HANDY FARM DEVICES

Page 1 of 2  

http://journeytoforever.org/farm_library/device/devicesToC.html
From the little I've checked so far, there's a lot of neat ideas. But, if you need detailed plans to work from, you're not gonna be happy at all.
JOAT A rolling stone gathers no moss...unless it's a hobby he does on the weekends.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 12:44:44 -0500, snipped-for-privacy@webtv.net (J T) wrote:

I have a printed paper copy of this (recent reprint) It's a good read.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 12:44:44 -0500, snipped-for-privacy@webtv.net (J T) wrote:

Once again you have come up with a great site, JOAT! What is especially fun about this is that my Father In Law uses a lot of these things daily.
-- "We need to make a sacrifice to the gods, find me a young virgin... oh, and bring something to kill"
Tim Douglass
http://www.DouglassClan.com
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Sat, Dec 17, 2005, 12:59pm (EST-3) snipped-for-privacy@bendcable.com (TimDouglass) sayeth: Once again you have come up with a great site, JOAT! <snip>
It would be even greater if I could come up with stuff like this on purpose. It's another gem found while looking for something else entirely. Just another thing to love about google.
JOAT A rolling stone gathers no moss...unless it's a hobby he does on the weekends.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 17:15:33 -0500, snipped-for-privacy@webtv.net (J T) wrote:

"It's better to be lucky than good"
-- "We need to make a sacrifice to the gods, find me a young virgin... oh, and bring something to kill"
Tim Douglass
http://www.DouglassClan.com
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Are others finding Google less and less useful? It seems that just about anything one searches for returns in excess of 100k hits, and usually more on the order of 1M hits. Despite claiming that it will return only results that contain all of the keywords selected, I'm finding more and more that many of those hits only contain a few of the keywords for which I was searching, thus cluttering up my search with irrelevancies. It also seems that if I don't find what I was looking for on the first couple pages, the remainder of the search results is either repeats or largely irrelevant.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Sat, Dec 17, 2005, 7:59pm (EST-2) snipped-for-privacy@hadenough.com (Mark&Juanita) one of them wonders: Are others finding Google less and less useful? <snip>

day with it.
It also seems that if I don't find what I was looking for on the first couple pages, the remainder of the search results is either repeats or largely irrelevant.

I'm tried probably most of the search tools out there, and I still prefer google. Yay google.
JOAT A rolling stone gathers no moss...unless it's a hobby he does on the weekends.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message

<snip>
Yes, and here's why. 1. More crap links than in the past. 2. Far too many of the first few pages of returns are suspiciously "commercial" and I suspect google may have sold out to sponsored hits as yahoo did. 3. Many links are now passed thru an ad server first (most of which I have blocked) which results in an error and I have to manually enter the url. It's a royal PITA.
On the plus side ... If you precede a search term with a minus symbol (ie -widget) google will exclude all returns that have widget on them. This can help to narrow the returns a lot.
Art
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You can do a lot more than that to narrow your search. Most of the possible search parameters are on the advanced search page, but you can construct a search much mor quickly just by typing it in. For example:
(plan,kit) (boat,ship) (wood,wooden) -model
will find pages with: plan OR Kit AND boat OR ship AND wood OR wooden ANDNOT model
The same syntax also works on e-bay and most other search engines. A properly conducted search can save hours of digging. 'Course you do miss some wierd stuff.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 08:17:36 GMT, with neither quill nor qualm, Lobby

Right you are, + you can stack ANDNOTs, too. -(model,balsa,brass)

And that can be the worst outcome ever. I've found so MANY neat items which were misfiled or misspelled.
--
Don't forget the 7 P's:
Proper Prior Planning Prevents Piss-Poor Performance
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 08:17:36 GMT, Lobby Dosser

... snip

Thanks for that short-cut. One problem I'm seeing is that as often as not, I will get links, using your example, that despite the AND function return results that only contain "kit" or "wooden" and none of the other required AND'ed terms. That is where I get frustrated.

When one has time, the wierd stuff is fun and often useful. But there are times when one wants (or needs) *the* answer and needs it *now* not after wading through several hundred pages of irrelevancies.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'v run into the same thing. In some instances the ANDed word seems to be on another page at the same site. What I'd like to see is a 'proximity' search - (Boat AND Kit WITHIN 10 WORDS), for example. AFAIK, none of the common search engines allow this or something similar.
Quite often I will do the initial search and then re-do to exclude a lot of the junk. Sometimes I'll refine an e-bay search several times; particularly if I'm going to save the search.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 14:14:56 -0700, Mark & Juanita

Remember that the term can appear anywhere on that page, not just in the visible text, but in the source code comments and the header terms. Many web sites use a standard header that contains key words for *all* their pages, resulting in every single page on their site meeting your search terms. Those that have your terms (or some of them) in the text will be ranked higher (usually) but a lot of those late pages fall in this category.
That's the why - don't really know what to do about it. I was thinking just yesterday about a pay-per-search system where you could make a request to a real person (probably in India, natch) who could do the hard work for you.
One trick that helps is to put together a phrase and include it in quotes. "wooden car", for example.
-- "We need to make a sacrifice to the gods, find me a young virgin... oh, and bring something to kill"
Tim Douglass
http://www.DouglassClan.com
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Yep, and that is a problem.

I do that quite often. It helps some, usually reducing the results from on the order of 800,000 down to a more manageable 250,000. :-)
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Someone mentioned MetaCrawler. Tried it today and it is way better than Google for getting relevant hits. I used the example I gave earlier in the thread. YMMV.
Here's the url:
<http://www.metacrawler.com/index.html
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 10:39:19 GMT, Lobby Dosser

... snip

Thanks! That's a keeper. I just tried it with one of the search items that indicated how bad using Google has become:
In google, typing in "John Deere 420 tractor operator manual" returns 60,800 hits. With metacrawler, the same search phrase returns 50 hits. A cursory look indicates that the top hits with metacrawler are equally, or more relevant than the ones with google.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The Mark & Juanita entity posted thusly:

That's because you didn't enclose the string in quotes. Try the same phrase in quotes and you'll find it returns 4 (Yes, only 4 (four)) hits, and ALL of them are relevant.

That search returns quite a number of irrelevant hits.
Methinks you are too hard on Google.
Larry
--
There are 10 kinds of people --
those who understand binary, and those who don't.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

That may be the case, but by enclosing that in a quote string would preclude hits that include things like: Operator Manual for Tractors: John Deere 40, 50, 70, 420, 520, 720 Tractor operator manuals: John Deere    420U, 420W, 420T Manuals for sale, tractor operating, John Deere 420
All of which would have been relevant but would not have met the strict quoted search criteria. I have done searches like that only to have *no* results returned. Loosening the criteria by one or two words, or permutations of those words is both time-consuming and often results in a step increase in results (as in from none to 10,000+)

50 hits is a whole lot easier to sort out than 60,000+

The above was offered as one simple example of why Google search results are becoming problematic. It was not meant to be all-inclusive. As I indicated above, yes, one can really tighten down the search criteria by requiring exact matches to quoted strings, the problem with that is that one then may miss something that is completely relevant but misses by only one character. OTOH, when submitting a search request to find *all* of the words in one's search, getting results in which only 80% of those words are visibly present for the searcher is a signifcant source of the data overload. Whether that is due to the web site spoofing the keywords with the html source code, or Google returning results that include those words on referenced pages in the search result doesn't matter to the end user, he is still overloaded with data.

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The Mark & Juanita entity posted thusly:

Well, to me, that falls under the general category of using the tool correctly. If you are trying to saw wood, a file will work, but it isn't the best way.

It's an art form. Combining exact phrases with single words can result in excellent filtering, as can specifying "without" words and limiting the search to title only, text of page only, etc.
Hmm.. you ARE using "Advanced search", aren't you?

See comments on limiting search to certain parts of a page.
Larry
--
There are 10 kinds of people --
those who understand binary, and those who don't.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Sun, Dec 18, 2005, 12:03am (EST-3) snipped-for-privacy@zzzz.com (WoodButcher) doth advisth: <snip> If you precede a search term with a minus symbol (ie -widget) google will exclude all returns that have widget on them. This can help to narrow the returns a lot.
True. But, I seldom use a minus sign, because sometimes I find some of the most interesting sites that way. I only use that when I'm really, really, intensely looking for something specific. In fact, if I mis-spell a search word, sometimes I'll let it go, just to see what comes up.
For one project, for myself, I searched for around 6ix month. With no usable results. Changed search words, and search phrases, quotes, no quotes, minus sign, every pertinent word I could think of. Zip results. Then one day happened on a site that had something related, with a word I would never have suspedted related. Stuck that in my search words, and within three days had all the information I was after, and more.
Sometimes if you don't find what you're looking for, it's not google's fault; it's yours - because you're not using the right buzz word(s). It ain't rocket science, just means you're not being patient enough. Or maybe just not using your imagination - that seems to happen a lot arond here.
JOAT You'll never get anywhere if you believe what you "hear". What do you "know"?. - Granny Weatherwax
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.