ANN: JavascriptSearchEngine.com

[Matt Kruse]

As a test of google's new custom search engine functionality, I have
created:

http://www.JavascriptSearchEngine.com/

Use it to quickly and easily search the best javascript sites on the web.
Feel free to join it and contribute by helping to customize the sites that
it searches!

 

[Pi]

Awesome. Thanks. Already bookmarked it.

 

[Michael Winter]

Matt Kruse wrote:

[snip]

http://www.JavascriptSearchEngine.com/

It doesn't appear to search the archives of this group, unlike your
previous search engine. Any particular reason for that?

[snip]

Mike

 

[Matt Kruse]

It doesn't appear to search the archives of this group, unlike your
previous search engine. Any particular reason for that?

My other search (which still exists) restricted the authors when it searched
this group, which I don't think is possible using their custom search
engine. I chose not to search the whole group, because it could result in
matches that are incorrect. Do you think it would be better to include the
whole group, regardless of author?

 

[Randy Webb]

Matt Kruse said the following on 11/8/2006 11:25 AM:

My other search (which still exists) restricted the authors when it searched
this group, which I don't think is possible using their custom search
engine. I chose not to search the whole group, because it could result in
matches that are incorrect. Do you think it would be better to include the
whole group, regardless of author?

And include VK's ramblings among others? That's a scary proposition.

 

[Michael Winter]

My other search (which still exists) restricted the authors when it
searched this group, which I don't think is possible using their
custom search engine.

I thought that was the reason, but there was the (slight) possibility
that it was overlooked, or that there was some other explanation. Just
asking.

I haven't used their custom search facility, so I couldn't say it was
possible or not.

I chose not to search the whole group, because it could result in
matches that are incorrect. Do you think it would be better to
include the whole group, regardless of author?

No. I think the reasons are obvious.

Mike