<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"><channel><title>Bob Caswell - Latest Comments in Search 1.0: Search Engines Still Lack Simple Features</title><link>http://bobcaswell.disqus.com/</link><description>Media consumer, tech enthusiast, and blogger</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Sun, 02 Mar 2008 14:51:29 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Search 1.0: Search Engines Still Lack Simple Features</title><link>http://bobcaswell.com/2008/02/04/search-10-search-engines-still-lack-simple-features/#comment-1187458</link><description>I often find myself trying to track down the original source of an item that appears thousands of times on the Internet. So far, the only search engine I've found with a good date component is &lt;a href="http://alltheweb.com" rel="nofollow"&gt;alltheweb.com&lt;/a&gt;. I'm not sure why others can't do the same.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Christopher Dunagan</dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 02 Mar 2008 14:51:29 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Search 1.0: Search Engines Still Lack Simple Features</title><link>http://bobcaswell.com/2008/02/04/search-10-search-engines-still-lack-simple-features/#comment-1187457</link><description>Too true, Paul, but someone needs to point out the obvious. I'm not sure if search engines will listen to me much, but their formula and options haven't appeared to change much for years (as far as we consumers can see on the surface).&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;It's time for some real innovation in search, folks, Google is so last century!</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">bobcaswell</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 05 Feb 2008 22:29:16 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Search 1.0: Search Engines Still Lack Simple Features</title><link>http://bobcaswell.com/2008/02/04/search-10-search-engines-still-lack-simple-features/#comment-1187456</link><description>I'm guessing that one plausible reason would be, enabling "search by date" might also expose some of the shortcomings in the search engines' spiders.  We know there is so much content they don't crawl every day... but it is likely in their best overall interest to keep awareness of that fact to a minimum...</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Paul Burani, Clicksharp Market</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 05 Feb 2008 22:17:25 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Search 1.0: Search Engines Still Lack Simple Features</title><link>http://bobcaswell.com/2008/02/04/search-10-search-engines-still-lack-simple-features/#comment-1187454</link><description>I would use it all the time too. You have to admit that the main thing that has changed with web search over the last 5 years is the size of the index. All of the companies have really left their search where is was (more or less) and have just searched more pages, or applied the search to images, shopping, news, etc, but haven't really enhanced their web search. That's why I just can't believe it when people act like it would be impossible for any company to topple Google's grip.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Paul Ellis</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 04 Feb 2008 20:28:04 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Search 1.0: Search Engines Still Lack Simple Features</title><link>http://bobcaswell.com/2008/02/04/search-10-search-engines-still-lack-simple-features/#comment-1187455</link><description>This would be an amazing feature especially for students or researchers.  I know there have been plenty of times where I have been working on research type projects and consistently found information that was related to my topic, but incredibly out dated.  It would have been great to have been able to sort by date and find the most recent information.  This is especially true when you're researching computer information.  I find articles dating back to 2003 or 2004, and in a lot of cases that information is no longer valid.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Tyler Reber</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 04 Feb 2008 13:08:02 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>