# altavista **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [December 15, 2003, 7:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/altavista/219087 "2003-12-15T07:53:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![captainQwark](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e68b1a/32.png) [@captainQwark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/captainQwark)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2003, 7:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/altavista/219087/1 "2003-12-15T07:53:16Z")
the search engine Google gets endorsed pretty often on the boards, but I have a preference for Altavista. Is there anyone else here who likes Altavista? ---
**Author:** ![Violet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/ebca7d/32.png) [@Violet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Violet)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2003, 8:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/altavista/219087/2 "2003-12-15T08:06:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by captainQwark \* > \*\*the search engine Google gets endorsed pretty often on the boards, but I have a preference for Altavista. Is there anyone else here who likes Altavista? \*\* I used to use that, as well as Dogpile. But now Google is used most. ---
**Author:** ![TheLoadedDog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/35a633/32.png) [@TheLoadedDog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TheLoadedDog)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2003, 8:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/altavista/219087/3 "2003-12-15T08:07:02Z")
I used it when I first went online all those years ago. It’s not bad. Google is faster though. Altavista can be good if you’re using fussy search criteria, but 99% of the time I prefer Google. ---
**Author:** ![Colophon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f05b48/32.png) [@Colophon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colophon)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2003, 11:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/altavista/219087/4 "2003-12-15T11:27:13Z")
> [@](#): > > Is there anyone else here who likes Altavista? Yeah, in about, like, 1996. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Lobsang](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobsang/32/4067_2.png) [@Lobsang](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobsang)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2003, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/altavista/219087/5 "2003-12-15T17:17:04Z")
Many years ago a magazine review said altavista was the best. I used it for many years, until a few comparative searches showed me that google was better. ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2003, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/altavista/219087/6 "2003-12-17T21:05:22Z")
I use AltaVista first and go to Google or [AllTheWeb.com](http://AllTheWeb.com) if I get zero hits in AltaVista. Google has a very impressive number of indexed sites to search (significantly more than Alta Vista) but doesn’t support boolean searches so I hate to use it (like trying to write a letter with a crayon). [AllTheWeb.com](http://AllTheWeb.com) is rising in my estimation but it has some odd bugs in how it parses boolean strings. In most cases the problem is not “I can’t get any hits” but rather “I get too many hits most of which aren’t what I’m looking for”, so Alta Vista lets me get the right results more effectively. ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2003, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/altavista/219087/7 "2003-12-17T22:13:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by AHunter3 \* > **Google has a very impressive number of indexed sites to search (significantly more than Alta Vista) but doesn’t support boolean searches so I hate to use it (like trying to write a letter with a crayon).** [It doesn’t](http://www.google.com/advanced_search?hl=en)? ---
**Author:** ![mouthbreather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a698b9/32.png) [@mouthbreather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mouthbreather)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2003, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/altavista/219087/8 "2003-12-17T22:18:39Z")
I preferred Altavista when Yahoo was all the rage. Since Google’s rise to fame I have not been back to Altavista except to use Babelfish. ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2003, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/altavista/219087/9 "2003-12-17T22:39:26Z")
Correct, **Jeff Olsen** , it doesn’t. That page doesn’t provide boolean searching capabilities. Go try to perform this search on Google: (“hitchhiker” or “hitchhiking”) and “last” and (“title” or “book” or “paperback”) and not (“Adams” or “Galaxy”) and (“sleuth” or “detective”) and not “Milat” or [this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?postid=3940195&highlight=altavista+or+boolean+or+alta+vista#post3940195) one: (“polyphenol” and “cruinthne”) or (“coacervate” and “noetherian”) or (“angiotensin” and “ray davies”) ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2003, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/altavista/219087/10 "2003-12-18T01:59:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by AHunter3 \* > \*\*Go try to perform this search on Google: > > (“hitchhiker” or “hitchhiking”) and “last” and (“title” or “book” or “paperback”) and not (“Adams” or “Galaxy”) and (“sleuth” or “detective”) and not “Milat”\*\* hitchhiker OR hitchhiking last title OR book OR paperback -adams -galaxy sleuth OR detective -milat Google ignored “-milat” because the searches are limited to 10 terms, but it found the book _Last Bus to Woodstock_. ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2003, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/altavista/219087/11 "2003-12-18T03:09:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by AHunter3 \* > \*\*(“polyphenol” and “cruinthne”) or (“coacervate” and “noetherian”) or (“angiotensin” and “ray davies”) \*\* Evidently, you haven’t tried that search in a while. ---
**Author:** ![Lsura](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7993a0/32.png) [@Lsura](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lsura)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2003, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/altavista/219087/12 "2003-12-18T03:27:31Z")
I use boolean operators on google most of the time I use it - but only on the main search page. The one thing you have to do with it is make sure the operators are in all caps - if you use “or” it will tell you that it’s too common so it was left out. I’ve been using [teoma](http://www.teoma.com) or [dogpile](http://www.dogpile.com) more than google lately though. ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2003, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/altavista/219087/13 "2003-12-18T03:50:33Z")
How does it know what terms are being **or** ’ed and which ones are **and** ’ed? How would it distinguish between this: (“hitchhiker” or “hitchhiking”) and “last” and (“title” or “book” or “paperback”) and not (“Adams” or “Galaxy”) and (“sleuth” or “detective”) and not “Milat” and this: ((“hitchhiker” or (“hitchhiking” and “last”)) and “title”) or (“book” or “paperback”) and (not “Adams”) or (“Galaxy” and “sleuth”) or (“detective” and not “Milat”) –? ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2003, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/altavista/219087/14 "2003-12-18T03:53:53Z")
As long as you get the page you want, does it really matter? ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2003, 5:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/altavista/219087/15 "2003-12-18T05:42:01Z")
But the first search obtains something like 1700 or 1800 hits in Alta Vista (and the thing I was looking for originally is on the first page) whereas the second one obtains something along the lines of 7 million hits. It ain’t the same search at all. It’s like the difference between (2 + 5)/17 and 2 + (5/17) ---
**Author:** ![umop\_ap\_sdn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/dbc845/32.png) [@umop\_ap\_sdn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/umop_ap_sdn)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2003, 7:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/altavista/219087/16 "2003-12-18T07:48:04Z")
I prefer to use AltaVista. It’s been my favorite since Lycos tampered with their format in 2001. I’m surprised AV is considered to be outdated because I was considering posting a thread on this subject! :eek: ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2003, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/altavista/219087/17 "2003-12-18T13:54:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by AHunter3 \* > **It ain’t the same search at all.** Is that a “yes” or a “no”? ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2003, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/altavista/219087/18 "2003-12-18T17:30:52Z")
No, it isn’t a “yes” or a “no”. ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2003, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/altavista/219087/19 "2003-12-18T17:44:00Z")
**Jeff Olsen** : > [@](#): > > Is that a “yes” or a “no”? ::finally puzzles out what **Jeff Olsen** is asking:: Are you reiterating this question? > [@](#): > > As long as you get the page you want, does it really matter? That doesn’t make any sense. I use boolean searches to _restrict_ my hits to a manageable size, to cut out the false positives. Here’s the question I was searching for: (“What the heck was the name of that book I started to read in High School in the pharmacy? Can’t recall the author, it was a mystery/detective book something like ‘The Last Hitchhiker’ or ‘Girl Was Last Hitch-hiking’ or something like that. Gotta screen out references to 'Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy of course, and that Milat book.”) Now there may be a page with that book’s title on it buried somewhere in the 7 million hits generated by the second search string but who cares? If I did a search for “book” and got 70 million hits it would probably be among them as well, but that isn’t useful. So the answer to the question is yes, it does matter even if I “get the page I want”, insofar as it doesn’t do me any good if it’s buried in an immense pile of pages I do _not_ want like the proverbial needle in the haystack. ---
**Author:** ![Colophon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f05b48/32.png) [@Colophon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colophon)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2003, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/altavista/219087/20 "2003-12-18T18:18:33Z")
**AHunter3** , Google assumes AND unless you specifically tell it otherwise with an OR or whatever. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/altavista/219087.md?page=2)