On 9/13/07, Stewart Stremler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > begin quoting Tracy R Reed as of Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 05:07:16PM -0700: > [snip] > > On the contrary I still find that google can find what I need very > > quickly and I use it several times every day. The usefulness of google > > seems unchanged to me. > > Google is turning into my preferred index into wikipedia. Google is > pretty fast at finding wikipedia pages...
Take a look at Googlepedia. It replaces the adds with the Wikipedia page corresponding to the search term. I am using it experimentally but so far I like it. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/search?q=googlepedia&status=4 > For finding actual useful (non-wikipedia) content, it may be better than > most of the other search engines, but most of my queries do not return > satisfactory answers. "Google is the best" is faint praise. "It is a poor workman blame his tools." as mom used to say. Seriously if you are not finding stuff it may be that you simply don't use relevant terms (or enough of them.) My main bitch is not that I do not find stuff but that I have to look deeper into the links returned than I used to. Partly this is just that the web has grown, partly gaming Google, and partly the real fact that search is still not good enough. There is also the fact that in many areas good stuff is still not really open but requires one subscribe to various sources. I am thinking medical here. It seems many medical journals are bundled up behind costly proprietary services. Perhaps an example of something that you are looking for but cannot find easily would be a good challenge for the group. BobLQ -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
