene.com/quebec--genealogy/
Sur cédérom à 1770 - On CD-ROM to 1770
chrisj...@proemail.co.uk
> It seems that Altavista is much better than Google for genealogical searches.
>
> A distant cousin is organising a GROWDEN family reunion, and I have a GROWDEN
> family web page, and was trying to see what there was on the family on the
> web.
>
> I entered "Growden family Growdon" (both spellings are used) in both Google
> and Altavista (http://www.altavista.com) and Altavista returned far more
> relevant results on the first page. My page dedicated to Growden family
> history did not show up on the first couple of Google pages at all, but it was
> the first one on Altavista. It also appeared on the first page on Dogpile
> (http://www.dogpile.com).
>
> "Google is your friend" has become something of a cliche in genealogy
> newsgroups, but it is worth remembering that it is not the only search engine,
> and for genealogical purposes it is not even the best.
>
> --
> Steve Hayes
You might try Copernic Agent, free from http://www.copernic.com/ This
combines the results of several search engines and has other features
like saving your searches. I admit I haven't used it for a while, as I
never got a round toit to reinstall it when my PC was replaced.
However, I've just done so and tried it with "Growden family Growdon"
and the results look promising.
Chris
Renia
> It seems that Altavista is much better than Google for genealogical searches.
I have used Altavista for the past decade and would never use anything
else. I'm proud to say I don't Google!
Don Moody
"Steve Hayes" <haye...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:rm7n241ao77d1j16g...@4ax.com...
> It seems that Altavista is much better than Google for genealogical
> searches.
>
> A distant cousin is organising a GROWDEN family reunion, and I have
> a GROWDEN
> family web page, and was trying to see what there was on the family
> on the
> web.
>
> I entered "Growden family Growdon" (both spellings are used) in both
> and Altavista (http://www.altavista.com) and Altavista returned far
> more
> relevant results on the first page. My page dedicated to Growden
> family
> history did not show up on the first couple of Google pages at all,
> but it was
> the first one on Altavista. It also appeared on the first page on
> Dogpile
> (http://www.dogpile.com).
>
> "Google is your friend" has become something of a cliche in
> genealogy
> newsgroups, but it is worth remembering that it is not the only
> search engine,
> and for genealogical purposes it is not even the best.
As one of those wont to say Google, and not about to change that, I'll
explain why.
It is nothing to do with whether Google is the best or not, and
nothing to do with whether any other search engine could be got and
installed, and would prove better. It is most definitely nothing to do
with sophisticated searchers who are familiar enough with searching to
make value judgements and sufficiently energetic to pursue those
judgements until they get the optimum search procedure for themselves.
What I am addressing is the reality. The vast majority of PCs in the
UK come with Google installed. They are sold to people who wouldn't
know, and aren't interested in knowing, what the alternatives could
be. People who clearly have not used any search engine before, which
is deducible from the fact that they asked a question which could be
answered in a fraction of a second if they had used the search engine
they already have installed and it is reachable through the same
keyboard as they just used to ask the question. People who don't seem
to have twigged that the core technology in genealogy is searching!
Such people will go on and on and on asking basic or stupid questions,
expecting help from those who have done their homework, and never
giving anything back to the readers of the newsgroup. It is no good
doing a specific look-up for them. They learn nothing, except where to
come back for the next freebie. They'll only ever become useful if
they learn the basics, starting with searching as their first response
to a problem. And the first place they can start learning about
searching is right there in front of them at their fingertips. Go and
Google.
It'll probably be a year or two, after they have learned fairly
sophisticated searching, that they get fed up with the irrelevant crap
and advertisements, and start wondering whether there is something
better. By that time they'll be sophisticated enough searchers to find
it. There will be a big fall out during that learning time because
many people will be unable to learn or decide that learning is not
worth the bother. That doesn't matter. Genealogy is not a compulsory
subject but an optional extra. If they can't or won't do the work then
they have every right to go an play tiddlywinks or any other time
filler which does not involve searching.
Don
John Prentice
> What I am addressing is the reality. The vast majority of PCs in the
> UK come with Google installed.
That doesn't make sense. Google is a web-site, not a software program.
(Although Google does offer a few programs, we're talking about search
engines here.)
The "vast majority of PCs in the UK" come with Windows, whose default
internet browser, Internet Explorer, has Microsoft's own MSN Search set
as default search engine. If people search Google, it's because they've
chosen to ignore MS's search options and type www.google.com/.co.uk into
the browser's location bar.
The slightly smarter users install Firefox, which DOES have Google as
the default search engine, but that's not normally the default, and
isn't usually installed on delivery.
John
--
LOOK OUT, SPAM BLOCK AHEAD!
If you want to email me, remove ".invalid" from the email address
Texas Gen
search maybe use both and whatever other good search engines?
Don Moody
"John Prentice" <john.p...@john-prentice.com.invalid> wrote in
message news:If2dnfHsBOo...@bt.com...
> Don Moody wrote:
>> What I am addressing is the reality. The vast majority of PCs in
>> the UK come with Google installed.
>
> That doesn't make sense. Google is a web-site, not a software
> program.
Not to the cognoscenti. But it does make sense to the people to whom
the instruction to Google is addressed. They don't distinguish where
the software is resident or what does what. They do what was known in
the old mechanical days as recognising and buying the badge. They
don't look behind the badge. To such people Google is indeed 'on' the
computer they handle and many a PC is delivered with it as the home
page to which Internet Explorer goes directly. To those people Google
is indeed installed on their machine.
It is unfortunate and distressing to the cognoscenti in any field when
those not in the field don't understand the detailed workings of what
is going on in the equipment for which they lovingly care. But the
fact is that most people in areas outside their own expertise neither
know nor care about how things are done. They only care that what is
supposed to happen, happens. I got the point over to a computer
enthusiast some years ago.
He was telling me and others what we 'ought' to know about DOS,
setting up the machines, and all sorts of plugging and unplugging. I
asked if I could see his car keys. He put them in my hand and I put
them in my pocket. Then told him he could have his keys back when he
explained in precise molecular detail what went on inside a cylinder
immediately after the spark. If he couldn't then he was clearly unfit
to have and use a car. His reply? 'Don't be bloody silly. All I do is
put petrol in and drive from A to B. I don't want or need to know
anything else.' To which my response was 'Exactly. You keep the
computers working and my colleagues will drive them. They don't want
or need to know more.' To the guy's eternal credit, he got the point.
I gather he went on to use it in making a successful business in
computer maintenance. He told all his clients NOT to look into the
innards or wonder how they worked or try to get clever in any way.
They were to do their legal, accountancy or whatever professional work
and their sole part in the event of a computer problem was knowing
which number to telephone. He also gave them the simplest possible
instruction set for doing what had to be done, including making
back-ups.
It is a very difficult concept for experts to grasp, except for those
of us who have gone into tecdoc often enough to get our fingers burned
the first time we wrote as experts for a non-expert readership. Then
you learn that writing for fellow professionals in a journal of record
is one thing. but writing for the non-expert is quite another.
You may like to read the old Health & Safety at Work etc Act 1974,
Section 6 in particular. Therein you will find two insertions of the
words 'at work' in connection with instructions for the use of
equipment and of substances. They are there because I got them put in.
No we will not have tecdoc written by the chief engineer of a
manufacturer and only comprehendible by the chief engineer of the user
business when those instructions are for action by an apprentice. And
we won't have them in a form which sits nicely on the chief's desk
and doesn't fit the apprentice's pocket.We will have, and it is an
offence if we don't get, instructions in words the apprentice will
understand and in a form that apprentice can carry with him or her.
What I wrote originally in this thread was exactly an explanation of
why 'Google' is an instruction at the apprentice level. That was the
point I was making. The valuable work Steve has done is actionable by
the cognoscenti. It is way too far ahead for starters who haven't
learned to search, and neither know nor care what happens where when
they do start searching.I don't 'like' the situation any more than you
do. I am merely addressing the reality of the majority of people 'at
the computer'.
And by the way, I could give a detailed molecule-by-molecule account
of what happens after the spark. As could any other student of Prof
Hey at KCL. He's the bloke who worked it out.
Don
John Prentice
> "John Prentice" <john.p...@john-prentice.com.invalid> wrote in
> message news:If2dnfHsBOo...@bt.com...
>> Don Moody wrote:
>>> What I am addressing is the reality. The vast majority of PCs in
>>> the UK come with Google installed.
>> That doesn't make sense. Google is a web-site, not a software
>> program.
>
> Not to the cognoscenti. But it does make sense to the people to whom
Don, the cognoscenti consist of anyone who knows how to Google!
For someone who was accusing me of "weasel words" because I was being
exact with my language, you don't half weasel sometimes!
Denis Beauregard
<haye...@hotmail.com> wrote in soc.genealogy.misc:
>It seems that Altavista is much better than Google for genealogical searches.
Perhaps, the strenght of Google is its weakness ! Google tries to
locate as many pages as possible, but not altavista. But at this
time, Google seems to focus on some operation to clean spam pages
(I say that because I submitted my genealogy site with 30000 URLs,
one per family, and Google has indexed less than 200 of those pages).
Also, google changes the result depending on your browser settings.
Google finds 85 300 000 results for genealogy
Yahoo has 109 000 000 (the difference can be either the accuracy of
extrapolation or because Yahoo has more spamdex pages than Google)
MSN has 83 900 000, very close to Google
Altavista has 111 000 000, so in theory, more spamdex pages.
Perhaps, the spammers are tuning their pages as a function of the
Google algorithm to reject spamdex pages and you will find more
relevant pages in Altavista where the spammers' algorithm is not
finetuned... Quite strange indeed !
Something strange happened in those tests. I ran the first from
www.google.fr and my own site was 3rd for genealogy. I rerun it
from www.google-dance-tool.com (comparing many google sites) and
again, my site was in the top ten on google.com and google.fr
(and I was known likely from cookies on those sites), 25 on google.be
23 on google.ca and google.de, 21 on google.it and google.co.uk,
something weird because my site is not supposed to be there !
It is like if google detected the language of my web browser and
translated the search for the equivalent in French.
I repeated the same search from www.google-dance-tool.com with
genealogie (in French). The ranking was different (I was missing
from the top 100 of google.fr) but very good ranking every time.
I repeated the same search with genealogy and another computer
but same IP and no cookies. The ranking was still very good
(around 25) but different, this with genealogy and having French
as the preferred language.
I did it a last time, now using English as the preferred language
and my site was no more in the list for the 9 google sites I
tried.
I didn't run the same tests on the various altavista, yahoo or
msn sites but I know yahoo has different results depending on the
language in your preferences. Maybe Steve has something like
EN-ZA (English, South Africa) as preferred language, which may
give something different compared to EN-GB or EN-UK for instances.
The conclusion would be that Google may adapt the search result to
yourself, to the language of your browser, to your previous search,
etc. In my case, I saw my web site where it was not expected.
I would not be surprised that the result for your search on my
computer would not be the same on your computer...
Denis
Daniel Morgan
> It seems that Altavista is much better than Google for genealogical searches.
>
> A distant cousin is organising a GROWDEN family reunion, and I have a GROWDEN
> family web page, and was trying to see what there was on the family on the
> web.
>
> I entered "Growden family Growdon" (both spellings are used) in both Google
> and Altavista (http://www.altavista.com) and Altavista returned far more
> relevant results on the first page. My page dedicated to Growden family
> history did not show up on the first couple of Google pages at all, but it was
> the first one on Altavista. It also appeared on the first page on Dogpile
> (http://www.dogpile.com).
>
> "Google is your friend" has become something of a cliche in genealogy
> newsgroups, but it is worth remembering that it is not the only search engine,
> and for genealogical purposes it is not even the best.
>
> --
> Steve Hayes
You are overgeneralizing. Try the same search on Google without the
word "family" and you'll find your webpage as the very first hit. One
search doesn't tell you much, except that people should be creative in
how they use *any* search engine.
Jeff
> 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"
2: They do come pre-configured to link to certain search engines.
3: When they are pre-configured as in (2:) it is almost never GOOGLE.
Windows machines come pre-configured to link to MS's search engine,
which is NOT Google .
4: Users have to go out of their way to use Google, either by changing
the default search engine link or by downloading Firefox which defaults
to a Google link.
Joe Makowiec
> I would not be surprised that the result for your search on my
> computer would not be the same on your computer...
In addition to your observations, Google has several server farms
around the world, which they use for load balancing, shortening paths,
and maybe localizing results. The server farm updates aren't
necessarily in sync, so that the server you connect to can influence
search results. I once taught a class on searching, and in a room of
about 20 computers, all doing an identical search at the same time
using Google, there were three distinct result sets, with different
numbers of results and different first-page sites.
Though the numbers are not publicly known, some people estimate
that Google maintains over 450,000 servers, arranged in racks
located in clusters in cities around the world, with major centers
in Mountain View, California; Virginia; Atlanta, Georgia; Dublin,
Ireland; and new facilities constructed in The Dalles, Oregon and
Saint-Ghislain, Belgium.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_platform
--
Joe Makowiec
http://makowiec.org/
Email: http://makowiec.org/contact/?Joe
Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org/
Renia
<snip>
>
> The conclusion would be that Google may adapt the search result to
> yourself, to the language of your browser, to your previous search,
> etc. In my case, I saw my web site where it was not expected.
>
> I would not be surprised that the result for your search on my
> computer would not be the same on your computer...
Doing a search for Denis Beauregard (exact phrase):
AltaVista found 93,700 results
Google: Results 1 - 10 of about 31,800 for "denis beauregard"
Yahooo: 1 - 10 of about 93,300 for " denis beauregard"
Denis Beauregard
wrote in soc.genealogy.misc:
Unfortunately, google-dance-tool won't handle the quotes. But
I tried the same search on my computer.
From qc.search.yahoo.com (Quebec' Yahoo)
1 - 10 sur environ 91 400 pour " denis beauregard"
From altavista.com, 91 500
From altavista.fr, 91 600
i.e. the value is not stable !
The actual number should be about 32 000, including my pages
(I put a copyright notice with my name on 31 000 pages) and
people sharing my name. So Google is the more accurate here.
But site:francogene.com has only 3240 pages.
"denis beauregard" -site:francogene.com has the other 30 000.
most of them seem to be from newsgroups (copied to many many
servers) and there are many irrelevant pages, often copies
from blogs. So in this case, maybe 4000 pages out of 30 000
are relevant (I would not count those from newsgroups).
Steve Hayes
>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.
But many of the Google results came up with surname search sites that didn't
have any useful information, but were just programmed to come up when anyone
was looking for a surname and genealogy. Some of them say no, they don't have
any information on Growdon but search our (pay per view) site for any other
surnames you may be interested in. That's not useful information -- it's
commercial fluff. When Google started 10 years ago it wasn't like that - it
was better than the other search engines and produced more relevant results.
That's how it got to be the leading search engine. But it's lost its edge and
some of the others have caught up and passed it -- at least for delivering
genealogically relevant results.
I'm not saying don't use Google at all, but perhaps try other search engines,
like Altavista, first.
--
Steve Hayes
Web: http://hayesgreene.wordpress.com/
http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/famhist1.htm
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7783/
JJ206
> 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.
http://www.news.com/2100-1032_3-6077051.html
Google terms I used were:
dell "google toolbar installed"
Altavista's first hit with the same search terms was:
http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2006/02/08/dell_preloads_google_toolbar/
Jonathan M.
John
>
> I'm not saying don't use Google at all, but perhaps try other search engines,
> like Altavista, first.
>
I think the rule is, if you don't find what you want, or want to perhaps
find more, use as many search engines as you can.
And I reserve my right to always use Google first! ;-)
JJ206
> On Thu, 15 May 2008 07:50:42 -0500, "Texas Gen" <texa...@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.
Specifically, neurologist Dr Growdon could easily have an email listed
publicly and would not mind sharing family tree info. Altavista
cut that out as un-needed, when many genealogists contact people out of
the blue, with the same last name, to see if they are cousins and to see
if they have family tree info.
Jonathan M.
Johnny
"JJ206" <jj...@remooooooooooooooovethisdrizzle.com> wrote in message
news:12108926...@bubbleator.drizzle.com...
> 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.
>
> http://www.news.com/2100-1032_3-6077051.html
>
> Google terms I used were:
>
> dell "google toolbar installed"
Just because Google Tool Bar (which is a waste of system resources and
storage space to have installed) is installed doesn't mean people will or
even know how to use it...
Martin Brown
> "Steve Hayes" <haye...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:rm7n241ao77d1j16g...@4ax.com...
>> It seems that Altavista is much better than Google for genealogical
>> searches.
>>
>> A distant cousin is organising a GROWDEN family reunion, and I have
>> a GROWDEN
>> family web page, and was trying to see what there was on the family
>> on the
>> web.
>>
>> I entered "Growden family Growdon" (both spellings are used) in both
>> Google
>> and Altavista (http://www.altavista.com) and Altavista returned far
>> more
>> relevant results on the first page. My page dedicated to Growden
>> family
>> history did not show up on the first couple of Google pages at all,
OK. You can probably fix that by putting a few more critical keywords
into your index page and making sure that your site is linked to be
accessible to web spiders. Google ranks pages in a very sophisticated
way so if you are not linked to by enough other pages your ranking will
be lower than on some other engines. And if the right keywords are not
all on your main index page the site ranking is lower too.
There are various (free) tools that will show you how your webpage ranks
when a search with keywords is performed by a selection of engines.
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).
>> but it was
>> the first one on Altavista. It also appeared on the first page on
>> Dogpile
>> (http://www.dogpile.com).
>>
>> "Google is your friend" has become something of a cliche in
>> genealogy
>> newsgroups, but it is worth remembering that it is not the only
>> search engine,
>> and for genealogical purposes it is not even the best.
>
> As one of those wont to say Google, and not about to change that, I'll
> explain why.
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.
>
> It is nothing to do with whether Google is the best or not, and
> nothing to do with whether any other search engine could be got and
> installed, and would prove better. It is most definitely nothing to do
> with sophisticated searchers who are familiar enough with searching to
> make value judgements and sufficiently energetic to pursue those
> judgements until they get the optimum search procedure for themselves.
>
> What I am addressing is the reality. The vast majority of PCs in the
> UK come with Google installed. They are sold to people who wouldn't
They come with Microsofts own brand MSN search installed. You have to
seek out Google and/or download its toolbar, same for AltaVista. Some
ISP customised browsers may come with it already installed.
> Such people will go on and on and on asking basic or stupid questions,
> expecting help from those who have done their homework, and never
> giving anything back to the readers of the newsgroup. It is no good
> doing a specific look-up for them. They learn nothing, except where to
> come back for the next freebie. They'll only ever become useful if
> they learn the basics, starting with searching as their first response
> to a problem. And the first place they can start learning about
> searching is right there in front of them at their fingertips. Go and
> Google.
You are incredibly bitter and twisted. He made a correct statement about
the nature of these search engines rankings and you start yet another
boilerplate rant against newbies daring to try their hand at genealogy.
The guy made the perfectly valid and helpful observation that amateur
genealogy pages tend not to get very high rankings on Google but are
more favorably placed on AltaVista. Pointing out that other search
engines can sometimes give better results is a legitimate thing to do.
Regards,
Martin Brown
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
John Cartmell
<jj...@remooooooooooooooovethisdrizzle.com> wrote:
> Google is better as it lets me control more data.
I have noticed a growing tendency to include sites that scoop you up in a very
specific search and try to sell you something else. Those would be best not
included in the first place. If I'm looking for a needle in a haystack, more
hay isn't better.
--
John
Hugh Watkins
> Just because Google Tool Bar (which is a waste of system resources and
> storage space to have installed) is installed doesn't mean people will or
> even know how to use it...
I use google toolbar many times daily
especially the "blog this" button
which is a handy way of generating html links when hand coding web pages
EG
<a
href="http://www.ancestry.co.uk/search/rectype/census/uk/default.aspx">UK
Census Collection - Ancestry.co.uk</a>
therefore I never use Safari becaue it only has a search box
site:www.ancestry.co.uk library
is another example of a tool bar button looking at static pages of a website
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Awww.ancestry.co.uk+library&btnG=Google+Search
or
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&newwindow=1&q=site%3Awww.ancestry.co.uk+index&btnG=Search
which led me to some more LAPHAM in Ireland for my one-name study
Hugh W
--
For genealogy and help with family and local history in Bristol and
district http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Brycgstow/
http://snaps4.blogspot.com/ photographs and walks
GENEALOGE http://hughw36.blogspot.com/ MAIN BLOG
Jeff
> 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.
>
> http://www.news.com/2100-1032_3-6077051.html
>
> Google terms I used were:
>
> dell "google toolbar installed"
No need. I knew I was right. There is NO web search engine installed in
the circumstances you describe, merely links to it.
Josiah Jenkins
<dpm...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>"John Prentice" <john.p...@john-prentice.com.invalid> wrote in
>>> What I am addressing is the reality. The vast majority of PCs in
>>> the UK come with Google installed.
>>
>> That doesn't make sense.
>>Google is a web-site, not a software program.
>
>Not to the cognoscenti.
'Only to', shirley ?
>
> . . . many a PC is delivered with it as the home page to which
> Internet Explorer goes directly.
Which supplier of computers ?
Do you have a cite for that claim ?
>
>And by the way, I could give a detailed molecule-by-molecule account
>of what happens after the spark. As could any other student of Prof
>Hey at KCL. He's the bloke who worked it out.
Yeah, Harry Weslake and his ilk were just lucky I guess !!!
Steve Hayes
<jj...@remooooooooooooooovethisdrizzle.com> wrote:
>Steve Hayes wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 May 2008 07:50:42 -0500, "Texas Gen" <texa...@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.
Steve Hayes
<|||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
>Doing a search for Denis Beauregard (exact phrase):
and on a search for "beauregard genealogy"
Altavista 332 results
Google 217 results
clifto
> 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."
Johnny
> 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...
JJ206
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.
http://toolbar.google.com/T4/index.html
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 ?
Jonathan M.
Rosemary Peeler
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.
Thank you!
Rosemary
Bob Melson
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
Steve Hayes
>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.
JJ206
> 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.
Jonathan M.
Hugh Watkins
> 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.
LOL
they are a polite way of saying RTFM
Martin Brown
> 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.
In a sense it is only because "Google" has become the verbised generic
net search probably because Altavista which predates it has too many
syllables. A bit like Hoovering the carpet with a Dyson.
It is still an interesting observation that some hobby pages tend to get
fairer rankings (or more forgiving ones) on Altavista when compared to
Google. I expect it depends on the search as well as the desired target.
Hugh Watkins
> It seems that Altavista is much better than Google for genealogical searches.
>
> A distant cousin is organising a GROWDEN family reunion, and I have a GROWDEN
> family web page, and was trying to see what there was on the family on the
> web.
>
> I entered "Growden family Growdon" (both spellings are used) in both Google
> and Altavista (http://www.altavista.com) and Altavista returned far more
> relevant results on the first page. My page dedicated to Growden family
> the first one on Altavista. It also appeared on the first page on Dogpile
> (http://www.dogpile.com).
"Google is your friend" = RTFM
but Steve nowhere in this thread do you state your target URL
if you use a better search string
Growden Growdon Steve Hayes
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1&q=Growden++Growdon++Steve+Hayes&btnG=Search
http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/GROWDON.HTM has a horrible voice and a
pop up too
and an endless banner download at oddcast.com
your text is missing the word
genealogy
headers are reasonable
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Growden family</TITLE>
<meta Name="Description" Content="Growdon or Growden family:
Genealogical research into the Growdon (Growden, Grouden) families, of
Cornwall, South Africa, UK, Canada, Australia & New Zealand and elsewhere">
<meta Name="Keywords" Content="Growdon, Growden, Grouden, family
history, genealogy, genealogical research, Cornwall, Bodmin Moor">
<meta name="robots" content="index,follow">
Welcome...
This is a new home page for Steve and Val Hayes of Tshwane, South Africa.
For reasons beyond our control we were forced to move our family
web pages, and since it will take some time to get everything linked and
working again, we are starting off with this new home page with basic
information. You may find our old home page here, but many of the links
may not work yet.
strange message
that page is missing the word
"tree"
and any meta data
http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/ has some of the best meta data
anywhere especially the dscription whih google loves
http://www.altavista.com/web/results?itag=ody&q=Growden++Growdon++Steve+Hayes&kgs=1&kls=0
=============
compare
http://www.altavista.com/web/adv
with
http://www.google.com/advanced_search?hl=en
and
http://www.altavista.com/about/
with
http://www.google.com/about.html
and
http://www.google.com/options/index.html
http://www.google.com/coop/cse/
oh dear
Gene Y.
> 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.
>>>
>>> http://www.news.com/2100-1032_3-6077051.html
>>>
>>> Google terms I used were:
>>>
>>> dell "google toolbar installed"
>>
>> 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.
>
Google toolbar is NOT a search engine. It is an interface that adds more features to the ONLINE
search engine.
> http://toolbar.google.com/T4/index.html
>
> 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.
And an EXECUTABLE is not a search engine on a web page.
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.
I have yet to see any MS windows computer that came with a default home page set to any thing other
than Microsoft's proprietary crap. Just because "some" manufacturers preload the crapware Google
Toolbar on their systems because they get paid to do so does not in any way equate to "MOST"
computers com with Google pre loaded. (NOTE: for those of you using Firefox, Google toolbar breaks
Firefox and Google has no intention of fixing it. It is crapware.)
Perhaps you should provide links to prove your point ?
>
> Jonathan M.
--
Gene Y.
n2kvs
Researching Young, Zies, Harer & Cox with
Legacy Family Tree
http://h1.ripway.com/egptech/
Allen
google.com to your browser's bookmarks. Step 2: select this bookmark
from the list. Step 3: hit ENTER. Voila! Google is up and running, just
like any other web site. Big Deal! Google Toolbar, Google Earth, etc.
are products offered by Google, but are not to be confused with the
Google search engine.
Allen
Allen
Josiah Jenkins
>
<snip>
>
> (NOTE: for those of you using Firefox, Google toolbar breaks Firefox
Wish you'd told me that before . . . I've been using Google toolbar
with Firefox for the last two years (or more) and never noticed.
Gene Y.
it can't find the file. When you click OK to close the box the file will open eventually. Normally
that would not be a problem, but since I build web pages and frequently open them locally, it is a
real pain in the a$$. I removed Google toolbar and the problem went away. A Little research
revealed that this problem was known and reported to Google but their response was to fix Firefox.
So I fixed Firefox by deleting Google Toolbar.
Sir Creep
> It seems that Altavista is much better than Google for genealogical searches.
>
> A distant cousin is organising a GROWDEN family reunion, and I have a GROWDEN
> family web page, and was trying to see what there was on the family on the
> web.
>
> I entered "Growden family Growdon" (both spellings are used) in both Google
> and Altavista (http://www.altavista.com) and Altavista returned far more
> relevant results on the first page. My page dedicated to Growden family
> history did not show up on the first couple of Google pages at all, but it was
> the first one on Altavista. It also appeared on the first page on Dogpile
> (http://www.dogpile.com).
>
> newsgroups, but it is worth remembering that it is not the only search engine,
> and for genealogical purposes it is not even the best.
>
> Steve Hayes
> E-mail: hayesm...@hotmail.com (see web page if it doesn't work)
> Web:http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/famhist1.htm
> http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7783/
Hey thanks Steve. My sad admission that I once used to be on top of
the varisou search engines (IxQuick, Metor, Vivismo, etc) and kinda
became a Googler (though IxQuick was always my fave)...but you've
enlightened me. Thanks again--will keep this in mind from now on.
Sir Creep
Dennis Ahern
And then there is the game called googlewhack [sp?] in which users try
combinations of two words that will result in only one hit. In 2003
someone emailed me out of the blue to report that my Ahern website was the
only page on the Internet in which the words "tonsorial" and "dungarvan"
could be found. In running this search again, I find that there are now at
least seven such pages.
I find it personally interesting that if I Google Ahern, my Ahern
genealogy website is the third website listed on the first page, but if I
search for Ahern on AltaVista, what comes up on the first page is a link
to a personal website on which I have links to some of my pages and
nothing else, which hasn't been updated for several years. I also find
completely different results on images for Ahern.
Yahoo also goes to the personal page on world.std.com on the first page,
but not the Ahern genealogy page on rootsweb. AskJeeves.com doesn't show
either one on the first page of results.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dennis Ahern | The Ahern Family Genealogy Website
Acton, Massachusetts | http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~aherns/
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Renia
> 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 for "family tree" in "exact phrase" plus "growdon" in "all of
these words" and got 431 results on Altavista. 357 on Google.
JJ206
> Google toolbar breaks Firefox and Google has no intention
> of fixing it.
http://www.google.com/tools/firefox/toolbar/FT3/intl/en/
You saying you tried Google Firefox Toolbar ?
Jonathan M.
JJ206
> JJ206 wrote:
>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.news.com/2100-1032_3-6077051.html
>>>>
>>>> Google terms I used were:
>>>>
>>>> dell "google toolbar installed"
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>
> Google toolbar is NOT a search engine. It is an interface that adds
> more features to the ONLINE search engine.
You don't exist, as you are just an interface of your idiot parents.
LOL (^:=
http://www.google.com/support/firefox/bin/static.py?page=features.html&v=3
Jonathan M.
JJ206
> Google toolbar is NOT a search engine. It is an interface that adds
> more features to the ONLINE search engine.
Google Toolbar is part of the search engine. The definition of a search
engine includes people to search it. Don't tell me you think that a
search engine can exist without anyone or anything searching it !
You can call it an engine if you like.
http://www.google.com/support/toolbar/bin/static.py?page=features.html&hl=en&v=4
"Enhanced Search Box
As you type a search query into the new Toolbar's search box, you'll see
a list of useful suggestions based on popular Google searches, spelling
corrections and your own Toolbar search history and bookmarks. You can
also click the "G" icon in the search box to search different Google
sites, the current site, or sites for which you've installed custom
search buttons."
As an analogy, try a telescope. Say I add a piece of software to the
telescope that lets users look through the telescope at home, then by
your logic, they are not actually using the telescope ?
Jonathan M.
John Prentice
> I searched for "family tree" in "exact phrase" plus "growdon" in "all of
> these words" and got 431 results on Altavista. 357 on Google.
The thing that doesn't seem to be mentioned in all the comparisons is
this - it's not the number of hits, it's the quality of hits that
counts, and their categorisation. In other words, if you're faced with
10,000 hits, you're going to want them sorted by relevance, and you
aren't interested in duplicate pages.
A good search engine won't just present you with 10,000 hits in random
order, it will give you what it "thinks" is the best order for you. If
it does it both honestly (putting the commercially-interesting ones
first is what killed Altavista) and accurately, it's a far more useful
engine, even if another engine gives you 12,000.
Also, a good search engine can spot that one page is so like another
that it's not worth showing both. This is one reason why Google doesn't
throw up as many results as some other search engines - it does that
correlation for you, saving you a lot of effort looking through twenty
pages that are basically derivatives or copies of each other. Ever
noticed that "Google has omitted 234 pages that are similar to this one,
click here to see them" message?
Please don't get seduced into "my search engine's bigger than your one"
games! As often in life, it's not the size, it's the quality, and how
you use it. :)
John
--
LOOK OUT, SPAM BLOCK AHEAD!
If you want to email me, remove ".invalid" from the email address
Steven Gibbs
> Gene Y. wrote:
>
>> Google toolbar is NOT a search engine. It is an interface that adds
>> more features to the ONLINE search engine.
>
> Google Toolbar is part of the search engine.
An entirely unnecessary part. So unnecessary that I don't have it, and
will never have it.
Steven
John Prentice
> Gene Y. wrote:
>
>> Google toolbar is NOT a search engine. It is an interface that adds
>> more features to the ONLINE search engine.
>
> Google Toolbar is part of the search engine.
No, it's an interface to the search engine. To call it part is like
saying the 10:15 from Twickenham to Waterloo is part of Waterloo. If it
was part, then the search engine would lose functionality without its
presence, which is ludicrous.
John (the group's pedant today, it seems)
Renia
> Renia wrote:
>> I searched for "family tree" in "exact phrase" plus "growdon" in "all
>> of these words" and got 431 results on Altavista. 357 on Google.
>
> The thing that doesn't seem to be mentioned in all the comparisons is
> this - it's not the number of hits, it's the quality of hits that
> counts, and their categorisation. In other words, if you're faced with
> 10,000 hits, you're going to want them sorted by relevance, and you
> aren't interested in duplicate pages.
>
> A good search engine won't just present you with 10,000 hits in random
> order, it will give you what it "thinks" is the best order for you. If
> it does it both honestly (putting the commercially-interesting ones
> first is what killed Altavista) and accurately, it's a far more useful
> engine, even if another engine gives you 12,000.
Quite. You have to know how to manipulate your search engine.
John Prentice
> John Prentice wrote:
>> A good search engine won't just present you with 10,000 hits in random
>> order, it will give you what it "thinks" is the best order for you. If
>> it does it both honestly (putting the commercially-interesting ones
>> first is what killed Altavista) and accurately, it's a far more useful
>> engine, even if another engine gives you 12,000.
>
> Quite. You have to know how to manipulate your search engine.
Now, I'd argue quite the opposite! A really well-designed,
well-implemented search engine shouldn't need manipulation - it should
give you what you need, when you want it, without having to be tweaked
and prodded and its normal behaviour circumvented.
Google gets some of the way there, but still needs an expert hand when
the search gets complicated. The "advanced search" page goes some way
towards making it usable by the non-expert user, but it's still a little
clumsy. They've got the back-end services (spidering the web and
storing, deconstructing and categorising the results) brilliantly right,
but I think that they still have some way to go on the front end, where
users are trying to put together queries without having to learn a new
language.
Gene Y.
FireFox problem. I finally found the link that described the problem as coming from Google Toolbar.
As soon as I deleted the toolbar the problem disappeared. I liked the toolbar and used it daily
but when it breaks my browser it's time to go.
Hugh Watkins
> JJ206 wrote:
>> Gene Y. wrote:
>>> Google toolbar breaks Firefox and Google has no intention of fixing it.
>>
>> http://www.google.com/tools/firefox/toolbar/FT3/intl/en/
>>
>> You saying you tried Google Firefox Toolbar ?
>>
>> Jonathan M.
>>
> Absolutely. And I chased that problem for six months, believing it was
> a recurrence of an old FireFox problem. I finally found the link that
> described the problem as coming from Google Toolbar. As soon as I
> deleted the toolbar the problem disappeared. I liked the toolbar and
> used it daily but when it breaks my browser it's time to go.
all meaningless remarks without definition of the versions of operating
system and of firefox and of google tool bar
Allen
> JJ206 wrote:
>> Gene Y. wrote:
>>
>>> Google toolbar is NOT a search engine. It is an interface that adds
>>> more features to the ONLINE search engine.
>>
>> Google Toolbar is part of the search engine.
>
> No, it's an interface to the search engine. To call it part is like
> saying the 10:15 from Twickenham to Waterloo is part of Waterloo. If it
> was part, then the search engine would lose functionality without its
> presence, which is ludicrous.
>
> John (the group's pedant today, it seems)
before Google Toolbar was introduced? Was it magic? Delusion? Should I
throw out the information that I have gotten from Google because I don't
use their Toolbar and therefore that information doesn't really exist?
You tell us, please, JJ206.
Allen
John Prentice
> How did people manage to use Google as a search engine for all that time
> before Google Toolbar was introduced?
They used to type, with their fingers. Now they can use the mouse
instead. With - um - their fingers. And the added benefit of losing some
of the page-viewing area to a toolbar!
John (who doesn't see the point of the Google Toolbar, either)
Renia
> Allen wrote:
>> How did people manage to use Google as a search engine for all that
>> time before Google Toolbar was introduced?
>
> They used to type, with their fingers. Now they can use the mouse
> instead. With - um - their fingers. And the added benefit of losing some
> of the page-viewing area to a toolbar!
>
> John (who doesn't see the point of the Google Toolbar, either)
Never even noticed I had a Google toolbar, myself.
Gene Y.
> Gene Y. wrote:
>> JJ206 wrote:
>>> Gene Y. wrote:
>>>> Google toolbar breaks Firefox and Google has no intention of fixing it.
>>>
>>> http://www.google.com/tools/firefox/toolbar/FT3/intl/en/
>>>
>>> You saying you tried Google Firefox Toolbar ?
>>>
>>> Jonathan M.
>>>
>> Absolutely. And I chased that problem for six months, believing it
>> was a recurrence of an old FireFox problem. I finally found the link
>> that described the problem as coming from Google Toolbar. As soon as
>> I deleted the toolbar the problem disappeared. I liked the toolbar
>> and used it daily but when it breaks my browser it's time to go.
>
> all meaningless remarks without definition of the versions of operating
> system and of firefox and of google tool bar
>
> Hugh W
>
Google toolbar v 3.0.20070525W which is the most current version I have been able to locate.
Firefox v 2.0.0.14, the most current stable release.
I just re-loaded the toolbar and tested again. It still reports unable to find the html file I
double click on, then opens it after an unacceptable delay. Again I disabled the toolbar and the
problem was also gone.
I didn't post this information to start an argument or to argue the pros and cons of Google Toolbar,
but rather to make others aware of the cause of this particular problem. If your need for the
toolbar outweighs the inconvenience, wonderful. If, like myself, you consider it to be a larger
annoyance than it is worth, remove it. Your choice. I just forwarded some useful information.
Texas Gen
component.
This may not be true---and I hope not. Just a thought to add to the mix.
Donna
Texas Gen
I meant to say that I read that Google Toolbar has a tracking component.
Hugh Watkins
10.4.11 here MacBook Pro
I still use FF 1.5.0.10
because 2.0'* had a tendency to hang a bit too often when I use 15 tabs
for sites I follow daily
same toolbar as you
which I use many times daily
(since it was in beta)
regards
Hugh Watkins
optional
if you wish to be a contributer to the cevelopers and freebie world
then you also report back to MS and do beta testing
Allen
some of the know-nothings who are posting to this thread.
Allen
Gene Y.
> is it Mac OS?
> 10.4.11 here MacBook Pro
>
> I still use FF 1.5.0.10
> because 2.0'* had a tendency to hang a bit too often when I use 15 tabs
> for sites I follow daily
> same toolbar as you
> which I use many times daily
> (since it was in beta)
>
> regards
>
> Hugh W
No, unfortunately my favorite genealogy program only runs on Windows so that is what I am running.
(XP) I hope to migrate to linux eventually.
Hugh Watkins
> Hugh Watkins wrote:
>
>> is it Mac OS?
>> 10.4.11 here MacBook Pro
>>
>> I still use FF 1.5.0.10
>> because 2.0'* had a tendency to hang a bit too often when I use 15
>> tabs for sites I follow daily
>> same toolbar as you
>> which I use many times daily
>> (since it was in beta)
>>
>> regards
>>
>> Hugh W
>
> No, unfortunately my favorite genealogy program only runs on Windows so
> that is what I am running. (XP) I hope to migrate to linux eventually.
Intel Macs run on UNIX
Mac OS is a UNIX shell
so I have FTM 16 on Win XP sp3 om Parallels 3 on Mac OS 10.4.11
I will take to Linux if I am completely broke
Josiah Jenkins
>Josiah Jenkins wrote:
>> On Sat, 17 May 2008 11:02:57 -0400, "Gene Y." <please.ask> wrote:
>> <snip>
>>> (NOTE: for those of you using Firefox, Google toolbar breaks Firefox
>>
>> Wish you'd told me that before . . . I've been using Google toolbar
>> with Firefox for the last two years (or more) and never noticed.
>>
>Try clicking double clicking on a local html file on your computer.
>A box will pop up saying that it can't find the file.
If Firefox isn't already running, you'll get a *WINDOWS* error
message (that's running Vista, I never seemed to have a problem
with XP Pro, Win 2K, NT4)
>
> When you click OK to close the box the file will open eventually.
The file opens anyway without clicking the error box !
Note : I have disabled *ALL* the Vista security stuff !
That may make a difference ?
>
>Normally that would not be a problem, but since I build web pages and
>frequently open them locally, it is a real pain in the a$$.
Been re-hashing my website for the last three weeks, I've got Firefox
as my default browser with the Google toolbar installed and I haven't
had a problem such as you describe.
YMMV
Josiah Jenkins
<john.p...@john-prentice.com.invalid> wrote:
>Allen wrote:
>> How did people manage to use Google as a search engine for all that time
>> before Google Toolbar was introduced?
>
>They used to type, with their fingers. Now they can use the mouse
>instead. With - um - their fingers. And the added benefit of losing some
>of the page-viewing area to a toolbar!
>
>John (who doesn't see the point of the Google Toolbar, either)
I've got the basics . . .
Search | Search Images | Search News | Google Maps | Google Earth
much of the other stuff is "fluff". (IMHO)
Steve Hayes
<john.p...@john-prentice.com.invalid> wrote:
>A good search engine won't just present you with 10,000 hits in random
>order, it will give you what it "thinks" is the best order for you. If
>it does it both honestly (putting the commercially-interesting ones
>first is what killed Altavista) and accurately, it's a far more useful
>engine, even if another engine gives you 12,000.
Quite, and now the boot is on the other foot, since it now seems to be Google
that presents the commercial ones first rather than Altavista.
--
Steve Hayes
Web: http://hayesgreene.wordpress.com/
http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/famhist1.htm
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7783/
JJ206
> JJ206 wrote:
>> Gene Y. wrote:
>>
>>> Google toolbar is NOT a search engine. It is an interface that adds
>>> more features to the ONLINE search engine.
>>
>> Google Toolbar is part of the search engine.
>
> No, it's an interface to the search engine. To call it part is like
> saying the 10:15 from Twickenham to Waterloo is part of Waterloo. If it
> was part, then the search engine would lose functionality without its
> presence, which is ludicrous.
>
> John (the group's pedant today, it seems)
LOL, doesn't look like you read my post at all. So when the 10:15 is in
Waterloo, it isn't part of Waterloo ? Is that your point ? I guess this
boils down to whether you think things need an observer to exist or
function or not. I think the definition of a search engine is to have
someone search it, and I never said the search engine would lose
functionality if I stopped using Google Toolbar, but that all portals
and search boxes connected to Google search engine are part of it as
long as someone/anyone was using them.
*sigh* Perhaps this belongs in a philosophy thread ?
Jonathan M.
JJ206
> JJ206 wrote:
>> Gene Y. wrote:
>>> Google toolbar breaks Firefox and Google has no intention of fixing it.
>>
>> http://www.google.com/tools/firefox/toolbar/FT3/intl/en/
>>
>> You saying you tried Google Firefox Toolbar ?
>>
>> Jonathan M.
>>
> Absolutely. And I chased that problem for six months, believing it was
> a recurrence of an old FireFox problem. I finally found the link that
> described the problem as coming from Google Toolbar. As soon as I
> deleted the toolbar the problem disappeared. I liked the toolbar and
> used it daily but when it breaks my browser it's time to go.
Well, I see it as an over-generalization. I have used Google Toolbar
with Firefox for years now and no breakages. Your issue must be too
small in number to affect the programmers working on it. *shrug*
That was good that you submitted a bug report, and if enough people do
then it will probably be fixed at some point. You using XP or Vista ?
Jonathan M.
JJ206
*sigh* My analogy is clear. Google Toolbar, the google.com webapge, and
google advanced search page are all different lenses looking thru the
same telescope. I never said Google Toolbar was the only lens to look at
the data from. Is that better ?
Jonathan M.
John Prentice
> No, unfortunately my favorite genealogy program only runs on Windows so
> that is what I am running. (XP) I hope to migrate to linux eventually.
Don't forget that Linux offers WINE, a Windows emulation that can run
much of Microsoft's software, and a lot besides. It might be worth your
while giving it a try. You'll need about 5-10GB free on your hard drive.
The good news is that you can try it out, on Linux, without having to
replace your computer's operating system first. In fact, you essentially
run Linux as you would any other Windows program, through a program
called a "hypervisor", which provides Linux with an environment that
looks to Linux like an "empty" PC.
It's called virtualisation, and we use it a lot at work. (Thanks Jon for
getting me into it!)
It's not that fiddly to set up, and it's great for trying out new Linux
versions - when you've finished the try-out, you can just delete the one
or two files that contain the "virtual machine".
The even better news is that you can do all this for free!
I apologise in advance if you already know all of this, but the
instructions that follow might be useful for others who want to tread
the same path.
Getting the hypervisor
----------------------
Go to http://preview.tinyurl.com/2h5kxa
Select "Sun xVM VirtualBox 1.6"
Go through the song and dance to download the version you need (you
DON'T have to give your details), and then install it.
Getting Linux
-------------
Now download the CD/DVD for the Linux version you want. I'd suggest
Ubuntu Desktop Edition (http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu/download), and
the rest of the instructions will reflect that.
Setting it up
-------------
Run xVM. Create a new virtual machine, and set up the obvious settings
for it. You probably want to give it about 6GB disk space. When you get
to the point of customising the virtual machine, tell xVM to pretend
that the .ISO file (that you just downloaded) for the Linux distribution
is the virtual machine's CD drive.
Now tell xVM to run the virtual machine. It should "boot" the Linux CD.
Click inside the virtual machine's window, fill in the obvious questions
in the obvious way, and let it do its stuff.
When it's ready to reboot the virtual machine, Ubuntu will tell you to
remove the CD, and press ENTER. The trick is to come out of Ubuntu at
that point, go into the virtual machine's settings in xVM, and tell it
to reconnect the virtual machine's "CD drive" to the physical one on
your machine. Re-enter the virtual machine, and press ENTER to let the
virtual machine reboot. It should start up Ubuntu.
Customising Linux and loading your software
-------------------------------------------
Now, final step - when you've got into Ubuntu and logged in, click on
Applications -> Terminal. In the terminal window, type:
sudo apt-get install wine
It will ask you for your login password, and then go off and try to
install 'wine'.
Assuming that succeeds, all you need to do is put your Family Tree Maker
(I'm guessing it's that) CD in the CD drive, wait for the CD to pop up
on Ubuntu's desktop, double-click on it, and then select the setup
program. That's when you'll find whether it's worked or not.
Whether or not it does, you now have a Windows PC running Ubuntu, and
you can tinker with it to your heart's delight without damaging your
Windows setup. Just don't forget to "pause" your virtual machine before
you close xVM, so that you don't lose any data in the VM.
Feel free to email me off-group if you've any questions, or hit any
brick walls along the way. If you do succeed in running your genealogy
software, let us know - others might like to try it too.
John
Allen
misunderstood.
Allen
Bruce Remick
"Kay Robinson" <Kay_Ro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:x=YzSFG53ouRoulGSyVN=kQ0Ijc=@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 20 May 2008 11:41:11 +0100, John Prentice
> <john.p...@john-prentice.com.invalid> sharpened a new quill and
> scratched:
>
>>Renia wrote:
>>> John Prentice wrote:
>>>> A good search engine won't just present you with 10,000 hits in random
>>>> order, it will give you what it "thinks" is the best order for you. If
>>>> it does it both honestly (putting the commercially-interesting ones
>>>> first is what killed Altavista) and accurately, it's a far more useful
>>>> engine, even if another engine gives you 12,000.
>>>
>>> Quite. You have to know how to manipulate your search engine.
>>
>>Now, I'd argue quite the opposite! A really well-designed,
>>well-implemented search engine shouldn't need manipulation - it should
>>give you what you need, when you want it, without having to be tweaked
>>and prodded and its normal behaviour circumvented.
>
> the population microchipped as standard. At least we'll be able to
> dispense with keyboards then though LOL
>
> Kay
What? You mean you don't have voice-activated internet and word processing
yet? "Search....Robinson...Genealogy" "Google Maps... Cleveland...234
Main St" "email to mother........."
John Prentice
> If you do succeed in running your genealogy
> software, let us know - others might like to try it too.
I tried this using WINE in Ubuntu 8.04 ("Hardy Heron") under VMWare on
Windows XP, installing Family Tree Maker.
The installer ran, but choked when it tried to install Microsoft .NET.
Second time around it skipped that step, and installed FTM. It stuck on
the "Publishing the [program information - can't remember the exact
phrase]" stage that was the last step before completion. I ran FTM, but
it died when it couldn't find the .NET stuff.
So that combination (under Ubuntu) doesn't seem to work.
John
--
LOOK OUT, SPAM BLOCK AHEAD!
To email me, remove ".invalid" from the email address!
Hugh Watkins
> John Prentice wrote:
>> If you do succeed in running your genealogy software, let us know -
>> others might like to try it too.
>
> I tried this using WINE in Ubuntu 8.04 ("Hardy Heron") under VMWare on
> Windows XP, installing Family Tree Maker.
>
> The installer ran, but choked when it tried to install Microsoft .NET.
> Second time around it skipped that step, and installed FTM. It stuck on
> the "Publishing the [program information - can't remember the exact
> phrase]" stage that was the last step before completion. I ran FTM, but
> it died when it couldn't find the .NET stuff.
>
> So that combination (under Ubuntu) doesn't seem to work.
which FTM?
2008?
Hugh w
JJ206
oops, ahh well, I think the thread is done anyways, thanks allen.
Jonathan M.
Ian Goddard
> John Prentice wrote:
>> If you do succeed in running your genealogy software, let us know -
>> others might like to try it too.
>
> I tried this using WINE in Ubuntu 8.04 ("Hardy Heron") under VMWare on
> Windows XP, installing Family Tree Maker.
>
> The installer ran, but choked when it tried to install Microsoft .NET.
> Second time around it skipped that step, and installed FTM. It stuck on
> the "Publishing the [program information - can't remember the exact
> phrase]" stage that was the last step before completion. I ran FTM, but
> it died when it couldn't find the .NET stuff.
>
> So that combination (under Ubuntu) doesn't seem to work.
>
> John
--
Ian
Hotmail is for spammers. Real mail address is igoddard
at nildram co uk
John Prentice
> which FTM?
> 2008?
That's right. Bought from ancestry.com, as it's far cheaper - even with
the VAT, and the Post Office's 8 quid for collecting it - than buying
from the UK!
John
--
LOOK OUT, SPAM BLOCK AHEAD!
If you want to email me, remove ".invalid" from the email address
John Prentice
> If it's now a .NET app maybe you could run it under Mono?
The problem is that Mono and WINE don't seem to be talking to each other
properly, at least for FTM.
John
--
LOOK OUT, SPAM BLOCK AHEAD!
If you want to email me, remove ".invalid" from the email address
Hugh Watkins
> Hugh Watkins wrote:
>> which FTM?
>> 2008?
>
> That's right. Bought from ancestry.com, as it's far cheaper - even with
> the VAT, and the Post Office's 8 quid for collecting it - than buying
> from the UK!
still a work in progress even with SP3
stick with FTM 16 for easier data entry
Hugh W
Johnny
"Ian Goddard" <godd...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:uaCdnbcpaoW...@pipex.net...
Hotmail is not just for Spammers...
John Prentice
> Hotmail is not just for Spammers...
That's true. Nigerian fraudsters need email addresses too!
John
--
LOOK OUT, SPAM BLOCK AHEAD!
If you want to email me, remove ".invalid" from the email address
Johnny
"John Prentice" <johnp....@john-prentice.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:UsSdnWEUM6cDG6vV...@bt.com...
You obviously are very uninformed, or just a dumbass... I vote for the
latter...
John Prentice
> "John Prentice" <johnp....@john-prentice.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:UsSdnWEUM6cDG6vV...@bt.com...
>> Johnny wrote:
>>> Hotmail is not just for Spammers...
>> That's true. Nigerian fraudsters need email addresses too!
>>
>> John
> latter...
You clearly mistake me for someone who gives a monkey's.
Do come back when you've bought a sense of humour.
John
--
LOOK OUT, SPAM BLOCK AHEAD!
To email me, remove ".invalid" from the email address!
Allen
> Johnny wrote:
>> "John Prentice" <johnp....@john-prentice.com.invalid> wrote in
>> message news:UsSdnWEUM6cDG6vV...@bt.com...
>>> Johnny wrote:
>>>> Hotmail is not just for Spammers...
>>> That's true. Nigerian fraudsters need email addresses too!
>>>
>>> John
>> You obviously are very uninformed, or just a dumbass... I vote for the
>> latter...
>
> You clearly mistake me for someone who gives a monkey's.
>
> Do come back when you've bought a sense of humour.
>
> John
Allen