Why doesn't Search Metafilter work? August 9, 2004 8:45 PM Subscribe
Why doesn't Search Metafilter work?
What more do you need? Or have you never tried to Search Metafilter before?
If it doesn't work, and everyone knows it, and it's not going to be repaired any time soon, why is it still there?
posted by eustacescrubb at 8:54 PM on August 9, 2004
If it doesn't work, and everyone knows it, and it's not going to be repaired any time soon, why is it still there?
posted by eustacescrubb at 8:54 PM on August 9, 2004
It doesn't work? That's just jarring!
posted by The God Complex at 9:03 PM on August 9, 2004
posted by The God Complex at 9:03 PM on August 9, 2004
Jarring, no. But it does encourage double posts. A scenario:
Mefite thinks, I shall post this link. But first, let me check to see if it's been posted before. I shall Search Metafilter. Ah! Nothing is turning up. Then my post about Pepsi Blue is original!
posted by eustacescrubb at 9:07 PM on August 9, 2004
Mefite thinks, I shall post this link. But first, let me check to see if it's been posted before. I shall Search Metafilter. Ah! Nothing is turning up. Then my post about Pepsi Blue is original!
posted by eustacescrubb at 9:07 PM on August 9, 2004
What I need is a bug report, because basic queries are operating as far as I can see. Please describe your problem. We are all aware of some deficiencies in the way search works that need improvement, but "doesn't work" is so vague as to be asinine. Have you ever filed a bug report before? Generally, they include a description of how to reproduce the problem you've experienced.
posted by scarabic at 9:07 PM on August 9, 2004
posted by scarabic at 9:07 PM on August 9, 2004
There's also a google search.
posted by The God Complex at 9:11 PM on August 9, 2004
posted by The God Complex at 9:11 PM on August 9, 2004
Have you ever filed a bug report before? Generally, they include a description of how to reproduce the problem you've experienced.
Sorry- didn't realize you were actually asking because you had the power to do something about it.
An example, off the top of my head:
Search Metafilter
Google
The Daily Howler is popular, and posted about and linked to often. But nothing, not http://www.dailyhowler.com, not daily howler, not dailyhowler, nothing gets any results in Search Metafilter.
on preview:
n00b
Ass.
posted by eustacescrubb at 9:13 PM on August 9, 2004
Sorry- didn't realize you were actually asking because you had the power to do something about it.
An example, off the top of my head:
Search Metafilter
The Daily Howler is popular, and posted about and linked to often. But nothing, not http://www.dailyhowler.com, not daily howler, not dailyhowler, nothing gets any results in Search Metafilter.
on preview:
n00b
Ass.
posted by eustacescrubb at 9:13 PM on August 9, 2004
There are currently some issues with the search results, which are being worked out now.
That's on the search page now. Looks like someone done broked it. Good fine, eustacescrubb.
(my 'jarring' remark was simply a joke about an earlier thread)
posted by The God Complex at 9:19 PM on August 9, 2004
I'm thinking that when you say to search "Threads Only" that doesn't include comments, like you think it does.
posted by smackfu at 9:21 PM on August 9, 2004
posted by smackfu at 9:21 PM on August 9, 2004
The top result in the Google search is a thread devoted to the Daily Howler. Shouldn't that show up?
And if "threads only" doesn't search comments, but just FPPs, why is it called "threads" - that implies conversations, right? And if comments aren't searched, why not?
posted by eustacescrubb at 9:24 PM on August 9, 2004
And if "threads only" doesn't search comments, but just FPPs, why is it called "threads" - that implies conversations, right? And if comments aren't searched, why not?
posted by eustacescrubb at 9:24 PM on August 9, 2004
didn't realize you were actually asking because you had the power to do something about it.
He doesn't.
That's on the search page now. Looks like someone done broked it.
If I'm not mistaken, that's said that for a long time now.
Search works good enough for me —mathowie
posted by rushmc at 9:33 PM on August 9, 2004
He doesn't.
That's on the search page now. Looks like someone done broked it.
If I'm not mistaken, that's said that for a long time now.
Search works good enough for me —mathowie
posted by rushmc at 9:33 PM on August 9, 2004
I can see the problem here. People have an expectation that basic phrases will map to concepts in a given set of text (the whole site), while I've been online so long I usually don't trust any search engine but Google's, and even that doesn't work so hot.
If you're looking to prevent double posts, the search engine works at finding URLs. You simply figure out the most unique phrase in what you are searching for, including URLs. So a search since day one for: dailyhowler.com and you should get every post ever. If you want to search for concepts, use the Google search. I'll change the search page to reflect this.
if comments aren't searched, why not?
It's too taxing on the database to search through the text of almost three quarters of a million posts.
So I'll make a promise here to swap the search engine boxes. The Google search will be first and foremost, and the resident search engine will be described accurately as only an exact phrase search engine, that only works for posts and users, and nothing else.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 9:42 PM on August 9, 2004
If you're looking to prevent double posts, the search engine works at finding URLs. You simply figure out the most unique phrase in what you are searching for, including URLs. So a search since day one for: dailyhowler.com and you should get every post ever. If you want to search for concepts, use the Google search. I'll change the search page to reflect this.
if comments aren't searched, why not?
It's too taxing on the database to search through the text of almost three quarters of a million posts.
So I'll make a promise here to swap the search engine boxes. The Google search will be first and foremost, and the resident search engine will be described accurately as only an exact phrase search engine, that only works for posts and users, and nothing else.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 9:42 PM on August 9, 2004
So a search since day one for: dailyhowler.com and you should get every post ever.
Comes up zilch for me.
posted by dobbs at 9:58 PM on August 9, 2004
Comes up zilch for me.
posted by dobbs at 9:58 PM on August 9, 2004
rushmc - Indeed I can't alter the operation of the search engine, but by assisting someone in reporting their bug better, I like to think I can assist in a productive dev cycle or two here and there.
/optimism
Matt, why doesn't a resident search engine query for "threads" with the term "howler," or "daily howler" or "the daily howler" with the "since day one" option selected, turn up this thread?
(fyi: that's a more productive way you could have phrased your question, eustacescrubb)
posted by scarabic at 10:03 PM on August 9, 2004
/optimism
Matt, why doesn't a resident search engine query for "threads" with the term "howler," or "daily howler" or "the daily howler" with the "since day one" option selected, turn up this thread?
(fyi: that's a more productive way you could have phrased your question, eustacescrubb)
posted by scarabic at 10:03 PM on August 9, 2004
Matt, why doesn't a resident search engine query for "threads" with the term "howler," or "daily howler" or "the daily howler" with the "since day one" option selected, turn up this thread?
Actually, I don't know why. It should and has in the past. In the past, basic queries for exact phrases have worked just fine. Let me check it out.
(and I agree, that's the first actual productive bug report I've heard about the search engine in months)
posted by mathowie (staff) at 10:06 PM on August 9, 2004
Actually, I don't know why. It should and has in the past. In the past, basic queries for exact phrases have worked just fine. Let me check it out.
(and I agree, that's the first actual productive bug report I've heard about the search engine in months)
posted by mathowie (staff) at 10:06 PM on August 9, 2004
Here, the basic search works again.
Turns out I had some code in there to go back x number of days before the present to facilitate the "since day one" search. At the time I programmed it a few years ago, 1000 days was plenty to cover the entire life of the site. So the search engine was only reaching about three years back all this time. I recoded it to search back to July 1, 1999, so it should work forever.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 10:10 PM on August 9, 2004
Turns out I had some code in there to go back x number of days before the present to facilitate the "since day one" search. At the time I programmed it a few years ago, 1000 days was plenty to cover the entire life of the site. So the search engine was only reaching about three years back all this time. I recoded it to search back to July 1, 1999, so it should work forever.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 10:10 PM on August 9, 2004
rushmc - Indeed I can't alter the operation of the search engine, but by assisting someone in reporting their bug better, I like to think I can assist in a productive dev cycle or two here and there.
That's fine. Just clearing up her apparent misreading of your comment.
Thanks for the fix, mathowie. Now about those copyright dates...
posted by rushmc at 12:09 AM on August 10, 2004
That's fine. Just clearing up her apparent misreading of your comment.
Thanks for the fix, mathowie. Now about those copyright dates...
posted by rushmc at 12:09 AM on August 10, 2004
I thought jokes were supposed to be funny.
posted by crunchland at 2:59 AM on August 10, 2004
posted by crunchland at 2:59 AM on August 10, 2004
mathowie: thanks. Do you think we could maybe have a little more in the way of a description for the search function? Something like:
"Threads only" searches front page posts only. To search comments, use the Google search.
scarabic: (fyi: that's a more productive way you could have phrased your question, eustacescrubb)
You're right. See, the search hasn't worked very well for me for such a long time that I assumed there was a common understanding that it didn't work, and thus I didn't need to file a specific bug report. A bad assumption to make, apparently.
posted by eustacescrubb at 5:00 AM on August 10, 2004
"Threads only" searches front page posts only. To search comments, use the Google search.
scarabic: (fyi: that's a more productive way you could have phrased your question, eustacescrubb)
You're right. See, the search hasn't worked very well for me for such a long time that I assumed there was a common understanding that it didn't work, and thus I didn't need to file a specific bug report. A bad assumption to make, apparently.
posted by eustacescrubb at 5:00 AM on August 10, 2004
I recoded it to search back to July 1, 1999, so it should work forever.
That's also fixed the weird "search users" bug I've found where certain low-number users were impossible to track down even when typing their MeFi name right into the search box and selecting "day one." Thanks!
posted by jessamyn at 5:37 AM on August 10, 2004
That's also fixed the weird "search users" bug I've found where certain low-number users were impossible to track down even when typing their MeFi name right into the search box and selecting "day one." Thanks!
posted by jessamyn at 5:37 AM on August 10, 2004
scarabic: where do you get your world class condescension skills from? The same school that taught you ventriloquism-for-mathowie?
posted by dash_slot- at 5:44 AM on August 10, 2004
posted by dash_slot- at 5:44 AM on August 10, 2004
Before the thread descends completely into madness, I'd like to make a related suggestion about the search results page...
When you search for users, the results are a laid out kinda unhelpfully. If I'm looking for quonsar's user page and search for "quonsar", all I get are links to all the user pages that mention him, and no way to tell which link will actually take me to his own page. I suggest that the results be formatted more like this...
the phrase "quonsar" appeared on madamjujujive's use page
the phrase "quonsar" appeared on languagehat's use page
the phrase "quonsar" appeared on quonsar's use page
posted by GeekAnimator at 7:24 AM on August 10, 2004
When you search for users, the results are a laid out kinda unhelpfully. If I'm looking for quonsar's user page and search for "quonsar", all I get are links to all the user pages that mention him, and no way to tell which link will actually take me to his own page. I suggest that the results be formatted more like this...
the phrase "quonsar" appeared on madamjujujive's use page
the phrase "quonsar" appeared on languagehat's use page
the phrase "quonsar" appeared on quonsar's use page
posted by GeekAnimator at 7:24 AM on August 10, 2004
GeekA:
Yeah, I agree - it's always been a bit of a needle/haystack search, esp. for a poster with a long history, to locate their user page. It shouldn't be that hard, should it, Matt?
posted by dash_slot- at 7:41 AM on August 10, 2004
Yeah, I agree - it's always been a bit of a needle/haystack search, esp. for a poster with a long history, to locate their user page. It shouldn't be that hard, should it, Matt?
posted by dash_slot- at 7:41 AM on August 10, 2004
especially now, with contacts listed on a page too, no?
posted by amberglow at 8:18 AM on August 10, 2004
posted by amberglow at 8:18 AM on August 10, 2004
Contacts aren't searched amberglow, just user information fields.
Good suggestion GeekAnimator, I'll see what I can do.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 8:55 AM on August 10, 2004
Good suggestion GeekAnimator, I'll see what I can do.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 8:55 AM on August 10, 2004
Well what should happen if you search for a user is a more intelligent presentation of the results.
If the search term matches the name of an account exactly, that should go at the top. Then all user names where the search term is a substring should be listed. Only after that should we start seeing a list of user pages containing the search term.
Search results for "quonsar":
User page: quonsar
Similar names:Users talking about "quonsar":
none
posted by Khalad at 9:36 AM on August 10, 2004
If the search term matches the name of an account exactly, that should go at the top. Then all user names where the search term is a substring should be listed. Only after that should we start seeing a list of user pages containing the search term.
Search results for "quonsar":
User page: quonsar
Similar names:Users talking about "quonsar":
none
posted by Khalad at 9:36 AM on August 10, 2004
Why the fuck would you search for a username to find their page? If you already know the name, just go there.
posted by timeistight at 9:45 AM on August 10, 2004
posted by timeistight at 9:45 AM on August 10, 2004
Maybe because you know a partial spelling of their name or are looking for a user whose whole handle you can't remember or aren't sure how things are spaced or whatever? Why the fucking fuck fuck fuck would you ask a question like anybody who doesn't do what you do is a fucking idiot?
posted by yerfatma at 9:57 AM on August 10, 2004
posted by yerfatma at 9:57 AM on August 10, 2004
Why the fuck would you search for a username to find their page? If you already know the name, just go there.
you've brought this up before, timeistight, although I can't find the comment right now, but I ask you, how is a casual user supposed to know that that method even exists? It's much more common to link to user pages by their number, in fact, I can't even find an official example of a link on the site using your method.
posted by GeekAnimator at 10:00 AM on August 10, 2004
you've brought this up before, timeistight, although I can't find the comment right now, but I ask you, how is a casual user supposed to know that that method even exists? It's much more common to link to user pages by their number, in fact, I can't even find an official example of a link on the site using your method.
posted by GeekAnimator at 10:00 AM on August 10, 2004
Okay, sorry for the profanity; I just think adding complicated AI to the user search should be priority 963 on Matt's to-do list.
But that's just me.
posted by timeistight at 10:11 AM on August 10, 2004
But that's just me.
posted by timeistight at 10:11 AM on August 10, 2004
An excellent suggestion regarding the username search, GeekAnimator! I'm constantly having to click on 3-8 or so links to fight the actual user.
Why the fucking fuck fuck fuck would you ask a question like anybody who doesn't do what you do is a fucking idiot?
Indeed. Foully played, sir.
posted by rushmc at 10:31 AM on August 10, 2004
Why the fucking fuck fuck fuck would you ask a question like anybody who doesn't do what you do is a fucking idiot?
Indeed. Foully played, sir.
posted by rushmc at 10:31 AM on August 10, 2004
Missed my apology, rushmc? Or did you just have to get your kick in anyway?
posted by timeistight at 10:49 AM on August 10, 2004
posted by timeistight at 10:49 AM on August 10, 2004
This is all down to confusion over terms. Eustacescrubb expected, quite reasonably, that searching a 'thread' meant an entire thread, not just the post that initiated the thread. Many people call those kinds of posts 'front-page posts' or 'FPPs', but some of us (including mathowie) don't care for that term, and just consider them 'posts' or 'links' (except the latter doesn't really work now that posts almost always have more than one link and lots of editorial commentary in them). But because the comment box says 'post a comment', some people think of comments as 'posts', while others think of them as 'comments'. And the 'search a thread' option doesn't make it clear enough that comments are excluded, which it probably should, because for many people the word 'thread' suggests a post and its comments.
I hope that's all perfectly clear.
The search does work in the sense Matt intended: it turns up occurrences of the search-term in front-page posts. Good if you're worried about double-posts, no good if you're looking for a comment in an old thread. In other words, the two search engines meet the needs of their target audiences perfectly: Google for finding things anywhere on the web, including here; and MeFi Search for preventing and/or fuelling arguments in MetaTalk.
posted by rory at 11:00 AM on August 10, 2004
I hope that's all perfectly clear.
The search does work in the sense Matt intended: it turns up occurrences of the search-term in front-page posts. Good if you're worried about double-posts, no good if you're looking for a comment in an old thread. In other words, the two search engines meet the needs of their target audiences perfectly: Google for finding things anywhere on the web, including here; and MeFi Search for preventing and/or fuelling arguments in MetaTalk.
posted by rory at 11:00 AM on August 10, 2004
Depending on what you're complaining about, dash_slot-, it's either several years of doing QA work, or a couple days in a row of not liking rushmc very much. The latter will pass, I'm sure, but I'll never lose my Bugzilla scars.
posted by scarabic at 11:47 AM on August 10, 2004
posted by scarabic at 11:47 AM on August 10, 2004
scarabic: where do you get your world class condescension skills from?
He's been taking a correspondance course from Wonderchicken U.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:49 PM on August 10, 2004
He's been taking a correspondance course from Wonderchicken U.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:49 PM on August 10, 2004
Why is quonsar always used as an example whenever someone is asking about something weird about MetaFilter?
I just answered my own question, didn't I?
posted by yhbc at 7:43 PM on August 10, 2004
I just answered my own question, didn't I?
posted by yhbc at 7:43 PM on August 10, 2004
Yes, I am a mere Curiositychicken now, but, come September I hope to attain the distinction of Phenomenonchicken. Then it's another 4 years to Celebritychicken, and then 2 years of post-grad work until Wonderchicken. Two Notable Chicken awards from the Nobel committee, plus a Pulitzer prize in chicken scratchings, then one well-documented defiance of the laws of physics in a public place, and I will have attained Miraclechicken.
I'll have your job yet, Stavros.
posted by scarabic at 9:31 PM on August 10, 2004
I'll have your job yet, Stavros.
posted by scarabic at 9:31 PM on August 10, 2004
timeistight, you want to know why I always due user search when looking for someone's user page? I can never remember the /username.mefi/user trick.
posted by Apoch at 9:42 PM on August 10, 2004
posted by Apoch at 9:42 PM on August 10, 2004
Missed my apology, rushmc?
You apologized for the profanity, which SO wasn't the point.
posted by rushmc at 10:53 PM on August 10, 2004
You apologized for the profanity, which SO wasn't the point.
posted by rushmc at 10:53 PM on August 10, 2004
I'll have your job yet, Stavros.
*cries*
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 3:08 AM on August 11, 2004
*cries*
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 3:08 AM on August 11, 2004
You apologized for the profanity, which SO wasn't the point.
No, the point was people requesting mathowe to spend time coding functionality that already exists. The username thing isn't as well documented as I thought, so let's try something else:
Let's say I want to find rushmc's page so I can send him some fan mail. I's try this:
Guess it depends how much you like whining.
posted by timeistight at 8:58 AM on August 11, 2004
No, the point was people requesting mathowe to spend time coding functionality that already exists. The username thing isn't as well documented as I thought, so let's try something else:
Let's say I want to find rushmc's page so I can send him some fan mail. I's try this:
- I start at the search page.
- Noting that "there are currently some issues" with the MetaFilter search, I type "rushmc" into the Google search field and click the "Google Search" button. The "Search Metafilter.com" choice is already selected.
- Click the first link on the results page.
Guess it depends how much you like whining.
posted by timeistight at 8:58 AM on August 11, 2004
You asked a perfectly good question, timeistight. You asked it in a very flippant, profane way, but it was a fair point. Apologizing for the profanity (goodness - profanity!) was beyond the call of duty. No blood, no foul.
[whistle]
posted by scarabic at 12:19 PM on August 11, 2004
[whistle]
posted by scarabic at 12:19 PM on August 11, 2004
Searching for user "timeistight" "in the past year" yields nothing for me. Searching for user "time" "in the past year" yields a series of links called "time." That's weird. And in my experience, clicking on links that come up in user searches does not necessarily take you to the profile page of a user who even has that combination of characters in their name at all.
posted by bingo at 7:49 PM on August 11, 2004
posted by bingo at 7:49 PM on August 11, 2004
Searching for user "timeistight" "in the past year" yields nothing for me.
Because I joined over two years ago. Searching for user "timeistight" since day one not only finds me and my alter egos (because they all point to my website), but finds jonson complaining about me on his user page.
But, h*ck, the search is obviously too hard to use. Let's start a donation drive to buy MetaFilter a Google appliance.
posted by timeistight at 9:27 PM on August 11, 2004
Because I joined over two years ago. Searching for user "timeistight" since day one not only finds me and my alter egos (because they all point to my website), but finds jonson complaining about me on his user page.
But, h*ck, the search is obviously too hard to use. Let's start a donation drive to buy MetaFilter a Google appliance.
posted by timeistight at 9:27 PM on August 11, 2004
Such arrogance, to assume (nay, demand) that everyone share your level of technical competence to participate in the community here, or to have a valid point-of-view. Clearly, anyone who has a different experience than you is not only wrong but a "whiner."
posted by rushmc at 10:55 PM on August 11, 2004
posted by rushmc at 10:55 PM on August 11, 2004
I don't think it's exactly "technical competence" to figure out that "in the past year" won't find something older than that. I think what's arrogant is your demand that Matt's code should anticipate all your errors so you aren't forced to think.
posted by timeistight at 1:36 AM on August 12, 2004
posted by timeistight at 1:36 AM on August 12, 2004
timeistight:
If you joined Mefi 2 years ago, then you were - logically - a member within the timespan "in the past year". What simply does not make sense is that a searcher would have to know when you were first a member to find you. It simply isnt a user friendly function.
Making this observation does not make me any less grateful to Matt for developing Mefi, nor any less admiring of all other contributors that add their bits to the site.
posted by dash_slot- at 5:06 AM on August 12, 2004
If you joined Mefi 2 years ago, then you were - logically - a member within the timespan "in the past year". What simply does not make sense is that a searcher would have to know when you were first a member to find you. It simply isnt a user friendly function.
Making this observation does not make me any less grateful to Matt for developing Mefi, nor any less admiring of all other contributors that add their bits to the site.
posted by dash_slot- at 5:06 AM on August 12, 2004
What simply does not make sense is that a searcher would have to know when you were first a member to find you.
dash_slot wins.
posted by rushmc at 7:31 AM on August 12, 2004
dash_slot wins.
posted by rushmc at 7:31 AM on August 12, 2004
If you joined Mefi 2 years ago, then you were - logically - a member within the timespan "in the past year".
That makes no sense at all. If that were so, searches on "in the past week," "in the past month," "in the past year" and "since day one" would all return the same results.
posted by timeistight at 8:34 AM on August 12, 2004
That makes no sense at all. If that were so, searches on "in the past week," "in the past month," "in the past year" and "since day one" would all return the same results.
posted by timeistight at 8:34 AM on August 12, 2004
Could this not be solved by a reshaping of the search fields:
- To prevent double posts, use search.mefi and urls will be compared (though this is not infallible, as content is mirrored, not everything is permalinked, etc)
- To search users, the search.mefi 'user' search searches all users, regardless of join date, to locate their userpage;
- To do a more in depth search, use google.
This would be more intuitive, and surely no more processor intensive, leading to an all round better experience for the member.
It could be clearly labelled on the search page - which, in all honesty, it isn't at the moment. I hope no-one thinks I'm being pedantic, as it is an issue that has caused me much confusion in the past. I'm not picking fights or splitting hairs, I'm arguing for some small progress, is all.
That makes no sense at all. If that were so, searches on "in the past week," "in the past month," "in the past year" and "since day one" would all return the same results.
posted by timeistight at 8:34 AM PST on August 12
They already make no sense: It will find my userpage if I search 'users' from day one - but not any other criteria. I think thats mad! If I use the resident search to scan 'threads only' for dash_slot- from day one, nothing shows up. Google returns about 652.
What exactly does that mean?
posted by dash_slot- at 9:40 AM on August 12, 2004
- To prevent double posts, use search.mefi and urls will be compared (though this is not infallible, as content is mirrored, not everything is permalinked, etc)
- To search users, the search.mefi 'user' search searches all users, regardless of join date, to locate their userpage;
- To do a more in depth search, use google.
This would be more intuitive, and surely no more processor intensive, leading to an all round better experience for the member.
It could be clearly labelled on the search page - which, in all honesty, it isn't at the moment. I hope no-one thinks I'm being pedantic, as it is an issue that has caused me much confusion in the past. I'm not picking fights or splitting hairs, I'm arguing for some small progress, is all.
That makes no sense at all. If that were so, searches on "in the past week," "in the past month," "in the past year" and "since day one" would all return the same results.
posted by timeistight at 8:34 AM PST on August 12
They already make no sense: It will find my userpage if I search 'users' from day one - but not any other criteria. I think thats mad! If I use the resident search to scan 'threads only' for dash_slot- from day one, nothing shows up. Google returns about 652.
What exactly does that mean?
posted by dash_slot- at 9:40 AM on August 12, 2004
If I use the resident search to scan 'threads only' for dash_slot- from day one, nothing shows up. Google returns about 652.
What exactly does that mean?
What that means is that no-one has ever composed a thread (link, FPP or whatever you want to call it) that contains the character sequence "dash_slot-". The search is only searching threads; that's why it's called threads-only. Usernames aren't part of threads unless they're explicitly typed in.
Google, on the other hand, is searching all the web pages on the site so it turns up almost every page on which your username appears in any context.
Can we agree on this: that the search should be documented to avoid these problems? That doesn't mean it's broken.
posted by timeistight at 10:16 AM on August 12, 2004
What exactly does that mean?
What that means is that no-one has ever composed a thread (link, FPP or whatever you want to call it) that contains the character sequence "dash_slot-". The search is only searching threads; that's why it's called threads-only. Usernames aren't part of threads unless they're explicitly typed in.
Google, on the other hand, is searching all the web pages on the site so it turns up almost every page on which your username appears in any context.
Can we agree on this: that the search should be documented to avoid these problems? That doesn't mean it's broken.
posted by timeistight at 10:16 AM on August 12, 2004
OK, it's not broken - it just doesn't 'do what it says on the tin', as we say in the UK. Documentation would help, that's true.
One final point: it was broken when this post was made - see here. I'd say that making suggestions about how we use the search facility, and how to make it better, are valuable. Responses which are arrogant and condescending [no names, no pack drill] are less than useful. It would be more collegiate to try to comprehend what a user's problem is [a la Ask.mefi], than to imply that they are incompetent and / or silly.
posted by dash_slot- at 10:30 AM on August 12, 2004
One final point: it was broken when this post was made - see here. I'd say that making suggestions about how we use the search facility, and how to make it better, are valuable. Responses which are arrogant and condescending [no names, no pack drill] are less than useful. It would be more collegiate to try to comprehend what a user's problem is [a la Ask.mefi], than to imply that they are incompetent and / or silly.
posted by dash_slot- at 10:30 AM on August 12, 2004
It is silly to expect complicated artificial intelligence features in a basic search like this.
It's up to Matt how he wants to spend his time, but if I was him I'd remove the MetaFilter search altogether and tell everyone to use Google.
posted by timeistight at 10:54 AM on August 12, 2004
It's up to Matt how he wants to spend his time, but if I was him I'd remove the MetaFilter search altogether and tell everyone to use Google.
posted by timeistight at 10:54 AM on August 12, 2004
Other than Khalad, no-one asked for that!
Sheesh, it's not silly to expect the search function to turn up obvious results.
Good luck with the tweaks you're working on matt.
Over and out.
posted by dash_slot- at 11:08 AM on August 12, 2004
Sheesh, it's not silly to expect the search function to turn up obvious results.
Good luck with the tweaks you're working on matt.
Over and out.
posted by dash_slot- at 11:08 AM on August 12, 2004
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by scarabic at 8:46 PM on August 9, 2004