It's really tough to tell what it's telling you when you get a hit with one of the search engines. There have been some previous threads in which "Why doesn't mudcat show up more?" was discussed. The explanation given by the experts then was the same as what I've related above: most of the search engines ignore .org and .edu, and will normally only show them if a link to them is posted on a .com or one of the other "commercial" sites.

Some of the places like the LOC are so frequently referenced that it's reasonable that they could be found entirely based on posted citations. It's also possible that there are "exceptions to the rule," and that some very popular reference sources are searched.

The policy statement that I read some time ago when I was considering installing the Google Toolbar did state that as a general practice, .org and .edu sites are not 'searched.'

The ArtCyclopedia site I linked above is a "semi-commercial" site, and could well be registered as a non-profit, since it's original purpose was to index art museums on the web, as a more or less public service; but I'm told (sources of unknown reliability) they took a .com license in part in order to "be searched." Since they are a .com, they can, and do, sell ad space, which probably makes supporting the site a little easier. They do continue to do a good job of keeping the "commercial" sites separate from the non-profits when they display search results.

I do use Google image search a fair amount, and have almost never gotten a result from anything other than the "po$ter $eller$," and a lot of bad snapshots posted on personal sites and chat rooms. You occasionally get a dot-edu hit, but it's nearly always some profs "class notes" - something that might have been announced in published news media, or discussed by students in chat. Very specifically, searching for known named art works, I've never been referred to ArtRenewal.org (25,000+ images), WebGallery (8,000 or so images, I think), The Louvre, The Hermitage, or even the Zorn Museum.

It was speculated in a previous thread that the 'cat would likely get a surge of visitors if someone posted a few links in strategic "public" places; but I think the consensus was that's a bad idea - too likely to only bring trolls and idle tourists with no appropriate interest. People with suitable interests will get here by hearing from others in our little world, or from those who know about the 'cat because of their own interests.

A quick glance at the "top 500" on the subject site looks like the first 100 or so are all spyware (adclick, doubleclick, etc.) with a sprinkling of download services and tech support sites. The first recognizable "somebody" comes at about number 139, our good friends at WallyWorld, with J.C.Penney at about 260. I don't see any reason why the 'cat should want to move up much in that group.

John