homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.196.24.103
register, free tools, login, search, subscribe, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Pubcon Website
Home / Forums Index / Advertising / Paid Inclusion Engines and Topics
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: Brett Tabke

Paid Inclusion Engines and Topics Forum

  posting off  
AV producing the most accurate results?
Brett_Tabke




msg:21298
 4:15 am on Aug 4, 2000 (gmt 0)

I've been using AV as my default se now since last fall. I've tried using others, but for the sake of general searches, I don't think AV can be beat. I don't think there is another engine even close to what they are doing.

If I had to rank the se's by current relevant results:

1: AV. Extremely low spam ratio now. Results are very tight to the search. My only beef is as a search gets more complicated with more keywords, the results can stray all over the place. AV tends to fixate on one popular keyword in the search and return results from that word instead of the whole search string.

Such as; earlier I was searching for "microsoft windows 98 tooltip tweaks fixes". AV just couldn't get past the "microsoft windows" in the search string and return any results related to tooltips.

2: Pure Ink (Iwon). Hmmm. I like Ink, and this is as good as it gets.

3: Infoseek (yes). when used with the 'search within results', it is quite accurate. Unlike AV, when you drill down with more complicated searches, results become very accurate. When I couldn't find any info on my tooltips search, I went to Infoseek and drilled right down to it with search within these results.

4: Fast/AllTheWeb. A touch spammy in places, but I find their result to be a close gauge of reality.

5: Excite. Their new results are pretty good. I really like the new low key layout.

6: Lycos. Although it is rerolled Fast, it is still good.

7: Google. I don't get it. Rarely have I found anything I was looking for at Google. 9 out of 10 searches fail in frustration at the impossible task deciphing the results. The most over hyped engine I've seen. They simply don't deliver the results.

8: The also rans: Hotbot,MSN,Direct *hit, etal.


 

seth_wilde




msg:21299
 3:51 pm on Aug 4, 2000 (gmt 0)

"I don't think AV can be beat. I don't think there is another engine even close to what they are doing"

I definitely have to agree with you here. Their aggressive use of cutting edge technology has pushed them to the front of line. Everyone was worried for a while that directories like ODP would take over the industry, but I think AV has proved that spidering search engines can be as relevant (if not more relevant) and much more comprehensive than a directory.

They did step on our toes quite a few times in the process (maybe break would be a better term than step). But I think everyone's happy with the end results.

oilman




msg:21300
 3:58 pm on Aug 4, 2000 (gmt 0)

I've always been an AV fan as well. Pop over to FAST every so often but usually only after AV has let me down.

Used to hit Yahoo on the *very* rare occasion when they were still running INK results but now with goog results I have been staying far away.

DrCool




msg:21301
 9:00 pm on Aug 4, 2000 (gmt 0)

I agree. AltaVista consistantly returns the best results for me. I agree with Brett on Google. Some others in my office swear by it but I find it to be terrible.

rogerd




msg:21302
 9:25 pm on Aug 4, 2000 (gmt 0)

I've used AV as my portal for years, mainly because I learned how to use the various search modifiers that let you do incredibly precise searches.

I've found the results to be less desirable for general searches, like single words or common, simple phrases. There always seem to be a few pages in the top ten that one can't imagine how they got there. The do seem less spammed out than some.

rcjordan




msg:21303
 9:45 pm on Aug 4, 2000 (gmt 0)

>search modifiers that let you do incredibly precise searches.

Absolutely, and you'd be surprised how few know that you can use +, -, or "" .

When AV fell apart last year, I did switch to ixquick [ixquick.com] for a while, though as a meta it is dependent on others for the algo. It still gave me the best returns using the search modifiers, but not quite as good as AV/Raging. I still switch off to ixquick if I'm coming up short on AV, but it usually just doesn't happen. Get your modifiers right, and you rarely have to go elsewhere or deeper than the first 100 listings.

rcjordan




msg:21304
 8:35 pm on Aug 5, 2000 (gmt 0)

Here's a meta that I use when I want to find stuff on the fringes --MetaEureka [metaeureka.com]
Try it, it brings up sites I rarely see elsewhere. Perhaps that's because of its chosen SE "mix," AltaVista, Google, NorthernLight, Fast, and Snap.

metaman




msg:21305
 3:13 am on Aug 7, 2000 (gmt 0)

I agree. I have been using AltaVista for quite some time now. Believe it or not, I use Goto as a backup sometimes and lately I've been dropping by Fast and I like them too.

Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Advertising / Paid Inclusion Engines and Topics
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved