herme3 Posted March 9, 2006 Posted March 9, 2006 Has anybody visited http://www.live.com and used the search engine? I think it's great because you don't have to worry about clicking on different pages. All you need to do is scroll up or down. Microsoft is still trying to work a few bugs out, but it looks great so far.
RyanJ Posted March 9, 2006 Posted March 9, 2006 Have tried it but I like Google, it combines everything I need in one place Cheers, Ryan Jones
Dave Posted March 9, 2006 Posted March 9, 2006 It doesn't work on Konqueror, and Google does. So I'm not using it
RyanJ Posted March 9, 2006 Posted March 9, 2006 It doesn't work on Konqueror, and Google does. So I'm not using it I'm surprised it works in Firefox if M$ made it... Cheers, Ryan Jones
ecoli Posted March 9, 2006 Posted March 9, 2006 My two favorites are google, obviously and http://www.grokker.com, a project of yahoo.
RyanJ Posted March 9, 2006 Posted March 9, 2006 My two favorites are google, obviously and www.grokker.com[/url'], a project of yahoo. Hmm, never heared of the second one. I find Google is the most comprehensive but they should re-make the system to filter all the crap out. Somtimes you need to go back a few pages before you find what you are looking for. I believe Google said they are working on a better filter system...if they ever come out of beta Cheers, Ryan Jones
herme3 Posted March 9, 2006 Author Posted March 9, 2006 It doesn't work on Konqueror, and Google does. So I'm not using it What do you mean? What is Konqueror? Somtimes you need to go back a few pages before you find what you are looking for. That's what I like about live.com so much. You don't need to keep clicking through the pages. You just scroll up or down. It seems like such a great idea. Why did search engines separate the search results into different pages in the first place?
RyanJ Posted March 9, 2006 Posted March 9, 2006 What do you mean? What is Konqueror? Its a browser for UNIX based OS' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konqueror That's what I like about live.com so much. You don't need to keep clicking through the pages. You just scroll up or down. It seems like such a great idea. Why did search engines separate the search results into different pages in the first place? Probably for legal and maintinance issues. Including text, images, whatever, from a page on your site can be considered a breach of copyright and can get you sued. Its also easier to maintain and makes searcing faster becausse you don't need toextract so much on your page queries. Cheers, Ryan Jones
JustStuit Posted March 9, 2006 Posted March 9, 2006 I only use google and it works fine for me. If only they got an audio search.
RyanJ Posted March 9, 2006 Posted March 9, 2006 I only use google and it works fine for me. If only they got an audio search. You can use the filetype feature, does not mention audio and video but they work non the less... More information from here. Cheers, Ryan Jones
JustStuit Posted March 9, 2006 Posted March 9, 2006 You can use the filetype feature' date=' does not mention audio and video but they work non the less... More information from here. Cheers, Ryan Jones Oh that's cool. I never realized that would work for the filetype. This will be useful.
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted March 9, 2006 Posted March 9, 2006 Alas, it doesn't work in Opera. Shouldn't have expected any more, I suppose.
RyanJ Posted March 9, 2006 Posted March 9, 2006 Oh that's cool. I never realized that would work for the filetype. This will be useful. Yes, Google actually logs every file it scans (Even though they do not mention it) and so searching for just about any type works... just don't try the "view as HTML" option... you could cause a crash. Cheers, Ryan Jones
JustStuit Posted March 9, 2006 Posted March 9, 2006 I wonder why they don't publicize that, it seems like something many people would use.
RyanJ Posted March 9, 2006 Posted March 9, 2006 I wonder why they don't publicize that, it seems like something many people would use. Probably because people can easily abuse it... if a site had say illegally upoaded films the bot will not care and list it anyway... Thats probably the reason, once the new filters are finished it should be made full (There are some types it completly blocks for security reasons) Cheers, Ryan Jones
herme3 Posted March 9, 2006 Author Posted March 9, 2006 Its also easier to maintain and makes searcing faster becausse you don't need toextract so much on your page queries. How does separating into pages make searching faster? I think that live.com is much easier than clicking on different pages. It doesn't load everything at one time, it loads more data as you scroll. This is great if you have a mouse that automatically scrolls. Instead of constantly clicking on the "next page" link, you can just let your mouse scroll through the results and stop it when you see a web site you want. Alas, it doesn't work in Opera. Live.com works fine with IE and Firefox. I would say there is something wrong with Opera.
RyanJ Posted March 9, 2006 Posted March 9, 2006 How does separating into pages make searching faster? I think that live.com is much easier than clicking on different pages. It doesn't load everything at one time, it loads more data as you scroll. This is great if you have a mouse that automatically scrolls. Instead of constantly clicking on the "next page" link, you can just let your mouse scroll through the results and stop it when you see a web site you want. Simple reasoning, the less queries you use the less data you need to pull, Google uses 3 queries I bet that pges uses a hell ofa lot more. Notonly that but google uses extract markup, only parts are returned. That thing returns more and so its slower. Not saying its bad - its just less effective and fails to offer the tools I like. Cheers, Ryan Jones
Klaynos Posted March 10, 2006 Posted March 10, 2006 Live.com works fine with IE and Firefox. I would say there is something wrong with Opera. On what grounds? Personally I don't know whether it's a lack of standards compliance or a lack of features with opera. I don't know so I'm asking in all seriouseness why you say this? Back on track I personally would rather have a simpler layout, it's a bit too fidily and busy for me. And I can see alot of people having useability issues with it (I have friends who use computers for around 7 hours every day who I just showed this too and got completely confussed by the internal scrooling) It is an intereasting idea though...
RyanJ Posted March 10, 2006 Posted March 10, 2006 Firefox and Opera are on equal footings as far as standards support goes so I don't see how it can be a compatability problem... Cheers, Ryan Jones
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted March 10, 2006 Posted March 10, 2006 There are certain things that Opera don't like at all. I know that until recently, Firefox also didn't work with live.com, so I assume it's some not-often-used feature (perhaps a proprietary Microsoft bit, though I don't know) that the Opera team didn't bother with yet.
herme3 Posted March 10, 2006 Author Posted March 10, 2006 On what grounds? Personally I don't know whether it's a lack of standards compliance or a lack of features with opera. I don't know so I'm asking in all seriouseness why you say this? IE and Firefox are the two main web browsers that people use. Both of these web browsers work with live.com without any problems. Does it really make sense to say there is something wrong with live.com? And I can see alot of people having useability issues with it (I have friends who use computers for around 7 hours every day who I just showed this too and got completely confussed by the internal scrooling) It is an intereasting idea though... I'm sure if these friends used DOS, they would get confused when they first started using a GUI operating system. Does that mean DOS is better than a GUI operating system? This is a new concept. It may take some people a while to adjust. That is how society advances.
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted March 10, 2006 Posted March 10, 2006 IE and Firefox are the two main web browsers that people use. Both of these web browsers work with live.com without any problems. Does it really make sense to say there is something wrong with live.com? Looking at Google, it appears that live.com is using odd methods to get data and such that are simply not supported by other browsers. They made workarounds for Firefox, but most other browsers don't have the necessary support. It's most likely a problem of "nobody ever uses that element" syndrome. I'm sure if these friends used DOS' date=' they would get confused when they first started using a GUI operating system. Does that mean DOS is better than a GUI operating system? This is a new concept. It may take some people a while to adjust. That is how society advances.[/quote'] BAD ANALOGY ALERT!!! Klaynos was stating that the interface is not intuitive. I found it odd as well. The scrollbar acted differently than any other scrollbar I have seen (though I did figure it out eventually) and most people would have problems with it. Items were not labeled either (like the option to have more/less information associated with each result) and the only way to find out what they did was to try it. Not a very good interface, if you ask me.
doG Posted March 10, 2006 Posted March 10, 2006 Have tried it but I like Google, it combines everything I need in one place You ought to check out RefDesk.com then, they really put it all in one place
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now