 |
 |
Is Sherlock 3 lame?
|
 |
|
 |
|
Junior Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Status:
Offline
|
|
Since upgrading my Pismo to Jaguar (10.2.4), I have to say that the Internet search results I get from Sherlock 3 are far inferior to those I used to get from Sherlock 2. Many fewer hits and those that I get are often worthless. Sometimes the hit with the highest relevanve score turns out to be a blank page! Also, many good search sites are missing from the list of sites searched shown on the bottom of the Sherlock window. Where are Google and Yahoo? Can more sites be added to this list?
Be interested to hear what others think.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: North Hollywood, CA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by topcat:
Since upgrading my Pismo to Jaguar (10.2.4), I have to say that the Internet search results I get from Sherlock 3 are far inferior to those I used to get from Sherlock 2. Many fewer hits and those that I get are often worthless. Sometimes the hit with the highest relevanve score turns out to be a blank page! Also, many good search sites are missing from the list of sites searched shown on the bottom of the Sherlock window. Where are Google and Yahoo? Can more sites be added to this list?
Be interested to hear what others think.
Huh? Sherlock 2 and 3 used the same search engines. There are no differences.
In my opinion, I find Sherlock 3 to be far superior to Sherlock 2.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: London, UK
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: The bottom of Cloud City
Status:
Offline
|
|
I only use sherlock for movie searches. I don't know what anyone would want to use it for internet searches when you have google.
|

"Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh"
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Youngsville, NC
Status:
Offline
|
|
I'm waiting for iSeek to be released from Ambrosia, then hopefully I can get rid of Sherlock.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: May 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
Sherlock is lame compared to Watson. Way slower and a lot less functionality. The internet search is a joke. With Watson you can have a Google Search ... or you can always use Safari. The only thing Sherlock does better than Watson is the integrated map and driving directions for the phone number listings.
OAW
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Enschede
Status:
Offline
|
|
Yes. With Safari and it's integrated Google search Sherlock 3 has become defenitiely 100% crap.
Only because it is slow as h*ll and doesn't support Europe 
|
|
iMac G5 2.0 Ghz 20", 2 GB RAM, 400 GB, OS X 10.4.5, iPod with color screen 60 GB
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Boston
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker:
I only use sherlock for movie searches. I don't know what anyone would want to use it for internet searches when you have google.
i agree. searching the internet with safari seems like an extra step to me.
for me sherlock's search results are great. i only use it for yellow pages, movies, translation...you know straight forward stuff....not internet or ebay searches.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Bolton, UK
Status:
Offline
|
|
Sherlock, Watson and all similar apps are only as good as the channels available for them. Sherlock may be a bit short of channels so far (especially outside the US) but it is an excellent framework for channel developers. The combination of JavaScript and XQuery is far easier to use (and much more secure) than Watson's plug-in structure, and sharing cookies with Safari is a killer feature. In the long term, I expect more and more channels to appear from third-party developers. Why not have a go at writing some yourself?
Barney.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Senior User
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Boston, MA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Since Safari was available I havn't touched Sherlock 3.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Forum Regular
Join Date: May 2002
Location: melbourne, australia
Status:
Offline
|
|
mmm, i haven't used sherlock since os9 days. more and more u.s.a centric
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Location: NYC
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by OpenStep:
Since Safari was available I havn't touched Sherlock 3.
Same here.
If Sherlock was amazingly fast, I think I'd use it much more often. As it is now, by the time Sherlock is open and the "Dictionary" channel loaded I've already found the definition I need in Safari and returned to whatever it was I was doling. Sherlock is achingly S-L-O-W.
(Last edited by lookmark; Mar 18, 2003 at 09:35 PM.
)
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: No frelling idea
Status:
Offline
|
|
Yes, it's extremely lame. Back in the day is was great, with internet search and of course you needed it to do systems searches. Now I have Waston which smokes Sherlock and of course a google search right in the browser. I think they could kill sherlock now.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Senior User
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Noo Yawk
Status:
Offline
|
|
Never seem to need to use it.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: London, UK
Status:
Offline
|
|
To be fair, the Weather channel for Sherlock is much, much better than that offered by Watson (as someone living in the UK, the Watson channel is practically useless), and the interfaces of the Sherlock channels are generally much better.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|

|
|
 |
Forum Rules
|
 |
 |
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|