🚀 go-pugleaf

I have been reading the evaluation thread and want to add another perspective.

Evaluating individual resources is all very well, but for many queries the
first problem is reducing the number of candidates. Faced with 10000
replies one should of course elaborate the query to try to reduce the
number,  but even when the response has fallen to say 256 there is still a
problem. If one would be content with approximately one answer, it is very
likely (but, pax to some contributors, not certain) that adding AND NOT
url:com to the query will cut the number to say 30 or 40. One may have
thrown out a jewel, but ...

The same argument applies, with a larger margin of error, to tilde
addresses. There is a significant chance that such pages are no longer
available or dated, because they are quite probably the work of some
individual who no doubt intends to keep them updated but has many other
calls on his or her time.   Of course the same applies to other pages that
are less easily discriminated against, but when one wants "a plausible
answer to be looked at carefully"  this is an easy weed.

It would be interesting to know what other weeding techniques members use.

-----
Nick Capon          (08) 8278 3584
retired from CS Dept, Adelaide U., South Australia
 mailto:ncapon@adelaide.on.net