Lets say I want to find something hard to find, about politics. Go to google and type `politics hard to find` (no quotes) do the same in Yahoo, neither gives me anything I can use here. They are both useless ;-)
Ok so let`s test the engine`s "understanding of intent" so I type `Pacific war` on both, they both give returns for the US/Japan war. However if I type it in Spanish `Guerra del Pacifico` (no quotes) they both give me plenty of results for the Peruvian-Bolivian/Chilean war of 1879. Seems they both passed.
Now let`s put them to the test using a term in one language with a well known meaning imported to another and commonly used with a different meaning (after 1.5 centuries). So, I type in "Americana history of the word" (no quotes), neither understands exactly what I was looking for but Yahoo makes a much better attempt at deciphering it, Google simply gives results where the terms have been used, disregarding (or not taking into account) the content in which they were used. So it`s fair to say that Yahoo is a `better` search engine in that regard.
Now, knowing the limitations of the programs I can (and do) tailor my searches to get better results. Because Google gives much greater results using brute force and I can use my knowledge to sift through those result Google works better for me most of the time. But, think we just demonstrated that Yahoo is a better engine in and of itself.
ElidS2007-10-2 12:57:43