> >This is a common mistake that information creators think 'is a good
> >thing'... The web got popular for a number of reasons - one of them being
> >"full text indexing of all content" (including headers/footers/etc).
>
> Why? There is no useful information in headers/footers. By nature of
On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 12:33:18PM -0500, Pete Prodoehl wrote:
> I've seen sites where I could read a word on a page, input it into the
> 'site search' box, and get no results. This tells me that the word does
> not exist on the site (even though I can see it) or more likely that
> this is not r
At 11:30 AM 6/3/04 -0700, Mark Fuller wrote:
<>
A good indexer would add weight to words that appear in headers/footers
which also appear in title, meta keyword/description, headings, and
expository content (paragraphs, list items, data terms and definitions).
Conversely, reduce weight for words ap
From: "Pete Prodoehl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I've seen sites where I could read a word on a page, input it into the
> 'site search' box, and get no results.
Some search/indexing tools exclude common and site-defined words. I used a
really nice local indexing tool called WebGlimpse[1] and it had thi
Timm Murray wrote:
At 09:38 AM 6/3/04 +1000, Mathew Robertson wrote:
This is a common mistake that information creators think 'is a good
thing'... The web got popular for a number of reasons - one of them
being "full text indexing of all content" (including
headers/footers/etc).
Why? There i
At 09:38 AM 6/3/04 +1000, Mathew Robertson wrote:
> > > Inevitably, there will be certain pages using TMPL_INCLUDE tags. I
imagine
> > > that most of these will contain data that will not want to be
searched for,
> > > such as footers, and therefore my filter program can simply ignore
> > > them
