Linda wrote: > Robert Heiling <robheil@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<3CAE0CF2.156A5C4A@attbi.com>... > > Paul Havemann wrote: > > > > > Robert Heiling <robheil@attbi.com> says: > > > : Don Nickell wrote: > > > > >snippped > Hi, > > For a college research paper our class of 15 or so were each assigned a different search > engine. I was lucky enough to be assigned vivisimo.com. It was great! So easy to read > and the Windows Explorer shows the hierarchy of the search and lists each site from the > No.1down to the lowest, excluding any duplicates. Give it a try! > > Linda > This has become a quite different discussion which many people will miss because no one has changed the Subject line (until now). Thanks Linda, I haven't heard of vivisimo. -- Mary Arthur

Mary Arthur wrote: > > Linda wrote: > > > Robert Heiling <robheil@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<3CAE0CF2.156A5C4A@attbi.com>... > > > Paul Havemann wrote: > > > > > > > Robert Heiling <robheil@attbi.com> says: > > > > : Don Nickell wrote: > > > > > > >snippped > > > Hi, > > > > For a college research paper our class of 15 or so were each assigned a different search > > engine. I was lucky enough to be assigned vivisimo.com. It was great! So easy to read > > and the Windows Explorer shows the hierarchy of the search and lists each site from the > > No.1down to the lowest, excluding any duplicates. Give it a try! > > > > Linda > > > > This has become a quite different discussion which many people will miss because no one has > changed the Subject line (until now). > > Thanks Linda, I haven't heard of vivisimo. > > -- > Mary Arthur You are, of course right, and we should at least put an (OT) (off topic) in the Subject if nothing else. But, so often we forget becasue we are concentrating on what we are going to say. I took a gander and didn't find it objectionable, just "different", and I'm sure with a little usage I could be more accustomed to its format. I found it a little slow re. Google, but that could be TOD or phase of moon. I guess I like Google Advanced because I don't have to think about the boolean aspects of the search string. In the, "For what it's worth department": I did my typical genealogy research trick and entered "Nickell" in the search field, Google comes up with 52,300 to 183 for Vivsimo; "Nickell genealogy" yields 94 to Vivisimo's 117. Guess I wouldn't be surprised if Google search became another $subscriber$ utility before too long. [Ancestry may then buy them out. ;-) ]