<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_13_2014230</id>
	<title>Attractive Open Source Search Interfaces?</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1263370920000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"I work for a company that manages an online database for the political market. We add to this DB daily with updates from a variety of sources and our customers then search through this content via our <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solr">Solr</a>/<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucene">Lucene</a> search engine. My problem is, our search interface is a little, well, basic and I would love to know if there are any feature-rich open source alternatives out there. The only one I can find is <a href="http://flamenco.berkeley.edu/index.html">Flamenco</a>, and while that seems strong on categorisation, that seems to be about the height of it."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " I work for a company that manages an online database for the political market .
We add to this DB daily with updates from a variety of sources and our customers then search through this content via our Solr/Lucene search engine .
My problem is , our search interface is a little , well , basic and I would love to know if there are any feature-rich open source alternatives out there .
The only one I can find is Flamenco , and while that seems strong on categorisation , that seems to be about the height of it .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "I work for a company that manages an online database for the political market.
We add to this DB daily with updates from a variety of sources and our customers then search through this content via our Solr/Lucene search engine.
My problem is, our search interface is a little, well, basic and I would love to know if there are any feature-rich open source alternatives out there.
The only one I can find is Flamenco, and while that seems strong on categorisation, that seems to be about the height of it.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2014230.30756582</id>
	<title>What sort of database?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263378780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you talking about searching web pages or a database and presenting the results as web pages?  If the latter, then wht's the database?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you talking about searching web pages or a database and presenting the results as web pages ?
If the latter , then wht 's the database ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you talking about searching web pages or a database and presenting the results as web pages?
If the latter, then wht's the database?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2014230.30761718</id>
	<title>Wikia search</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263502140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>see <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikia\_Search" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow"> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikia\_Search </a> [wikipedia.org].</p><p>It had a very sexy AJAX interface.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>see http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikia \ _Search [ wikipedia.org ] .It had a very sexy AJAX interface .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>see  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikia\_Search  [wikipedia.org].It had a very sexy AJAX interface.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2014230.30763842</id>
	<title>Open Source Solr-powered Search UI</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263483600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've posted a blog entry in response to this topic here: <a href="http://www.lucidimagination.com/blog/2010/01/14/solr-search-user-interface-examples/" title="lucidimagination.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.lucidimagination.com/blog/2010/01/14/solr-search-user-interface-examples/</a> [lucidimagination.com]

There are several technologies to tinker with, though it's tough to find UI frameworks that fit ones needs exactly.  But there should be plenty of food for thought in my blog entry.  Please comment there if you have other technologies worth pointing out to the Solr communities.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've posted a blog entry in response to this topic here : http : //www.lucidimagination.com/blog/2010/01/14/solr-search-user-interface-examples/ [ lucidimagination.com ] There are several technologies to tinker with , though it 's tough to find UI frameworks that fit ones needs exactly .
But there should be plenty of food for thought in my blog entry .
Please comment there if you have other technologies worth pointing out to the Solr communities .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've posted a blog entry in response to this topic here: http://www.lucidimagination.com/blog/2010/01/14/solr-search-user-interface-examples/ [lucidimagination.com]

There are several technologies to tinker with, though it's tough to find UI frameworks that fit ones needs exactly.
But there should be plenty of food for thought in my blog entry.
Please comment there if you have other technologies worth pointing out to the Solr communities.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2014230.30756526</id>
	<title>Re:KISS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263378540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your interface might be simple but how do you propose creating advanced queries? Sure this will solve many of the common use cases however I'm sure the poster has already implemented the above.</p><p>Now, given your search interface:<br>
&nbsp; - How would a user intuitively restrict by several criteria?<br>
&nbsp; - How about restricting to a certain hierarchy or different classifications within the system?<br>
&nbsp; - What if I only want to retrieve document files?</p><p>Incomplete or useless search results are a bigger aggravation than a few additional inputs. Providing an advanced search mechanism seems to be the aim of this post so why contribute nothing but the obvious? You post getting modded insightful is a joke.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your interface might be simple but how do you propose creating advanced queries ?
Sure this will solve many of the common use cases however I 'm sure the poster has already implemented the above.Now , given your search interface :   - How would a user intuitively restrict by several criteria ?
  - How about restricting to a certain hierarchy or different classifications within the system ?
  - What if I only want to retrieve document files ? Incomplete or useless search results are a bigger aggravation than a few additional inputs .
Providing an advanced search mechanism seems to be the aim of this post so why contribute nothing but the obvious ?
You post getting modded insightful is a joke .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your interface might be simple but how do you propose creating advanced queries?
Sure this will solve many of the common use cases however I'm sure the poster has already implemented the above.Now, given your search interface:
  - How would a user intuitively restrict by several criteria?
  - How about restricting to a certain hierarchy or different classifications within the system?
  - What if I only want to retrieve document files?Incomplete or useless search results are a bigger aggravation than a few additional inputs.
Providing an advanced search mechanism seems to be the aim of this post so why contribute nothing but the obvious?
You post getting modded insightful is a joke.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2014230.30755642</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2014230.30757348</id>
	<title>Re:KISS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263382380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's only half of the battle.  What about results?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's only half of the battle .
What about results ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's only half of the battle.
What about results?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2014230.30755642</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2014230.30757014</id>
	<title>Clustering</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263380820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps you could look into clustering engines. Carrot2 is one. There is also a clustering engine built into Solr 1.4</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps you could look into clustering engines .
Carrot2 is one .
There is also a clustering engine built into Solr 1.4</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps you could look into clustering engines.
Carrot2 is one.
There is also a clustering engine built into Solr 1.4</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2014230.30756106</id>
	<title>Swish-E</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263376740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've used Swish in it's variants since it was an alternative to WAIS.</p><p><a href="http://www.swish-e.org/" title="swish-e.org">http://www.swish-e.org/</a> [swish-e.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've used Swish in it 's variants since it was an alternative to WAIS.http : //www.swish-e.org/ [ swish-e.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've used Swish in it's variants since it was an alternative to WAIS.http://www.swish-e.org/ [swish-e.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2014230.30761512</id>
	<title>Twigkit: Not quite open source ...</title>
	<author>cliftonc</author>
	<datestamp>1263412260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Disclaimer as I have used these guys recently for a solr search project - but not affiliated in any way - and their product is very good. Twigkit: <a href="http://www.twigkit.com/" title="twigkit.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.twigkit.com/</a> [twigkit.com] gives you a very slick and simple way to make attractive front ends to solr (or other search engines).  For us it was the best of both worlds, as we were able to save by leveraging solr, but then add the stuff these guys brought to the table to really round the whole thing off.

In a couple of days they gave us a very slick UI that killed the crappy prototype one we had managed to build!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Disclaimer as I have used these guys recently for a solr search project - but not affiliated in any way - and their product is very good .
Twigkit : http : //www.twigkit.com/ [ twigkit.com ] gives you a very slick and simple way to make attractive front ends to solr ( or other search engines ) .
For us it was the best of both worlds , as we were able to save by leveraging solr , but then add the stuff these guys brought to the table to really round the whole thing off .
In a couple of days they gave us a very slick UI that killed the crappy prototype one we had managed to build !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Disclaimer as I have used these guys recently for a solr search project - but not affiliated in any way - and their product is very good.
Twigkit: http://www.twigkit.com/ [twigkit.com] gives you a very slick and simple way to make attractive front ends to solr (or other search engines).
For us it was the best of both worlds, as we were able to save by leveraging solr, but then add the stuff these guys brought to the table to really round the whole thing off.
In a couple of days they gave us a very slick UI that killed the crappy prototype one we had managed to build!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2014230.30759202</id>
	<title>Data Search Interface</title>
	<author>aharth</author>
	<datestamp>1263390600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hi,

there's also <a href="http://visinav.deri.org/" title="deri.org" rel="nofollow">VisiNav</a> [deri.org] which lets you assemble complex queries over data, covering keyword search and faceted browsing (as Flamenco) and a bit more (path navigation).
Drag and drop UI, where people who don't know facets or path navigation can do keyword search without being distracted.

-- Andreas.

Disclaimer: I'm one of the developers of VisiNav.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hi , there 's also VisiNav [ deri.org ] which lets you assemble complex queries over data , covering keyword search and faceted browsing ( as Flamenco ) and a bit more ( path navigation ) .
Drag and drop UI , where people who do n't know facets or path navigation can do keyword search without being distracted .
-- Andreas .
Disclaimer : I 'm one of the developers of VisiNav .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hi,

there's also VisiNav [deri.org] which lets you assemble complex queries over data, covering keyword search and faceted browsing (as Flamenco) and a bit more (path navigation).
Drag and drop UI, where people who don't know facets or path navigation can do keyword search without being distracted.
-- Andreas.
Disclaimer: I'm one of the developers of VisiNav.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2014230.30757888</id>
	<title>Carrot2 - Search Results Clustering Engine</title>
	<author>fak3r</author>
	<datestamp>1263384960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://project.carrot2.org/" title="carrot2.org">http://project.carrot2.org/</a> [carrot2.org]

This plugin is part of the Nutch app now (which does a nice job of search since it uses Lucene) but I've also used it with Solr.  Check it out, it's pretty interesting.</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //project.carrot2.org/ [ carrot2.org ] This plugin is part of the Nutch app now ( which does a nice job of search since it uses Lucene ) but I 've also used it with Solr .
Check it out , it 's pretty interesting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://project.carrot2.org/ [carrot2.org]

This plugin is part of the Nutch app now (which does a nice job of search since it uses Lucene) but I've also used it with Solr.
Check it out, it's pretty interesting.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2014230.30756084</id>
	<title>Re:Windows Live Search is free!!!!</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1263376620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Contrary to popular belief, Ask Slashdot, even when asking questions about Open Source free alternatives, is not an open invitation to bash Microsoft.<br>Please rephrase your comment in the form of something helpful.</p><p>We express our sincerest apologies for the confusion.</p><p>Anonymously,</p><p>Mr. Coward</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Contrary to popular belief , Ask Slashdot , even when asking questions about Open Source free alternatives , is not an open invitation to bash Microsoft.Please rephrase your comment in the form of something helpful.We express our sincerest apologies for the confusion.Anonymously,Mr .
Coward</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Contrary to popular belief, Ask Slashdot, even when asking questions about Open Source free alternatives, is not an open invitation to bash Microsoft.Please rephrase your comment in the form of something helpful.We express our sincerest apologies for the confusion.Anonymously,Mr.
Coward</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2014230.30755792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2014230.30756906</id>
	<title>Card Catalog</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263380280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I hear card catalogs are coming back in style.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I hear card catalogs are coming back in style .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hear card catalogs are coming back in style.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2014230.30759934</id>
	<title>Re:Sphinx Search</title>
	<author>yuna49</author>
	<datestamp>1263395460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's another vote in favor of Sphinx.  I recently was presented with an online shopping site whose search functions were pathetically slow and inaccurate.  I replaced these with Sphinx and now get incredibly fast results which are nearly always on target.  You'll want to play with the weights assigned to fields and other features to optimize the searches, but if your content is already stored in a MySQL or PostgreSQL database, Sphinx should be one of your top contenders.</p><p>As the parent says, the indexing isn't real-time, but Sphinx has features to enable you to keep live indexes active while you reindex.  The frequency of re-indexing will obviously depend on how important recency is for your users.</p><p>If your content is just text files, I'd consider <a href="http://www.htdig.org/" title="htdig.org">htdig</a> [htdig.org] as well.  While it's no longer being actively maintained, I've used it for years to index web archives of listserver postings with great success.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's another vote in favor of Sphinx .
I recently was presented with an online shopping site whose search functions were pathetically slow and inaccurate .
I replaced these with Sphinx and now get incredibly fast results which are nearly always on target .
You 'll want to play with the weights assigned to fields and other features to optimize the searches , but if your content is already stored in a MySQL or PostgreSQL database , Sphinx should be one of your top contenders.As the parent says , the indexing is n't real-time , but Sphinx has features to enable you to keep live indexes active while you reindex .
The frequency of re-indexing will obviously depend on how important recency is for your users.If your content is just text files , I 'd consider htdig [ htdig.org ] as well .
While it 's no longer being actively maintained , I 've used it for years to index web archives of listserver postings with great success .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's another vote in favor of Sphinx.
I recently was presented with an online shopping site whose search functions were pathetically slow and inaccurate.
I replaced these with Sphinx and now get incredibly fast results which are nearly always on target.
You'll want to play with the weights assigned to fields and other features to optimize the searches, but if your content is already stored in a MySQL or PostgreSQL database, Sphinx should be one of your top contenders.As the parent says, the indexing isn't real-time, but Sphinx has features to enable you to keep live indexes active while you reindex.
The frequency of re-indexing will obviously depend on how important recency is for your users.If your content is just text files, I'd consider htdig [htdig.org] as well.
While it's no longer being actively maintained, I've used it for years to index web archives of listserver postings with great success.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2014230.30755598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2014230.30757920</id>
	<title>GUI showcase</title>
	<author>EmperorOfCanada</author>
	<datestamp>1263385080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What I want is a GUI showcase. A website with GUIs from movies, industrial machines, web pages, etc. I have never seen a good one. Yet I have seen some very cool interfaces over the years. Sometimes you see movies where the police criminal database or whatnot could only have been built with a team of highly paid graphic artists. If anyone knows about this please reply with a link.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What I want is a GUI showcase .
A website with GUIs from movies , industrial machines , web pages , etc .
I have never seen a good one .
Yet I have seen some very cool interfaces over the years .
Sometimes you see movies where the police criminal database or whatnot could only have been built with a team of highly paid graphic artists .
If anyone knows about this please reply with a link .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I want is a GUI showcase.
A website with GUIs from movies, industrial machines, web pages, etc.
I have never seen a good one.
Yet I have seen some very cool interfaces over the years.
Sometimes you see movies where the police criminal database or whatnot could only have been built with a team of highly paid graphic artists.
If anyone knows about this please reply with a link.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2014230.30759986</id>
	<title>Use DBSight Free version</title>
	<author>chrislusf</author>
	<datestamp>1263396060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Although non open source, it's free version has most of the features.

<a href="http://www.dbsight.net/" title="dbsight.net" rel="nofollow">http://www.dbsight.net/</a> [dbsight.net]

It also has many more  sophisticated features that you can dig out.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Although non open source , it 's free version has most of the features .
http : //www.dbsight.net/ [ dbsight.net ] It also has many more sophisticated features that you can dig out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Although non open source, it's free version has most of the features.
http://www.dbsight.net/ [dbsight.net]

It also has many more  sophisticated features that you can dig out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2014230.30756870</id>
	<title>Re:Sphinx Search</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263380160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The poster is using Solr as the *engine* and is asking about a good user *interface* (not a different engine, which most everyone is replying with).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The poster is using Solr as the * engine * and is asking about a good user * interface * ( not a different engine , which most everyone is replying with ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The poster is using Solr as the *engine* and is asking about a good user *interface* (not a different engine, which most everyone is replying with).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2014230.30755598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2014230.30755642</id>
	<title>KISS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263374940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>&lt;form name="search" method="get" action="/search.pl"&gt;<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &lt;input type="text" name="q" title="Enter your search terms"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/&gt;<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &lt;input type="submit" value="Search" title="Submit your search request"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/&gt;<br>&lt;/form&gt;<br><br>Anything more complex will probably aggravate your users.</htmltext>
<tokenext>    / &gt;     / &gt; Anything more complex will probably aggravate your users .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
     /&gt;
     /&gt;Anything more complex will probably aggravate your users.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2014230.30755940</id>
	<title>How about Sphider?</title>
	<author>pbulteel73</author>
	<datestamp>1263376020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I found <a href="http://www.sphider.eu/" title="sphider.eu" rel="nofollow">Sphider</a> [sphider.eu] and it fulfills my needs.

-P</htmltext>
<tokenext>I found Sphider [ sphider.eu ] and it fulfills my needs .
-P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I found Sphider [sphider.eu] and it fulfills my needs.
-P</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2014230.30758744</id>
	<title>Re:KISS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263388380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just don't put a</p><p>in there, or you will be in for a world of legal trouble</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just do n't put ain there , or you will be in for a world of legal trouble</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just don't put ain there, or you will be in for a world of legal trouble</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2014230.30755642</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2014230.30773084</id>
	<title>good search UX is a process</title>
	<author>searchtools</author>
	<datestamp>1263473820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree, Flamenco's faceted metadata is a great way to look at structured data.  But Solr has facets, and they're really easy to enable.  So that kind of functionality is not really the hard part.</p><p>The really tricky part is finding out what your users need (which is of course not what they say they need).</p><p>Use your search logs: the most important part is seeing what they search for and especially if they have zero results.  Talk to them about why: they may have different vocabulary or need something new, or it may be OK because they're checking for the absence of something.  You can also look at what are the top queries and the top kinds of queries: maybe they really want to segment by assembly district: that's a great use for faceted metadata.</p><p>Then you can use the standard UI tools like sketches and wireframes to expand the search form for their needs.  They may want to search for nicknames or maiden names, who knows?  I don't, but they do.</p><p>It's an iterative process involving content coverage, back-end search functionality, and client-side interfaces, but when you do it right, it just hums<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree , Flamenco 's faceted metadata is a great way to look at structured data .
But Solr has facets , and they 're really easy to enable .
So that kind of functionality is not really the hard part.The really tricky part is finding out what your users need ( which is of course not what they say they need ) .Use your search logs : the most important part is seeing what they search for and especially if they have zero results .
Talk to them about why : they may have different vocabulary or need something new , or it may be OK because they 're checking for the absence of something .
You can also look at what are the top queries and the top kinds of queries : maybe they really want to segment by assembly district : that 's a great use for faceted metadata.Then you can use the standard UI tools like sketches and wireframes to expand the search form for their needs .
They may want to search for nicknames or maiden names , who knows ?
I do n't , but they do.It 's an iterative process involving content coverage , back-end search functionality , and client-side interfaces , but when you do it right , it just hums : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree, Flamenco's faceted metadata is a great way to look at structured data.
But Solr has facets, and they're really easy to enable.
So that kind of functionality is not really the hard part.The really tricky part is finding out what your users need (which is of course not what they say they need).Use your search logs: the most important part is seeing what they search for and especially if they have zero results.
Talk to them about why: they may have different vocabulary or need something new, or it may be OK because they're checking for the absence of something.
You can also look at what are the top queries and the top kinds of queries: maybe they really want to segment by assembly district: that's a great use for faceted metadata.Then you can use the standard UI tools like sketches and wireframes to expand the search form for their needs.
They may want to search for nicknames or maiden names, who knows?
I don't, but they do.It's an iterative process involving content coverage, back-end search functionality, and client-side interfaces, but when you do it right, it just hums :-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2014230.30758270</id>
	<title>busybox ash script</title>
	<author>technosaurus</author>
	<datestamp>1263386400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can write an extremely fast and powerful (b)ash cgi-script using a properly compiled snapshot of busybox (it will call builtin find, sed, grep... which is much faster than calling separate programs) If you run it on a static webpage using busbox httpd as the server it can even be a function within your server script.</p><p>#!/PATH\_TO/sh<br>search()<br>{<br>#your code here<br>}</p><p>advanced\_search()<br>{<br>#your code here<br>}</p><p>restart\_server()<br>{<br>#your code here<br>}</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can write an extremely fast and powerful ( b ) ash cgi-script using a properly compiled snapshot of busybox ( it will call builtin find , sed , grep... which is much faster than calling separate programs ) If you run it on a static webpage using busbox httpd as the server it can even be a function within your server script. # ! /PATH \ _TO/shsearch ( ) { # your code here } advanced \ _search ( ) { # your code here } restart \ _server ( ) { # your code here }</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can write an extremely fast and powerful (b)ash cgi-script using a properly compiled snapshot of busybox (it will call builtin find, sed, grep... which is much faster than calling separate programs) If you run it on a static webpage using busbox httpd as the server it can even be a function within your server script.#!/PATH\_TO/shsearch(){#your code here}advanced\_search(){#your code here}restart\_server(){#your code here}</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2014230.30758860</id>
	<title>YUI is nice for building user interfaces.</title>
	<author>micheas</author>
	<datestamp>1263388860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <a href="http://developer.yahoo.com/yui/" title="yahoo.com">YUI</a> [yahoo.com] has a BSD style license and is really nice for building cross browser friendly user interfaces.
</p><p>
The downside of YUI is that the CSS does not validate as it uses the "holly hack" to do IE specific stuff instead of an if define in the header and a separate IE stylesheet.
</p><p>
I know people that like blueprint, you might also check out http://www.webdesignbooth.com/10-promising-css-framework-that-worth-a-look/ and see if any of these meet your needs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>YUI [ yahoo.com ] has a BSD style license and is really nice for building cross browser friendly user interfaces .
The downside of YUI is that the CSS does not validate as it uses the " holly hack " to do IE specific stuff instead of an if define in the header and a separate IE stylesheet .
I know people that like blueprint , you might also check out http : //www.webdesignbooth.com/10-promising-css-framework-that-worth-a-look/ and see if any of these meet your needs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> YUI [yahoo.com] has a BSD style license and is really nice for building cross browser friendly user interfaces.
The downside of YUI is that the CSS does not validate as it uses the "holly hack" to do IE specific stuff instead of an if define in the header and a separate IE stylesheet.
I know people that like blueprint, you might also check out http://www.webdesignbooth.com/10-promising-css-framework-that-worth-a-look/ and see if any of these meet your needs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2014230.30783136</id>
	<title>MnoGoSearch</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263546780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Try http://www.mnogosearch.org/</p><p>I have used it many times, highly flexible and free for *nix.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Try http : //www.mnogosearch.org/I have used it many times , highly flexible and free for * nix .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Try http://www.mnogosearch.org/I have used it many times, highly flexible and free for *nix.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2014230.30755864</id>
	<title>Did I just see</title>
	<author>Hognoxious</author>
	<datestamp>1263375780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did I just see "attractive" and "open source" in the same sentence?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did I just see " attractive " and " open source " in the same sentence ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did I just see "attractive" and "open source" in the same sentence?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2014230.30761712</id>
	<title>Re:GUI showcase</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263502080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You mean GUI's like on CSI Miami? The terrible Sci-Fi UI what finds everything from everything. You only need to place a evidence top of class table and it finds fingerprints, cells, gases, metals... all and informs right away what does not belong to that thing. You place a cellphone or a letter to that table and it scans and reads all data from them, without scanners or other things.<br>Then they just stand there and they use the whole interface with voice commands "Tell who is last person who used this knife" and you can see everything from suspected person even from the time when they use bathroom or when they had a sex.</p><p>You mean those?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean GUI 's like on CSI Miami ?
The terrible Sci-Fi UI what finds everything from everything .
You only need to place a evidence top of class table and it finds fingerprints , cells , gases , metals... all and informs right away what does not belong to that thing .
You place a cellphone or a letter to that table and it scans and reads all data from them , without scanners or other things.Then they just stand there and they use the whole interface with voice commands " Tell who is last person who used this knife " and you can see everything from suspected person even from the time when they use bathroom or when they had a sex.You mean those ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean GUI's like on CSI Miami?
The terrible Sci-Fi UI what finds everything from everything.
You only need to place a evidence top of class table and it finds fingerprints, cells, gases, metals... all and informs right away what does not belong to that thing.
You place a cellphone or a letter to that table and it scans and reads all data from them, without scanners or other things.Then they just stand there and they use the whole interface with voice commands "Tell who is last person who used this knife" and you can see everything from suspected person even from the time when they use bathroom or when they had a sex.You mean those?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2014230.30757920</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2014230.30762062</id>
	<title>take a look at cms solutions</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263464760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Albeit much more than simple search-engine frontends, you will find that there are many that sport nice interfaces to the SOLR serach engine - and you get the cms as a bonus. eZPublish is such an example</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Albeit much more than simple search-engine frontends , you will find that there are many that sport nice interfaces to the SOLR serach engine - and you get the cms as a bonus .
eZPublish is such an example</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Albeit much more than simple search-engine frontends, you will find that there are many that sport nice interfaces to the SOLR serach engine - and you get the cms as a bonus.
eZPublish is such an example</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2014230.30782512</id>
	<title>Try AJAXSolr</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263587040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds like you should check out AJAXSolr, formerly SolrJS:<br>http://evolvingweb.github.com/ajax-solr/</p><p>Also, for anyone reading this and thinking about an out-of-the-box search engine that spiders and searches, check out nutch:<br>http://lucene.apache.org/nutch/<br>Also see http://www.dataparksearch.org/ for a pre-built version that works in Windows.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like you should check out AJAXSolr , formerly SolrJS : http : //evolvingweb.github.com/ajax-solr/Also , for anyone reading this and thinking about an out-of-the-box search engine that spiders and searches , check out nutch : http : //lucene.apache.org/nutch/Also see http : //www.dataparksearch.org/ for a pre-built version that works in Windows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like you should check out AJAXSolr, formerly SolrJS:http://evolvingweb.github.com/ajax-solr/Also, for anyone reading this and thinking about an out-of-the-box search engine that spiders and searches, check out nutch:http://lucene.apache.org/nutch/Also see http://www.dataparksearch.org/ for a pre-built version that works in Windows.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2014230.30755692</id>
	<title>Flamenco?</title>
	<author>assemblyronin</author>
	<datestamp>1263375120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>You'd probably want to get the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tapas" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Tapas</a> [wikipedia.org] addon.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 'd probably want to get the Tapas [ wikipedia.org ] addon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You'd probably want to get the Tapas [wikipedia.org] addon.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2014230.30755598</id>
	<title>Sphinx Search</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263374820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sphinx Search works quite well, is very fast and can handle very large datasets..

Only down side is the indexes are not live..

<a href="http://www.sphinxsearch.com/" title="sphinxsearch.com">http://www.sphinxsearch.com/</a> [sphinxsearch.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sphinx Search works quite well , is very fast and can handle very large datasets. . Only down side is the indexes are not live. . http : //www.sphinxsearch.com/ [ sphinxsearch.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sphinx Search works quite well, is very fast and can handle very large datasets..

Only down side is the indexes are not live..

http://www.sphinxsearch.com/ [sphinxsearch.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2014230.30756070</id>
	<title>Yahoo IBM OmniFind Product</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263376560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Free solution from Yahoo/IBM -- http://omnifind.ibm.yahoo.net/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Free solution from Yahoo/IBM -- http : //omnifind.ibm.yahoo.net/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Free solution from Yahoo/IBM -- http://omnifind.ibm.yahoo.net/</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2014230.30757108</id>
	<title>Re:Why bother with open source?</title>
	<author>khellendros1984</author>
	<datestamp>1263381180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wouldn't say that GIMP is more complex than Photoshop. I've tried using Photoshop, and it looks like an unorganized muddle of garbage to me. I *get* GIMP, though.<br> <br>Linux is just another Unix, but thankfully, a bit more modern and progressive than many of the others. It's as complex as it needs to be, and no more....that's not taking into account the various windowing environments of various qualities (although Windows 7's interface reminds me more of Gnome than it does Windows XP, somehow).<br> <br>Then again, maybe I'm weird. My two cents.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would n't say that GIMP is more complex than Photoshop .
I 've tried using Photoshop , and it looks like an unorganized muddle of garbage to me .
I * get * GIMP , though .
Linux is just another Unix , but thankfully , a bit more modern and progressive than many of the others .
It 's as complex as it needs to be , and no more....that 's not taking into account the various windowing environments of various qualities ( although Windows 7 's interface reminds me more of Gnome than it does Windows XP , somehow ) .
Then again , maybe I 'm weird .
My two cents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wouldn't say that GIMP is more complex than Photoshop.
I've tried using Photoshop, and it looks like an unorganized muddle of garbage to me.
I *get* GIMP, though.
Linux is just another Unix, but thankfully, a bit more modern and progressive than many of the others.
It's as complex as it needs to be, and no more....that's not taking into account the various windowing environments of various qualities (although Windows 7's interface reminds me more of Gnome than it does Windows XP, somehow).
Then again, maybe I'm weird.
My two cents.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2014230.30755772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2014230.30757134</id>
	<title>Re:Windows Live Search is free!!!!</title>
	<author>khellendros1984</author>
	<datestamp>1263381300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, the OSX license agreement says that it can only be installed on an "Apple-labeled" device. My interpretation of that is to put an Apple sticker on the side of a Hackintosh.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , the OSX license agreement says that it can only be installed on an " Apple-labeled " device .
My interpretation of that is to put an Apple sticker on the side of a Hackintosh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, the OSX license agreement says that it can only be installed on an "Apple-labeled" device.
My interpretation of that is to put an Apple sticker on the side of a Hackintosh.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2014230.30756402</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2014230.30760992</id>
	<title>modify source</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263406140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, considering Lucene is the actual search engine and Solr is the interface, and considering both are open source, I would suggest modifying Solr to fit your needs. Or Lucene if your needs are more fundamental. It's not overly complex, and if you're willing to spend a few hours tracking the logic of the code and reading some documentation, you never know what you might come away with.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , considering Lucene is the actual search engine and Solr is the interface , and considering both are open source , I would suggest modifying Solr to fit your needs .
Or Lucene if your needs are more fundamental .
It 's not overly complex , and if you 're willing to spend a few hours tracking the logic of the code and reading some documentation , you never know what you might come away with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, considering Lucene is the actual search engine and Solr is the interface, and considering both are open source, I would suggest modifying Solr to fit your needs.
Or Lucene if your needs are more fundamental.
It's not overly complex, and if you're willing to spend a few hours tracking the logic of the code and reading some documentation, you never know what you might come away with.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2014230.30758488</id>
	<title>Hyper Estraier</title>
	<author>hweimer</author>
	<datestamp>1263387240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.osreviews.net/reviews/misc/hyperestraier" title="osreviews.net">Hyper Estraier</a> [osreviews.net] has a Google-like interface that has some additional features such as including regular expressions in your queries.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hyper Estraier [ osreviews.net ] has a Google-like interface that has some additional features such as including regular expressions in your queries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hyper Estraier [osreviews.net] has a Google-like interface that has some additional features such as including regular expressions in your queries.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2014230.30757330</id>
	<title>How about...</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1263382260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...a flatfile with regexps?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)<br>One line per entry, index at the beginning.</p><p>P.S.: No, I&lsquo;m not totally serious... or am I?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...a flatfile with regexps ?
; ) One line per entry , index at the beginning.P.S .
: No , I    m not totally serious... or am I ?
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...a flatfile with regexps?
;)One line per entry, index at the beginning.P.S.
: No, I‘m not totally serious... or am I?
;)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2014230.30756402</id>
	<title>Re:Windows Live Search is free!!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263378000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;I just wish there was a button labeled "Complain to Windows development about this feature and why it sucks".</p><p>There is, it's the "Buy" button next to a Mac on the Apple website.</p><p>Wish I had the money to burn for one of those babies</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; I just wish there was a button labeled " Complain to Windows development about this feature and why it sucks " .There is , it 's the " Buy " button next to a Mac on the Apple website.Wish I had the money to burn for one of those babies</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;I just wish there was a button labeled "Complain to Windows development about this feature and why it sucks".There is, it's the "Buy" button next to a Mac on the Apple website.Wish I had the money to burn for one of those babies</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2014230.30755792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2014230.30757470</id>
	<title>Re:KISS</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1263382920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>KISS is retarded. Because simplicity does <em>not</em> always equal efficiency. Efficiency equals efficiency. Plain KISS makes you end up with stuff that is too &ldquo;simple&rdquo; to be useful, like Clippy, MS Bob, or Notepad. The other extreme is just as stupid, and gives you things like VI and Emacs, with a wall as a learning &ldquo;curve&rdquo;.</p><p>The optimum is obvious: Balanced in the middle, relative to the user&rsquo;s needs. More power when he needs it, less complexity when he doesn&rsquo;t.</p><p>I, for one, don&rsquo;t call anything that does not at least have boolean operations, property fields (like &ldquo;site:slashdot.org&rdquo;) and regular expressions a search that fits my needs and level of power.</p><p>Are people who want less somehow better? Or why are they preferred?<br>Rhetorical question. I know why they are preferred: Because they are louder, and think they are entitled to get it pre-chewed.</p><p>Also, what is the point of allowing only one way? Nobody is better.<br>Add a multiple-choice element, that lets you choose plain text, boolean-enhanced (like google) and full regexps. Makes everyone happy, hurts nobody.</p><p>Maybe next time you don&rsquo;t apply KISS to your method of searching for a solution.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>KISS is retarded .
Because simplicity does not always equal efficiency .
Efficiency equals efficiency .
Plain KISS makes you end up with stuff that is too    simple    to be useful , like Clippy , MS Bob , or Notepad .
The other extreme is just as stupid , and gives you things like VI and Emacs , with a wall as a learning    curve    .The optimum is obvious : Balanced in the middle , relative to the user    s needs .
More power when he needs it , less complexity when he doesn    t.I , for one , don    t call anything that does not at least have boolean operations , property fields ( like    site : slashdot.org    ) and regular expressions a search that fits my needs and level of power.Are people who want less somehow better ?
Or why are they preferred ? Rhetorical question .
I know why they are preferred : Because they are louder , and think they are entitled to get it pre-chewed.Also , what is the point of allowing only one way ?
Nobody is better.Add a multiple-choice element , that lets you choose plain text , boolean-enhanced ( like google ) and full regexps .
Makes everyone happy , hurts nobody.Maybe next time you don    t apply KISS to your method of searching for a solution .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>KISS is retarded.
Because simplicity does not always equal efficiency.
Efficiency equals efficiency.
Plain KISS makes you end up with stuff that is too “simple” to be useful, like Clippy, MS Bob, or Notepad.
The other extreme is just as stupid, and gives you things like VI and Emacs, with a wall as a learning “curve”.The optimum is obvious: Balanced in the middle, relative to the user’s needs.
More power when he needs it, less complexity when he doesn’t.I, for one, don’t call anything that does not at least have boolean operations, property fields (like “site:slashdot.org”) and regular expressions a search that fits my needs and level of power.Are people who want less somehow better?
Or why are they preferred?Rhetorical question.
I know why they are preferred: Because they are louder, and think they are entitled to get it pre-chewed.Also, what is the point of allowing only one way?
Nobody is better.Add a multiple-choice element, that lets you choose plain text, boolean-enhanced (like google) and full regexps.
Makes everyone happy, hurts nobody.Maybe next time you don’t apply KISS to your method of searching for a solution.
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2014230.30755642</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2014230.30755792</id>
	<title>Windows Live Search is free!!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263375540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is free and in you wish you could be free of it.   Just like the search in Windows Vista I find myself screaming at the damn thing saying "I see the files in the window next to my search window and you goddam thing is still not finding it!!!!!  WTF windows!"  I Loathe the way it runs an extra process to "re-index" the "search database" on you hard drive ALL the bloody time.  So you computer goes 10\% slower so if can shave off 20 seconds the next time you search you "My Documents" folder for an old Word Doc.   Meanwhile you end up losing 20 minutes a day in productivity because you system runs slow as hell.</p><p>I have learned when doing Windows XP updates when I rebuild a friend's computer to check the "Never show this update again" in the windows update screen.   I just wish there was a button labeled "Complain to Windows development about this feature and why it sucks".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is free and in you wish you could be free of it .
Just like the search in Windows Vista I find myself screaming at the damn thing saying " I see the files in the window next to my search window and you goddam thing is still not finding it ! ! ! ! !
WTF windows !
" I Loathe the way it runs an extra process to " re-index " the " search database " on you hard drive ALL the bloody time .
So you computer goes 10 \ % slower so if can shave off 20 seconds the next time you search you " My Documents " folder for an old Word Doc .
Meanwhile you end up losing 20 minutes a day in productivity because you system runs slow as hell.I have learned when doing Windows XP updates when I rebuild a friend 's computer to check the " Never show this update again " in the windows update screen .
I just wish there was a button labeled " Complain to Windows development about this feature and why it sucks " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is free and in you wish you could be free of it.
Just like the search in Windows Vista I find myself screaming at the damn thing saying "I see the files in the window next to my search window and you goddam thing is still not finding it!!!!!
WTF windows!
"  I Loathe the way it runs an extra process to "re-index" the "search database" on you hard drive ALL the bloody time.
So you computer goes 10\% slower so if can shave off 20 seconds the next time you search you "My Documents" folder for an old Word Doc.
Meanwhile you end up losing 20 minutes a day in productivity because you system runs slow as hell.I have learned when doing Windows XP updates when I rebuild a friend's computer to check the "Never show this update again" in the windows update screen.
I just wish there was a button labeled "Complain to Windows development about this feature and why it sucks".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2014230.30755624</id>
	<title>greenstone.org</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263374880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... for offline viewing and searching.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... for offline viewing and searching .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... for offline viewing and searching.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2014230.30755772</id>
	<title>Why bother with open source?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263375480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Open source software is typically more complex, hard to use, hard to setup, hard to understand, poorly supported and poorly implemented than closed source software.  This has been proven time and time again (Linux vs OS X/Windows7, GIMP vs Photoshop, etc).</p><p>You would be better off going with a closed source solution such as Wrensoft Zoom.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Open source software is typically more complex , hard to use , hard to setup , hard to understand , poorly supported and poorly implemented than closed source software .
This has been proven time and time again ( Linux vs OS X/Windows7 , GIMP vs Photoshop , etc ) .You would be better off going with a closed source solution such as Wrensoft Zoom .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Open source software is typically more complex, hard to use, hard to setup, hard to understand, poorly supported and poorly implemented than closed source software.
This has been proven time and time again (Linux vs OS X/Windows7, GIMP vs Photoshop, etc).You would be better off going with a closed source solution such as Wrensoft Zoom.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2014230.30756398</id>
	<title>Um..</title>
	<author>wumpus188</author>
	<datestamp>1263378000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just curious, what's 'political market' ? Is it really that bad already?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just curious , what 's 'political market ' ?
Is it really that bad already ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just curious, what's 'political market' ?
Is it really that bad already?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2014230.30764484</id>
	<title>Ontopia</title>
	<author>PensivePeter</author>
	<datestamp>1263486000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Although a competitor product, and if it is definitely open source that you are looking for rather than richer-featured proprietary solutions, take a look at Ontopia Open Source, a "subject-centric" alternative to classic text-string based search engines. It uses the ISO 13250 Topic Maps standard which encapsulates all subjects, associations and related data in XML. All engines using the Topic Maps standard are particularly strong in faceted classification, handling complex queries and query classes and, by its nature, offers a user interface that allows user to intuitively move from subject to subject</htmltext>
<tokenext>Although a competitor product , and if it is definitely open source that you are looking for rather than richer-featured proprietary solutions , take a look at Ontopia Open Source , a " subject-centric " alternative to classic text-string based search engines .
It uses the ISO 13250 Topic Maps standard which encapsulates all subjects , associations and related data in XML .
All engines using the Topic Maps standard are particularly strong in faceted classification , handling complex queries and query classes and , by its nature , offers a user interface that allows user to intuitively move from subject to subject</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Although a competitor product, and if it is definitely open source that you are looking for rather than richer-featured proprietary solutions, take a look at Ontopia Open Source, a "subject-centric" alternative to classic text-string based search engines.
It uses the ISO 13250 Topic Maps standard which encapsulates all subjects, associations and related data in XML.
All engines using the Topic Maps standard are particularly strong in faceted classification, handling complex queries and query classes and, by its nature, offers a user interface that allows user to intuitively move from subject to subject</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_2014230_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2014230.30757134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2014230.30756402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2014230.30755792
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_2014230_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2014230.30756084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2014230.30755792
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_2014230_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2014230.30761712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2014230.30757920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_2014230_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2014230.30759934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2014230.30755598
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_2014230_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2014230.30756870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2014230.30755598
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_2014230_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2014230.30757470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2014230.30755642
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_2014230_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2014230.30757348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2014230.30755642
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_2014230_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2014230.30756526
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2014230.30755642
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_2014230_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2014230.30757108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2014230.30755772
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_2014230_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2014230.30758744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2014230.30755642
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_2014230.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2014230.30756106
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_2014230.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2014230.30755642
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2014230.30758744
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2014230.30757348
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2014230.30756526
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2014230.30757470
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_2014230.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2014230.30755598
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2014230.30759934
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2014230.30756870
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_2014230.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2014230.30763842
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_2014230.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2014230.30759202
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_2014230.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2014230.30757920
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2014230.30761712
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_2014230.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2014230.30756070
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_2014230.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2014230.30755772
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2014230.30757108
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_2014230.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2014230.30755792
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2014230.30756402
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2014230.30757134
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2014230.30756084
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_2014230.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2014230.30755940
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_2014230.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2014230.30755624
</commentlist>
</conversation>
