Re: swish-e vs. webglimpse

Gordon,
I have to agree that the docs are cryptic, which is why we are nearly done with completely reworking the manual. It has not yet been released, but you're welcome to an early look at:

http://sunsite.Berkeley.EDU/SWISH-E/Manual/

Please let me know if you still find it cryptic so we can fix it. Our intent is to make it as easy to understand the application as it is to use it.

As to it being "dinky", I'd have to say that that is exactly the point. Back before I got sucked into this, I looked at both Glimpse and SWISH. This was before I knew a lick of Perl. Being of practical mind, I went with SWISH, which was incredibly simple. This eventually led to my desire to fix it and improve upon it. For example, does Glimpse allow you to limit your terms to HTML <META> tags? I think not. However, is it nonetheless a great search engine? I have no doubt. So rather than such odd evaluation criteria as "dinkiness" or "flair", take at a look at their relative capabilities and make your decision based on how each would meet your needs. That's at least how I would do it. Roy Tennant
SWISH-E Manager

On Fri, 11 Sep 1998, Gordon H. Buchan wrote:

> OK, people, not to be a s--- disturber or anything, but let's have it:
>
> should I install swish-e or webglimpse?
>
> I've compiled swish-e, built an index, and sent a test query. Tell you the
> truth, I wasn't impressed. The docs are cryptic, and the software just
> seems, well, dinky.
>
> The WebGlimpse people seem to have more flair. The Arizona site is very good.
>
> I'm leaning towards WebGlimpse. Any input to the contrary?
>
>
>
Received on Fri 11 Sep 1998 06:36:09 PM GMT