- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 22:02:42 -0500
- To: Terje Bless <link@tss.no>
- CC: W3C Validator <www-validator@w3.org>
Terje Bless wrote: > > On 18.04.01 at 01:13, Brian Gilkison <gilkison@one.net> wrote: > > >I thought I'd posted the package URL in in one of my postings back in > >March, but I can't seem to find which one at the moment. > > <rant froth-level="extreme"> > Ok, as of right now I'm officially declaring the list archives to > suck badly, horribly, and terribly. AltaVista was always dain > bramaged, but it's now crossed over into a whole new dimension > of suckage. > > Could whoever is in charge of that bogosity (Dan?) I might have had a small influence in choosing altavista; for a while, I was happy with the way altavista.digital.com worked. But I didn't set up our local installation, and I've never been particularly happy with it. I don't think anybody is. I think it's better than nothing, but I'm not sure; sometimes it sets expectations that it doesn't meet... you end up wasting time thinking it's gonna work. I wish we had something better, but unfortunately, wishing doesn't make it so. It evidently takes a lot of work to set up a fulltext search service capable of working for our web site. For public stuff, it's often best to use google.com with +host:w3.org or whatever. > please take it > out back and put several bullets through it's head? I vote it's > replaced with a local Google or a custom built system. The archiver > looks good AFAICT, but the indexer and/or search engine are badly > confused, obtuse, and convoluted. I'll pay _blood_ for a better one! > </> > > The message you are looking for is > <URL:http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-validator/2001JanMar/0221.html>. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 18 April 2001 23:02:49 UTC