We use MondoSoft and it works well.
I think it will do all the things you list.
We've had good experience with it.
Andy
>-----Original Message-----
>Hello,
>Forgive me if this is a repeat of questions found in=20
prior threads; I=20
>skimmed through a few, but didn't really find any that=20
answered my particular=20
>scenario.
>
>We need to implement search functionality that has the=20
following=20
>capabilities...
>A. Perform content based searches that can identify=20
postings that contain=20
>text fragments. The types of search will most likely=20
include=20
>1. Find results with all of the words in some search=20
criteria
>2. Find results with an exact phrase
>3. Find results with at least one of the words in the=20
search criteria
>4. Etcetera
>B. The user should be able to narrow the search to pull=20
content from certain=20
>channels. My assumption at this stage in the game is that=20
we=E2?Tll present a=20
>drop-down listbox that allows the users to select from a=20
list of channels.
>C. Provide the ability to perform searches not just on=20
posting content, but=20
>also upon posting attachments (e.g. pdfs, documents, etc.)
>D. Provide result-lists that are sorted based upon some =E2?
omerit weighting=E2?=9D=20
>(e.g. whitepapers appear before product fact sheets,=20
etc.).=20
>E. Provide complete visibility of results to internal=20
users; we should be=20
>able to use Windows Authentication for this portion.
>F. Provide limited visibility to external users. For=20
example, if the user=20
>has not been authenticated through a custom scheme that=20
leverages Forms=20
>Authentication, then only show certain types of content.
>
>We don't want to reinvent the wheel, so we're looking a=20
packaged solutions.=20
>The ones that have come onto the radar screen so far=20
include:
>- Mondosoft MondoSearch
>- MS Sharepoint Portal Search (note: we will NOT be=20
imiplementing a portal=20
>solution)
>- Verity
>- DTSSearch
>
>Any recommendations? What are the risks, pros, and cons=20
of these alternatives?
>Thanks
>
>.
>

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]