On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 19:08:22 -0600, chuck <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>> -----Original Message-----
>> Can Jeff do anything about that?
>>
>> David
>>
>> --- Reef Fish <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> >
>> > The LISTSERV archives (both Scuba-L AND Scuba-SE) are very
>> > ineffective, and incredibily slow.
>> >

>I doubt it. They are what they are.  Generated by the software.

That much is correct.


>Speed is probably more a function of your connection.  On my DSL
>connection they are plenty fast enough.
>
>CH

Hogwash!

For an Ostrich who sticks his head in the sand, how do you expect
it to know anything about archive search?  He is too lazy to
even to retrieve and read the posts he criticized by having
read only snippets from other's posts.


The SPEED and EFFECTIVENESS in question has NOTHING to do with
the speed of the internet connection, RELATIVELY speaking.


For any GIVEN speed of computer AND internet connection speed,
the SOFTWARE (algorithm) google uses is so much more sophisticated
and so much more effective than the next nearest competitor that
Wall Street is talking about the competitors bidding to buy
Google with BILLIONS of dollars just for that reason.


DSL, big deal.   Complete irrelevant in the comparison of
search effectiveness and speed using GOOGLE vs LISTSERV
archives.


Just for a concrete example, I went to groups.google.com and did
a SCUBA TOPIC search, with nothing specified except


keyword = "buoyancy",   and author = "reef fish".


Google found 134 hits (THREADS, within each I may have posted
many posts on the same subject), in 0.34 sec (that is 1/3 of
one second), of my posts, mostly in Scuba-L, from years 1992
(the first year I used the posting name of "reef fish" to the
present. including one in rec.scuba.locations in 2003.


When I used the SAME search criteria in Scuba-L's LISTSERV
search, it missed ALL of my posts in Scuba-L.


Chuck Hopf, your ignorance showed AGAIN.

-- Bob.