Thanks to everyone who sent e-mails supporting this project, and to those who contributed websites to add to the database.  I have been overwhelmed with the number of responses, and haven't been able to yet respond to everyone individually.
 
I have received a number of questions and comments about the search engine, and would like to answer a few of them here.  
 
-->>"How are you handling the National Archaeological Database (NADB)?"At this time, I would like to search the NADB to find reports that are available online.
-->>"This sounds like a GREAT idea - but how do we know what we are looking for?"Unfortunately this is subject to the limitations of how it is set up through Google as a search engine, and there isn't any kind of browsing function.  I would imagine that sample keyword searches could be limited to a geographic area, type of survey, artifact type, agency, company... There are many possibilities for a targeted keyword search.
-->>"Are there CODE WORDS for each report (by location, period, "culture", etc)? How about an abstract/ or listing of abstracts?"Again, unfortunately I'm limited to what Google can do.  There is no way for me to include abstracts.  You can search for specific key words as in a regular Google search.  You can think of this search engine as working like a regular Google search.  The difference is that your search results will first be culled from a database of archaeology reports that are available on the internet. As I've previously mentioned, the intent is that hopefully this will end up being something of a time-saver, and limit the number of irrelevant (that is, non-report) results that you might otherwise get from a regular Google search.
-->>"Are you storing things on your own server or using the Google service to point at documents?"At first I toyed with the idea of trying to host data on archaeologyfieldwork.com, but realized that I would quickly be overwhelmed.  This search engine is completely fueled by Google, and points to external websites that are hosted by other entities - in many cases, these are CRM companies, state and federal agencies, clients, and sometimes individual report authors. 
 
-->>"What are the incentives (if any) for CRM archaeologists to allow easy access to gray literature reports?"I don't know if we will ever reach a point where 100% of the reports make it online, but I would imagine that anything that makes research a little easier can only be a good thing.
-->>"PLEASE DO NOT MAKE AVAILABLE TO EVERY LOOTER AND POTHUNTER OUT THERE  THE LOCATIONS OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES IN THIS COUNTRY!!!! THIS IS A  DANGEROUS TOOL TO PUT IN THE HANDS OF EVERY BOZO OUT THERE."
 
And another negative comment:
 
-->>"I also am extremely concerned about your system's lack of procedures for access to confidential archaeological information that apparently can be accessed by the general public.  I shutter at the presence of "actual full reports that are available on the internet."  Release of that level of information in the cyber-world greatly increases the risk of site destruction through looting or purposeful damage.  I can't imagine who originally posted the documents and I discourage you from compounding their error and, thereby, further increasing the potential for damage to resources."
 
This search engine will NOT make anything available that isn't already for the taking from a regular Google search.  From some of the responses I've received, it seems as if some folks are mistakenly thinking I'm trying to hack into SHPO computers or access items that were not meant to be online ;p .  As an example of what is available on the web, the Delaware DOT offers reports available to the public on their website (http://www.deldot.gov/public.ejs?command=PublicArchaeologySearch). This is an example of the type of website that I am linking to.  Perhaps I should have made this clearer in my first message, and for that, I apologize.  I am laboring under the assumption that the entities that have put these reports up on the web were comfortable with sharing the information contained within them.  However, I am not happy with the prospect of aiding any looters who are out there that are inclined to search through gray literature for site information, so I am certainly open to feedback and suggestions in this area.  Most of the feedback I've received about this project has been positive, but the negative responses have given me pause.   
 
I have encountered a few instances where a report has shown up in a Google search which is labeled "Confidential", "For Agency/Internal Use Only" or has a similar restriction.  I have not included these in the database, and have e-mailed the agency in question in each case to let them know that these are turning up on the internet. 
 
Again, I am certainly open to any suggestions on this project.  If you happened to miss my first message, the search engine is at the following URL: http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=005820147126073055622:emhrw4b9mqa
 
Thanks again,
 
Jennifer Palmer
Webmaster, archaeologyfieldwork.com
http://www.archaeologyfieldwork.com
 
[log in to unmask] or [log in to unmask]
 
 
 
_________________________________________________________________
It’s a talkathon – but it’s not just talk.
http://www.imtalkathon.com/?source=EML_WLH_Talkathon_JustTalk