even lamer BWW search engine

[TxTwoStep]

Posted: 2/24/05 at 7:55pm

i put in "Good News" on the OT page (the title of a thread) and it didn't find it.

i put in Star Jones (subject of that thread) and it didn't find it.

i think the software has a glitch. Any HTML'ers with a prognosis? "Paging Dr. Bombay, Dr. Bombay..."

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 2/24/05 at 7:56pm

I don't think any OT threads are ever included in the search...

[gettinhep]

Posted: 2/24/05 at 7:56pm

You'll need a tail feather from a Great Golden Dodo.

[Ellie3]

Posted: 2/24/05 at 7:57pm

Try searching on the OT board instead of the main one.

[TxTwoStep]

Posted: 2/24/05 at 7:57pm

some people posted in a previous thread that the engine searched Message Board and Off Topic separately, and that you had to put your term in from the correct page.

i wonder if quotation marks would help for phrases, like on Google. Hell, right now i'd settle for Aunt Clara instead of Dr. Bombay.

[Plum]

Posted: 2/24/05 at 7:58pm

OT threads will be searched if you use the OT search engine. All I had to do was search for "news" in the subject line and this was the first result.
Good news thread

[Plum]

Posted: 2/24/05 at 7:59pm

And no, quotes won't help. The search here isn't Boolean- if you type in more than one word, it will look for any of those words.

[TxTwoStep]

Posted: 2/24/05 at 8:03pm

i DID search OT, re-read the initial post. But silly me, i used the whole title of the thread instead of one common word like "news", thinking i'd get to the thread i wanted faster. Aren't search engines supposed to be self-intuitive and not the reverse?!?!? *wink*

[Plum]

Posted: 2/24/05 at 8:07pm

Even if you search for "good news" (no quotes) the thread you want is in the first page of results. Like I said, it searches for any word you put in, so you need to pick the most unique one.

And really, you need to talk to Rob or Craig about this if it's such an issue.

[TxTwoStep]

Posted: 2/24/05 at 8:10pm

i'm hoping Rob or Craig will read this, Plum. It's not an issue enough to PM them. But thanks for the advice.

And if you read my initial post here, i put in Good News with no quotes and the thread was not among the hits. i did it from the OT page. When i asked for a prognosis, i was hoping any advisors might get familiar with the case history first.

Oh, for Dr. Bombay. This discussion is making me feel like Endora. And i'm usually so Samantha.

[Plum]

Posted: 2/24/05 at 8:12pm

You really should PM them instead of hoping they'll read a thread. Otherwise you're just taking up space that may or may not get something done.

I did the exact thing you described- good news, no quotes, OT search, and I got that thread in the first page of results. That's just me, though.

[TxTwoStep]

Posted: 2/26/05 at 7:57pm

again, Plum, thanks SO MUCH for the advice, but if i'm taking up too much thread space i'm certain BWW will let me know.

Also THRILLED that the search engine works for you. Just now, i tried The Houston Thread with no quotes on the OT page search feature, and got no hits. It is the name of the thread i wanted. In order to find it, i have to scroll through several "Next 50" links.

In order to find this thread again, i put lamer, again with no quotes, into the search function of the OT page. No hits. It is a word in the title of this thread.

In both instances, the first hit should have been the thread i wanted.

Yes, i COULD send a single PM to Rob or Craig. But if others, like me, are having frustration (as opposed to your amazingly blessed way with search function) then it might a cross-browser issue that they'd like to research. Otherwise it might come across as just how singularly bitchy i myself am personally.

And if you notice, even when i'm a bit touchy with you, i try to leaven it with some humor. Otherwise, it could seem as if i'm trying to tell you what to do when i don't even know you and you have no reason to particularly want my unsolicited advice. But that's just me, though!

Have a GREAT day!

Updated On: 2/26/05 at 07:57 PM

[TxTwoStep]

Posted: 2/26/05 at 8:08pm

Plummy, i want to apologize some for the preceding post. i was really frustrated when i made it, and will probably go back and edit these both out eventually.

You see, after paging through several "Next 50" to find The Houston Thread, i couldn't post there as BWW had inadvertently kicked me out and i had to sign back in. So that meant, since the search function does not work reliably for me, that i had to page through all those "Next 50" to find the thread YET AGAIN.

Then i get to the thread, start to post, and find that in the intervening time, the link i had copied so i could paste a URL in the thread had timed out. So i had to open another window, relocate the URL, and re-paste. But i finally got it all done.

That frustration made me entirely too Endora-like. You were like poor Darren, caught in the crossfire. i love the way you post in other threads, but in this one you just got under my witchy bitchy nerve. i want to let both these stand a while in case you read the previous before i could edit it....did i mention the "Who's Online" is sometimes inaccurate as well?

Thanks for letting me vent. i'm certain you're a peach as well as a plum.

[Plum]

Posted: 2/26/05 at 8:09pm

I put "lamer" into the OT search engine and got this as the first hit. Are you sure you're using the OT search engine?

And my point was that using this thread as your only means of talking about the engine might not work because Rob and Craig don't read every single thread. PMs are targeted; they're guaranteed to get to the mods.

Oh wait, that wasn't "solicited" either, was it? I have to forget this whole helpfullness thing...

[TxTwoStep]

Posted: 2/26/05 at 8:13pm

yes, i am certain i am using the type-in window at the upper right of the OT page with the search button next to it. i've been on the WWW for three decades, used all kinds of search engines, and can pretty regularly monitor my choices in site navigation.

And my opinion is that Rob or Craig might very well read all threads with the initials BWW in the title.

You are very helpful. We are both very condescending. Let's keep our rationales to ourselves, and not try to apply them to the other person, how's about?

Updated On: 2/26/05 at 08:13 PM

[Plum]

Posted: 2/26/05 at 8:17pm

Ah, there's our difference. I always search by using the "search" link at the top of the board. I think the box in the top right always searches the main board.

And I'm not even going to address all the other crap you're making up. I've helped plenty of people here and in other places with tech issues, and I've never been called condescending for it. I think the fact that you're so convinced I am reflects more on you than on me.

ETA- If you're just cranky, it's all good. Heaven knows I've taken my frustration out on the wrong people before. Peace. :) Updated On: 2/26/05 at 08:17 PM

[TxTwoStep]

Posted: 2/26/05 at 8:41pm

i don't make stuff up. i'm reporting my experience with the search function accurately...why on earth would i lie about it? i'm not THAT crazy. My opinion is that we're both condescending; nothing about that needs to be "made up". Notice i don't paint with a brush that only points outward. You might try that sometime.

How you interact with others is not at issue in this thread, but how i perceive your directives to me is. i have noted that in other threads i find you charming. In this one, somehow, not so.

The only search option available in the way the OT board loads for my viewer (IE, or Internet Explorer) is at the upper right, next to "Click to Jump to a Show". In any event, if there are multiple buttons to search with, they should all function the same from the same page. As i tried to hint at, which maybe i should just state, is that quite possibly the layout and the search function work differently for different connections to the WWW.

i'm all for peace, too. Let's agree not belabor this anymore, at least between you and me. i tried to hint at that too, but this is the last i'll post to you regarding it.

Updated On: 2/26/05 at 08:41 PM

[Plum]

Posted: 2/26/05 at 8:46pm

I'm also using IE- are you sure that you don't see a link that says "Search" right in between "Main Board" and "Guidelines"? It should be right above the board, and below the search box, news links, etc. That's the link that'll take you to the proper search page. At the top of that search page, it says "Search the Off-Topic Message Board." That search engine should work for you.

And as far as I'm concerned, you're reading things into my posts that weren't there. However, since you're insisting so very nicely, I'll stop trying to interpret anything extraneous to technical issues in your posts from now on.

And yes, now I'm being snarky.

[Mary_Ethel]

Posted: 2/26/05 at 8:51pm

C'mon, guys, who don't we get a pit full of mud in here and let you two REALLY have at it?

[TxTwoStep]

Posted: 2/26/05 at 8:52pm

there is a link there that i never noticed before. But why on earth should it function differently than the one on the upper right?

(just to be clear, my rhetorical question is directed at the programmers of the site, whose expertise and generosity i really appreciate).

Plummy, me sorry.

[Mamamia Sammy2]

Posted: 2/26/05 at 8:52pm

All I can say is that I'm very happy that you're searching for Star Jones!!

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 2/26/05 at 8:52pm

Maybe that button on the upper right searches the entire website, whereas the links on the boards only search the board that you're on at the time. That might be why you're getting so many other results.

[TxTwoStep]

Posted: 2/26/05 at 8:55pm

actually, i get NO results sometimes, and the upper right link produces a page with the entire site (including thread topics) divided by hits.

It's a puzzlement!

[Plum]

Posted: 2/26/05 at 8:55pm

I'm guessing the upper-right search box is a general search tool that applies only to the main board no matter which board you access it from. I'm pretty sure it didn't exist before, so I'm used to using the search link I told you about.

Anyway, it's all good. :) And in the future, I know that tone in pure text is hard to discern, but I promise that when I give technical advice I'm not trying to condescend.