AltaVista Can't Keep Up 434
jedrek writes "MSNBC is reporting that Altavista, the great search engine, isn't able to keep it's listings current. Altavista hasn't renewed it's index since July which, seeing how it's almost November, is a tad too long." AltaVista was my weapon of choice until Google came along and was so much better that most net users jumped ship.
Oh well... (Score:2)
Re:Oh well... (Score:2)
can't make $$$ off a search engine can you?
Sure you can. google licenses their technology to corps who index their own networks. The main site functions as an advert for this.
The Google cache (Score:5, Interesting)
For example, more and more often I find myself just hitting the "Cached" link on a Google result, instead of bothering to go to the original site. Why put up with the threat of 404 errors with long timeouts, obnoxious Javascript, and pop-up ads, when you can get most of the content you're looking for straight from the search engine itself?
To some extent the Google cache threatens the ability of a site operator to gauge the site's popularity. If I were Google, I'd be tempted to turn the cache into a key part of the company's business: offer webmasters a "cache hosting" agreement (what's the difference between an original host and an up-to-date mirror?) that guarantees frequent updates and provides detailed statistical reporting, in exchange for a small monthly fee. Any advertising on the site would also need to be presented to the viewer of the cached copy.
IMHO something like this needs to happen, and soon. Otherwise, webmasters are going to become tempted to disable caching of their content to avoid lost page hits and ad revenue. And Google is going to get tired of paying for the bandwidth costs associated with being treated like a giant free hosting provider.
It's almost like a content-syndication feature, rather than a pure search-engine feature. I'll be surprised if their current caching model lasts much longer.
Re:The Google cache (Score:2)
To some extent the Google cache threatens the ability of a site operator to gauge the site's popularity
Oh, for Pete's sake...you must be a web designer. You know, customers needs are more important than webdorks' needs. Webdorks are not google's customers.
Otherwise, webmasters are going to become tempted to disable caching of their content to avoid lost page hits and ad revenue
Sure, go ahead. You'll pay more in bandwidth, and evidently money is the only point of the internet's existence.
It's almost like a content-syndication feature, rather than a pure search-engine feature
Buzzword alert! Buzzword alert! Danger! Danger!
Yaknow, there's more to life than pleasing web dorks at every possible turn. They tend to forget that, due to the ability to design they have.
Um, no. (Score:2)
Not in the least. Storing a page's contents in verbatim plaintext form is about the worst conceivable way to build a searchable database.
Oh, for Pete's sake...you must be a web designer. You know, customers needs are more important than webdorks' needs. Webdorks are not google's customers.
Wow, there's a first time for everything, I guess! Rest assured, nobody has EVER accused me of emphasizing design over content before today.
If you look at the extremely un-skillfully designed page referenced in my user info, you'll see a counter with close to 50,000 hits on it. That's neither a large nor a small number of hits for a personal geek page like mine, but the point I was implying earlier still stands. Namely, if I'd managed to accumulate only 5,000 hits over two years, do you think I'd bother adding any more content to that page?
Well, the Google cache makes that very scenario a distinct possibility. If 50,000 people are interested in my page for whatever reason, but I see only 10% of this level of interest reflected in page views, that's a problem, both for me and for the people who were following my various projects by surfing the Google cache.
Buzzword alert! Buzzword alert! Danger! Danger!
"Syndication" is not a buzzword. The concept of distributing content through multiple independent outlets is nothing new. That's exactly what the Google cache is starting to do, whether or not you (and they) have thought through all of the implications.
Yaknow, there's more to life than pleasing web dorks at every possible turn. They tend to forget that, due to the ability to design they have
Trust me, I couldn't agree more!
Re:The Google cache (Score:2)
But quick checking of the Google cache found undoctored copies of pages and the PhotoShop nature of the pictures.
So some latency delay isn't always a bad thing.
Re:The Google cache (Score:2)
"dynamic" search engine (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, a self-updating search engine. Where's my VC?
Re:"dynamic" search engine (Score:3, Insightful)
As long as they keep their database relatively updated (and google does) I'll be happy getting back un-checked results as fast as possible. Also, the google cache feature is REALLY nice and takes away most of the sting of 404s when they do pop up.
Re:"dynamic" search engine (Score:2)
Re:"dynamic" search engine (Score:2)
why i don't love anything but google... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:why i don't love anything but google... (Score:2)
Ahh yes, everyone and their mom wants to be a fucking portal. If you still like Altavista's search results (I don't) you should look at www.raging.com [raging.com].
Re:why i don't love anything but google... (Score:5, Funny)
Extend Your Search:
Shop the web for anthrax
Find anthrax at eBay! Register now!
Search for anthrax in your local yellow pages
Re:why i don't love anything but google... (Score:2)
A professor gave a talk last year regarding a new spectroscopic method using lasers; however, because of the interaction with the laser and the powdered sample, they wanted to design some method of shaking the powder on the sample tray as to keep 'fresh' sample under the laser at all times. Since they had to build this from scratch, he sent his grad students to the net to search for places that would sell this type of equipment.
Needless to say, the students had a, uh, rather interesting time searching the web for 'vibrator' vendors.
We want your clicks! (Score:2)
Of course, click-capturing destroys the original purpose of the search engine, which is to make the whole web accessible to the user. Google avoided this trap. Perhaps because they were late into the game, and benefited from the mistakes of others. But I get the impression that their founders just don't like in-your-face web advertising. And it's worked out well for them -- they have no trouble selling their low-key ads.
I use Google for about 95% of my searches. They have two big advantages over everybody else: the most comprehensive index, and the best result-ranking scheme. But I do wish they'd support something more sophisticated than simple stemmed-keyword searches. In some ways Google is the least sophisticated of all the search engines.
I especially miss Infoseek. Still have a T-shirt they sent me after I pointed out some glitches in their spam filters. It would have been nice if Infoseek had stayed out of Disney's clutches and avoided becoming a media-pimp portal. Damn, but we need some serious competition to keep Google from getting stuck in its successful rut. But in today's financial climate, the necessary development bucks are simply not there.
Re:why i don't love anything but google... (Score:2)
Why I stopped using AltaVista (Score:2)
Re:Why I stopped using AltaVista (Score:2)
Too bad, Altavista has nice features (Score:2, Interesting)
I hope they get it back in shape. Altavista has a few tricks up its sleeve that Google hasn't matched yet, like the ability to do an exact-string search. I find that looking up names is sometimes easier with an AltaVista search:
+"Larry Wall" -"Perl"
AltaVista also allows meta searches, like "which pages link to mine?" Google just doesn't have that. I use it for everything else, though.
~chrisRe:Too bad, Altavista has nice features (Score:3, Interesting)
I wish search engines would update links like every 100th time somebody clicks on them, that way the popular sites would be refreshed often.
Re:Too bad, Altavista has nice features (Score:2)
You can also do "Which pages link to mine?" searches off that page, or to do it quickly from the mainpage, enter (for example) "link:www.slashdot.org"
Re:Too bad, Altavista has nice features (Score:2)
Check this link out of pages linked to /. [google.com]
Go look through Google's Advanced search options. You'll be surprised.
Sure they do... (Score:2)
Go to google. Type in a URL and then there should be a link that says, find pages that link to url.
Google clearly superior (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Google clearly superior (Score:2)
For example search for interenete
Google: 76 results
Altavista: 9
Lycos: 49
HotBot: 35
Re:Google clearly superior (Score:3, Funny)
Google: 4810
Altavista: 1926
Lyocs: 2639
Hotbot: 2400
Re:Google clearly superior (Score:3, Funny)
What, you never seen a misteak before?
But alta vista had its day (Score:2)
When it was a marketing demonstration, it was spectacular. Then came the sad day when it was seen as a business of its own, and it fell fast . . .
hawk
Re:Google clearly superior (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Google clearly superior (Score:2)
Weapon of Choice? (Score:5, Funny)
Altavista used to be my weapon of choice, too. But then I switched to Christopher Walken.
Now I always have someone to talk to when I need to get results.
I must admit, he does tend to make a bit of a song and dance about it, though.
HastaLaVista (Score:2)
HastaLaVista Searches [geocities.com]
From the site: HastaLaVista receives over 12 million queries a day. As of last Thursday, we had responded to quite a few of them
If only google would... (Score:5, Interesting)
However, the one thing that keeps me using Alta Vista can be demonstrated with this example:
Earlier today, a co-worker and I were discussing [tuxedo.org]
Signetic's ficticious write only memory .
I wanted to see if anybody had ever put a copy of that data sheet up.
Now, searching with Google and the terms Signetics "write only memory" gets me over 80 hits, the last 40 of which have NOTHING to do with my search at all - they just contain one or more of the words. Note the quotes - I was searching for the exact phrase "write only memory", a distinction lost upon Google.
Now, searching on Alta Vista with Signetics near "write only memory" yeilds 57 hits, all of which are direct references to what I am looking for (most of which are mirrors of ESR's jargon file entry). Adding and not ("jargon file") neatly removes those, leaving 43 hits.
Why cannot Google add boolean searching to their engine? Perhaps they could do an initial fetch as they do now, then refine it with a boolean search?
Re:If only google would... (Score:2)
Maybe you are trying too hard to force Google to do what you want, when if you let it do it's magic, it would have known what you meant.
(The first google page of results were all relevant, the second page was about 80% relevant, on the unquoted string)
Re:If only google would... (Score:2)
My point was that, because I was unable to refine my search, Google took the most numerous link (the ESR link), and gave that to me.
To complete my point, go try and find a PDF of the original document, or a scan. The only scan I could find was rather crufy and not quite what I was looking for, and I had to search the rest to determine that no cleaner version was to be found. Those extra 40 non-related links just wasted my time.
Re:If only google would... (Score:2)
Re:If only google would... (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, Google cannot handle searches like:
(Signetics near ("Write Only Memory" or "write-only memory")) or ("dark emitting diode") or ("light emitting resistor")
It's kind of like the difference between a GUI and a command line - Google's implementation is more like a GUI, while Alta Vista's is more like a command line.
I am sure that for most folks, Google's advanced search is easier to understand, and that is an important design goal. However, I'd still like the full power of Alta Vista's boolean parser available to me as a power user. Perhaps Google could implement an extra field where folks like me could enter a complex boolean phrase.
Re:If only google would... (Score:2)
What about + and -?? (Score:3, Informative)
+Signetics +"write only memory" -antonym
returns a bogus press release as it's first result, which may be what you're looking for. (I used "antonym" because many jargon file copies don't explicitly say they're from the jargon file.)
I agree with the person who said you may be overspecifying your searches. The point is to find the stuff you want - as long as it lets you do that without much difficulty, does it really matter if you can't explicitly specify a true boolean search? You'd have to show me a case where Altavista really can find something that Google can't before I'd be convinced. All you've done is show that you weren't that familiar with Google.
Re:What about + and -?? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What about + and -?? (Score:2)
Google's use of +, though, is a bit screwy. If you put it before a non-stop word, it ignores all your +'s. So in order to search for a phrase including stop words, you have to search once for the phrase, let it tell you which words it didn't search, and then put a + before those and search again. Luckily, I don't have to search for "+to +be +or not +to +be" very often.
Re:If only google would... (Score:2)
Google does take some getting used to -- the mental heuristic I use is, "what would most people type if they wanted to find the result that I'm looking for.." This technique gives me excellent results.
Google is "too smart" for the kind of boolean searches that you discuss. The power behind Google is its ability to correlate a search phrase with pages that are selected first from the result set, while initially ordering pages based on the number of times they are linked to.
Re:If only google would... (Score:2)
(Signetics near ("Write Only Memory" or "write-only memory")) or ("dark emitting diode") or ("light emitting resistor")
I'd just do three searches:
The OR operator only gives you an advantage if several of your search terms have alternate spellings: (crash and (find or search) and (close or cancel)). I often use that kind of search when I'm looking for known Mozilla bugs in bugzilla, but I rarely need to use queries that complex when searching the web.
Re:If only google would... (Score:2)
Check Google's help page [google.com] and check the Basics of Search and Advanced Search Tips links for information on operators, related searches and other things along the lines you're talking about.
Re:If only google would... (Score:5, Informative)
is the proper way to search for "write only memory" on google.
Re:If only google would... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:If only google would... (Score:2)
Re:If only google would... (Score:2)
Re:If only google would... (Score:2, Interesting)
Let's say I'm trying to find some info on a guy named George A. Bush. I go to google, enter "George A Bush" and it gives me a bunch of results about President George W. Bush...telling me that "A" is a common word and was dropped from my search...I get the same result whether I enter it with or without quotes.
Now, I go to AltaVista and enter it with quotes, and while it does have some stupid crap about President George W. Bush before the listings, the listings are all specifically referring to somebody named George A. Bush...
NOW, I go BACK to google and enter "George +A Bush" and I get the results I'm after! Note that I have to use the quotes. When doing this, it forces the phrase and stops it from dropping the "A". Very nice.
Maybe there's no point in AltaVista after all...
Re:Google's Usenet searching almost useless, too (Score:2)
Excellent! They've added quite a few features since the last time I checked. The whole threading tree on the left-hand side is new to me too.
Okay, ignore my rant, then. :-)
Back in the day..... (Score:3, Insightful)
(early google beta days) I felt kinda like a pioneer that had stumbled on a secret pile of gold with Google....Now everyone in the office and the home front swears by google and uses nothing else. This is a perfect example of totally burying the competition in the dirt and then rolling over them....Cheers to Google...If a few more small things would have been in place -- you would have seen Linux doing the same to Windows.....(Imagine if todays Mozilla would have been around when IE4 was new....)
Strike early, strike hard...win!
Re:Back in the day..... (Score:2, Funny)
Few people could afford 256Mb memory in 1996.
Altavista (Score:2)
You know, altavista used to publish the date that the pages they search were last indexed at the bottom of each search link. They dropped that off about six months ago. None of the dates were showing up as being 2001. I noticed that search for a page for a site I had updated about three months ago was still showing the previous data.
yup, altavista sucks.
Rich
Who uses the Google Toolbar? (Score:2, Interesting)
Very useful for skim-reading pages to find relevant information, even if it isn't the page that you searched for originally
Excite sucks too. (Score:3, Interesting)
Old search engines are all losers (Score:4, Interesting)
Google is the king of all search engines. It is clean and pure, without the convoluted portal structure that has wrecked the others. Bow before Google, beg it to bestow upon you its collection of wisdom, and love it for being so great.
Re:Old search engines are all losers (Score:4, Interesting)
<meta HTTP-EQUIV="Refresh" CONTENT=300>
What's up with this?? Why are they refreshing my results every 5 minutes if they haven't updated their index in 3 months?
Monopoly anyone ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Monopoly anyone ? (Score:2)
Left behind (Score:4, Informative)
They were the first [altavista.com] to have a searchable full-text database and asian character sets (Chinese, Korean, Japanese).
Don't forget about Babel Fish [altavista.com] either... seems like this alone would be enough to keep them alive...
Ah well, wish them luck in a very difficult market.
Captain of the obvious (Score:2)
Gee, I wonder? I think it's common knowlege that those who pay to be listed are given priority to those who don't, otherwise there would be no motivation to pay. It's economics, plain and simple. I haven't read through the fine print of the Alta Vista usage policy but I'm pretty sure they outline the priority system there. I would be rather surprised if a search engine company charged people for their listings and then didn't give the paying customers some sort of benefit. On the other hand, just because someone doesn't pay doesn't mean they will be overlooked, but they will not get massive amounts of traffic based on their Alta Vista listing. Someone who's semi-comfortable using the search engine will probably construct powerful enough searches that if you're site has what they want, they will see it in their list of matches, probably somewhere close to the top. If someone has the same material on their site and they pay, theirs will be one above yours, and that's the way it should be.
It really is a shame that Alta Vista is getting lazy updating their free listings though, they have a great search tool and I like a lot of their functions, but it is outdated information and like the author I end up using Google most of the time.
Come ON! (Score:2)
Umm... isn't the very core of your purpose to update listings? And you haven't updated non-commercial listings since JULY? Whoever is managing this engine has entirely lost sight of what they need to be doing. Meanwhile google does a hell of a job giving web users what they want, without tons of rather deceitful advertising and gook all over the interface. (of course Google has advertising, but it is clearly deliniated, off to the side, and does not overwhelm true results) Altavista, of course, needs to get their act together or risk collapse.
Babelfish! (Score:2, Interesting)
So I hope the AV search engine will still prosper to some degree, so that the whole business doesn't tank and they take the Babelfish with it.
The strong points (Score:2)
In Google, when you search for a phrase, it tells you half the words are two common, and then gives you the rest out of order.
What turned me off of Altavista (Score:2)
Around the same time I heard about a new search engine with a more comprehensive search, caching, and a light interface. I was hooked.
I do miss boolean searching, but Google's targeted-text ads are way better than Altavista's destroy-the-entire-usefulness-of-the-search-engine wholesale-whoring-out-their-service-to-corporate-p imps advertisements.
Re:What turned me off of Altavista (Score:2)
Ah, but Google has ads in the latest issues of Fortune where they are selling the same thing.
Sad, but true.
Don't let VCs run businesses (Score:2)
The VCs will push you into doing ANYTHING, follow
any short term, well hyped, strategy to try to make a 0.01% better ROI for this quarter.
You can't build a company that is profitable in the long run by changing directions every quarter. This is especially true in technology based businesses where more than half of the total value of the company is the team and not physical assets.
Stonewolf
Strongpoints of Google (Score:2)
update every three hours (Score:2)
Now, apart from the plug (and this being slashdot, and me paying for the bandwidth, gawd knows why I did that), I point this out because even Google only updates every four weeks or so.
For some subjects (and the memes and odd sites you find via blogs are good examples) the specialist search engines are going to become very useful. Things like Distributed Searching, JXTA and so on are the way forward when the web is double the size it is today, and then double again.
One Google Gripe (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, I'm a little worried about everyone becoming dependent on one resource like this. Admittedly they seem to have a knack for figuring out the Right Thing, but monoculture is never a great idea in the modern world.
Re:One Google Gripe (Score:2)
If Google ever slows their pace of innovation, or someone else figures out a way to make more extensive catalogs of the internet, won't we just move on? Build a better mouse trap, and the world will beat a path to your door.
Or something like that.
Re:One Google Gripe (Score:2)
Re:One Google Gripe (Score:2)
Huh? You ask?
It's really far and away the best because it's quick and does make solid hits on most of your search term. It does this because its search is less complicated and bogs down less in niggling things like getting the best hits on your whole search term. It's pages are also an order of magnitude less complicated. Need to expand on a meme fast? Google's snappy, let's go there.
McDonald's food sucks, you say, but you eat there from 1 to 90 times a month. How often do you get to Pappadeaux, or Morton's, or somewhere else where the food is gorgeous, but takes longer, and effectively costs more time (both waiting and $$=your former work hours) per unit goodness.
--Blair
"The price of freedom is that you get the freedom you price."
Current? (Score:2)
God I hate crap like this. (Score:2)
Internet cognoscenti? Who is getting blown here, the writer, wired, or the reader? All three?
Cognoscenti must be the offspring of the Digerati, who begat Shem.
I have to agree... (Score:2)
ttyl
Farrell
Warning re Google (Score:2)
I'm quite serious.
I'll still use it, cause it is better, but it's not all that you think it is.
Re:Warning re Google (Score:2)
If you check the Google site, you'll notice that the advertising links are clearly marked... Yahoo and most other search/index sites do the same thing. If it helps them to continue offering high-quality service, I don't mind.
While we're on the subject... Has anyone else noticed that Google now includes PDF files in its searching? It indexes the content of the files and even lets you view them as plaintext. That's the best thing since bread came sliced, IMO.
shorter name? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:shorter name? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:shorter name? (Score:2)
www.av.com (pretty short) takes you to altavista. A whois says the record was created oct. 1998.
No, I dont believe that was the problem.
I did like altavista very much, and unlike google, it did have a good
But they kept loading banners and crap on their frontpage, and the site became very, very sluggish.
And then came google. Google is really what killed altavista: google was extremely fast, and very slick and simple. Their approach to searching really was something new, and they knew how to make money too, without bothering its users ("portals" was the money making hype at that time).
In the beginning, google hadn't indexed so many pages. A search on av, could often give better
Better service breaks loyalties (Score:2)
Google was so vastly superior that I quickly stopped using anything else except Northern Light for special searches.
I recall the graphical search aid AltaVista experimented with -- which was pretty useful once I learned the tricks. It was necessary to sort through the false hits generated by the "keyword" matching algorithm. Google, however, didn't need such a trick since it used the power of the Internet as its relevancy filter. Now, I'm so used to finding exactly what I want I can't imagine using a different method.
Here's the lesson: better service, better value beats "loyalty" and "branding" with discerning customers.
Problem with AltaVista (Score:2, Interesting)
Like many here, I too used to use altaVista religiously. Then came the portal debacle. Then the pop up ads. Then the meta-refresh. Then, all of a sudden I couldn't find the seach input. You are a search engine, therefore the only thing I care about on your page is the input and the results.. The usage numbers verify this statement.
The beauty of Google is that it has none of these.
A weird side effect is that if you search Altavista for "google" [altavista.com], good luck trying to find out how big a number it is...unless you follow the link that Altavista figures out for you.
Name too long (Score:2)
In order to reach popularity, the url for a site has to be really short. In the beginning, to use altavista, you had to type altavista.digital.com,
way too much. In those days I used hotbot (inktomi/wired) for searches, and whenever I drew a blank I would go to altavista.
When google came around, there was no need to use another site, since google is comprehensive, short to type, almost free from clutter, and the results seems to have fewer duplicates and irrelevant info.
I also remember not too long ago another search engine, with a horribly long name. Northernlight or something like that. What were they thinking?
Moral is:
get a REALLY short domain name, and deliver a good product and people will come. Fail on any of these 2 requirements, and you're a fucked company. It doen't matter how good your search engine is, if I have to type somegitnamedthiscompanywithoutthinking.com
I only bookmark specific information, not home pages.
Re:Name too long (Score:2)
Bullshit. On the contrary, your way of thinking LEADS to fucked companies. Short domain names have nothing to do with success. Flooz.com? eToys.com? VALinux.com? Need I go on?
Moral is:
get a REALLY short domain name, and deliver a good product and people will come. Fail on any of these 2 requirements, and you're a fucked company.
Wrong. Simply wrong. The aftermath of the internet bubble is littered with the carcasses of companies with excellent product, short easy name, high visibility and well-known among the public, and a fucked up business plan. Netscape comes immediately to mind....
Re:Name too long (Score:2, Informative)
Northernlight can also be reached at nlsearch.com [nlsearch.com]. Most comprehensive search engine on the web.
What about news.altavista.com? (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm not sure it is a widely known feature (I just discovered it recently), but I've grown pretty fond of news.altavista.com [altavista.com]. A normal search engine will rarely spider a news site quickly enough to be of use for the searches of the sort "there is a news story on the radio, let me go to the net and find out what they are really talking about" variety. Does anyone other than altavista offer a search engine of this sort?
less is more (Score:2)
Ditto to that. What made me change was all the "noise" and "junk" AV continually added to their search engine. Recently, I went back there to translate a page to English
If AV were smart, they'd leverage Bablefish and other useful tools to win users back. Instead, while they've tried to become more like Yahoo, they've given their competitor (google) time to implement image and usenet searches.
Someone needs to slap their CIO with a dose of reality.
+ and - is better than boolean AND and OR (Score:2, Informative)
With the + and - you get AND, OR, NOT, and MAYBE.
Google treats multiple words as OR conditions and also uses them as context indicators.
searching for THIS THAT will find things that have "THIS" or "THAT" or "THIS THAT". Pages where the words are closer together become more relavent. (The OR condition)
searching for +THIS +THAT is the same as saying "THIS and THAT" on AltaVista. Pages won't be returned unless both words appear on the page. (The AND condition)
searching for THIS +THAT is saying search for THAT, and if it has THIS, then include it as well (Thats the MAYBE condition ).
searching for THIS -THAT means return pages that have THIS on them, but do not include any pages that have THAT in them. (The NOT condition)
As you can see, it lends itself to some very powerful searches with very simple syntax. A far better solution than AND and OR IMHO.
Search Engine Wish List... (Score:2, Funny)
It was that AltaVista got worse, not Google better (Score:2)
From my point of view it wasn't that Google got better, but AltaVista, particularly the Advanced Search, got worse due to AltaVista doing the most idiotic things. AltaVista simply doesn't work right anymore. Presumably they let the work experience coders screw around with the algorithms. The Advanced seach, which I would probably still be using if it hadn't changed, no longer gives correct results for boolean expressions. Some of the pages it comes up with have no relevance whatsoever to the boolean search you type in.
IMHO the strength of AltaVista's boolean searching was the strength of AltaVista - with that gone, it was a foregone conclusion that the whole thing would come tumbling down.
Google has a linux penguin too (Score:2, Informative)
Message to Google: Buy the Fish! (Score:2)
Now that they've got Deja under their umbrella, Babelfish is all Google needs to be...
Best.... Search Engine.... Ever!
~Philly
Ant that isn't even the biggest Altavista's proble (Score:2, Insightful)
Google spoled me so badly that I now avoid by all means using any other search engine, it's THE standard by which I judge all the other search systems. Altavista doesn't come close.
The death of a pioneer (Score:2)
I can remember, some times ago, when ports 80 of all my subnet were scanned by a machine from digital.com
Sure, today, AV can't compete with Google. I'm not especially talking about the search engine itself. But AV web pages are bloated by tons of ads, and it's really lousy to use nowadays.
But maybe internet would never had a lot of powerful engine without AV. It was the seed (and it saved Digital, too... without this fantastic demo, Digital was about to go bankrupt) .
This is just like Netscape. Nowadays, everyone says that Netscape sucks, and that their browser is a crappy bugs collection. True. But with its so criticized "proprietary" HTML extensions, Netscape made web pages way better than before. Remember how ugly were Chimera and Mosaic? Remember how Netscape 3 kicked ass? And who introduced Javascript and Java first?
So, even if some companies/services have been obsoleted by their competitors, we should thank them for what the piece of technology they brang to everyone, and we should give them eternal respect.
Re:What use is Altavista nowadays? (Score:5, Informative)
Google does have an advanced search, with phrase mayching and the "AND, OR" boolean matching that made altavista usefull. It just isn't as widely publicized as altavista's was.
Try here [google.com] for the advanced search, and here [google.com] for how to use Google's pattern matching, its actually quite good (as is everything in Google).
Re:google vs altavista (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Asta La Vista Altavista (Score:2)
As did I, many moons ago. I'd forgotten Altavista even existed.
At least Astalavista [astalavista.box.sk] is still useful.
Re:Google vs. Altavista... (Score:2)
I recognize this is important from an indexing and performance point of view, but it makes some queries extremely difficult.
For instance, how would you search for the source of the quotation "Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their party"? That'll get cut down to "now time good men come aid party", and while I can think of a lot of web sites that might appear as a result of such a query, about 99% of them will probably not be what I'm looking for.
The problem is particularly annoying when you're looking for things like song lyrics. (Curse you, Harry Fox, may you rot in hell for eternity for what you pigfuckers did to lyrics.ch.)