Given that the 11th anniversary of the terrorist attacks that occured on 9/11 is just a couple days away, I thought I’d check the databases for information on what I could find.

My first thoughts on the website was the simplicity of it. There was a list of newspapers to choose from, you click on one, and then you’re given a simple search box. I searched “September 11” and got a plethora of results, dating from 1924 (the earliest I noticed) till the mid 2000’s. Since my goal was to discover what I could about the terrorist attacks, I decided to refine my search. However, I thought that I should stick with the same search term. Conveniently, there is an “advanced search” button hyperlinked nearby. Upon clicking on the hyperlink, I was taken to a page that offered several options: whether I look at only editorials, ads, etc. (or all of them), what dates would I like to look for, and cross referencing three search terms. Thus to get very specific, I could have searched for “September 11, AND 9/11, AND terrorist attacks”. The AND can be replaced with OR, possibly giving even more specific results. But what was most helpful for my search of the generic term “September 11” was the use of a date range. I searched for “September 11” between the dates of September 12, 2001 and September 20, 2001. As expected, most of my results corresponded with the terrorist attacks. As I included every type of article in my search, I found ads, editorials, letters to the editor, obituaries – even an amusing review on Cabaret’s in New York (which politely reminded it’s readership that some Cabaret’s shows may be cancelled in light of the recent attacks; but who would actually read such a review after an even like 9/11?). Overall, I found the database and its search tool simple and easy to use.

Nevertheless, there is one major complaint. Several of the results have very generic terms, such as “Display Ad 17 – No Title”. There are dozens of “display ads” and articles with vague titles, such as “Invest in Global Policing” or “Financial Aid”. It’s difficult to judge what the contents of these articles are. Is “Invest in Global Policing” an ad, or is it an article discussing how the terrorist attacks may open new investment oppertunities? Then there’s these display ads. Some of them are relatively meaningless, such as “normal” ads discussing car shop deals, plumbers, or other technicians. Others, such as this one by the Consulate General of Brazil in New York may have important relevance to the way other nations viewed the attacks – yet it is still given the aweful “Display Ad # – No Title” format. Still others, such as an ad by ExxonMobil exclaiming their sadness and support, can not be differentiated from less relevant articles. Some ways to help these situations could be: a brief description of an article, either with a short summary or a list of tags, a word count, and a “quick view” that allowed you to see a little snap shot of the article in question. Regardless, There should be a better way to diferentiate articles.