 |
 |
Keith, 41,000 sites and 21 million pages (http://www.ablegrape.com/en/about.html) is a lot of vetting. An admittedly quick check of the site didn't explain the vetting process to me, but did profess a "...background in search technology..." Authoratative vetting of a large volume of resources is a hard problem. I haven't seen any good solutions, but am leaning toward crowd-sourcing with an authoratative crowd. :-) Do you have any additional information on how AbleGrape vets these? Tim Cornwell National Science Digital Library (http://nsdl.org) > -----Original Message----- > From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On > Behalf Of Keith Jenkins > Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 5:35 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Bookmarking web links - > authoritativeness or focused searching > > AbleGrape.com is a good example of a focused search engine that aims > to index only "authoritative" sources within a particular disciple -- > in this case it's wine, enology, and viticulture. It currently crawls > about 40,000 vetted websites. > > It's a great search engine for the subject area it serves, and it > probably helped that the creator was a VP at Inktomi. > > Keith > > > On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 10:53 AM, Cindy Harper > <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > So that led me to speculate about a search engine that > ranked just by links > > from .edu's, libraries sites, and a librarian-vetted list of .orgs, > > scholarly publishers, etc. I think you can limit by .edu > in the linked-from > > in Google - I haven't tried that much. if anyone here has > experience at > > using tha technique, I'd like to hear about it. But I'm > thinking now about > > the possibility of a search engine limited to sites > cooperatively vetted by > > librarians, that would incorporate ranking by # links. > Something more > > responsive than cataloging websites in our catalogs. > > > > Is anyone else thinking about these ideas? or do you know > of projects that > > approach this goal of leveraging librarian's vetting of > authoritative > > sources?