This post made my weekend for two reasons. Unknown to you at the time, I was busy helping LadyGeek implement what we'd done on FWF but couldn't divulge the information and secondly I appreciated the supportive comment on the job we'd done on FWF.Mudpuppy wrote:Hopefully, the Financial Webring Forum folks can help with the customization of the Forum header, since it seems they've hit all the most commonly requested features for the header: a logo in the upper left, an additional search box in the upper right, and links to the donation and wiki pages on the right below searching. As one who uses the Forum page (as opposed to the Bogleheads.org page) as my primary portal to this site, it would be nice to have these features eventually.
Search function fails big-time (i.e. sux)
- Peculiar_Investor
- Site Admin
- Posts: 2442
- Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 12:23 am
- Location: Calgary, AB 🇨🇦
- Contact:
Re: Search function fails big-time (i.e. sux)
Normal people… believe that if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Engineers believe that if it ain’t broke, it doesn’t have enough features yet. – Scott Adams
Re: Search function fails big-time (i.e. sux)
To mudpuppy and Petrico - Now you see how close your comments were to home. I shared Peculiar_Investor's frustration that we couldn't tell you what we were up to.
Re: Search function fails big-time (i.e. sux)
Thanks for your hard work guys. The compass is back. All is well with the world.
Re: Search function fails big-time (i.e. sux)
There appears to be a problem with the "search by author" method of searching.
When I search for my username it finds 627 posts.
My number of reported posts is 683.
Why such a big discrepancy?
When I search for my username it finds 627 posts.
My number of reported posts is 683.
Why such a big discrepancy?
Re: Search function fails big-time (i.e. sux)
You might have posted 56 times in threads that have been removed for violations of policy. At least that's how I understand how things work. Your post count never goes down, but if you post in a political thread that gets deleted, your deleted post will not show up in a search.
Do you remember ever posting in a thread that disappeared? Do you remember 56 such posts?
Do you remember ever posting in a thread that disappeared? Do you remember 56 such posts?
Re: Search function fails big-time (i.e. sux)
Possibly yes. Very probably not 56 posts.sscritic wrote:You might have posted 56 times in threads that have been removed for violations of policy. At least that's how I understand how things work. Your post count never goes down, but if you post in a political thread that gets deleted, your deleted post will not show up in a search.
Do you remember ever posting in a thread that disappeared? Do you remember 56 such posts?
Posts that I've made in locked threads show up in my search.
Re: Search function fails big-time (i.e. sux)
Locked threads haven't reached the threshold for deletion, but others go all the way, e.g., threads started by spammers.bdpb wrote: Possibly yes. Very probably not 56 posts.
Posts that I've made in locked threads show up in my search.
Re: Search function fails big-time (i.e. sux)
One possible reason is that when you click on "View your posts" it shows the number of threads you posted in. When you use the "Advanced search" function you have the option of "Display results as: Posts" which is the default and has a higher number if you posted more than once in a thread, or "Display results as: Topics" which gives you the same number as "View your posts" does.bdpb wrote:There appears to be a problem with the "search by author" method of searching.
When I search for my username it finds 627 posts.
My number of reported posts is 683.
Why such a big discrepancy?
Re: Search function fails big-time (i.e. sux)
I'm not logged in when I do this, so I'm not looking at "View your posts". I'm using the "Advanced Search",Duckie wrote:One possible reason is that when you click on "View your posts" it shows the number of threads you posted in. When you use the "Advanced search" function you have the option of "Display results as: Posts" which is the default and has a higher number if you posted more than once in a thread, or "Display results as: Topics" which gives you the same number as "View your posts" does.bdpb wrote:There appears to be a problem with the "search by author" method of searching.
When I search for my username it finds 627 posts.
My number of reported posts is 683.
Why such a big discrepancy?
"search by author" and "Display results as: Posts". It shows 627. I'm comparing it to the info that is displayed
when viewing posts that contains userid, "Posts:" and "Joined". This shows 683.
When I login and "View your posts", it shows 555. When I use "Advanced Search", "search by author" and
"Display results as: Topics", it also shows 555.
I imagine the difference between 555 and 627 is due to multiple posts to the same topic. I'm just wondering
where the 683 comes from. I seriously doubt there are 56 posts that I made posts to that were purposely deleted.
Re: Search function fails big-time (i.e. sux)
I found 686 (bdpb's current post count listed) using the forum's advanced search.
Search for all terms or use query as entered
Search for author: bdpb
Search subforums: Yes
Search within: Post subjects and message text
Display results as: Posts
Logged in: 686 Results
Not logged in: 630 Results
The difference between 686 and 630 is that the Consumer and Recreation forum is not visible to guests (what you are when not logged in). As a guest, you will not be allowed to see information that's for "members-only"; the software adjusts its results accordingly.
Search for all terms or use query as entered
Search for author: bdpb
Search subforums: Yes
Search within: Post subjects and message text
Display results as: Posts
Logged in: 686 Results
Not logged in: 630 Results
The difference between 686 and 630 is that the Consumer and Recreation forum is not visible to guests (what you are when not logged in). As a guest, you will not be allowed to see information that's for "members-only"; the software adjusts its results accordingly.
Re: Search function fails big-time (i.e. sux)
It's coming along great, LadyGeek. Thanks for all your time and effort. I guess some of us get a little impatient.LadyGeek wrote:Now you see how close your comments were to home. I shared Peculiar_Investor's frustration that we couldn't tell you what we were up to.
--Pete
"Discipline matters more than allocation.” |—| "In finance, if you’re certain of anything, you’re out of your mind." ─William Bernstein
Re: Search function fails big-time (i.e. sux)
Great job, LadyGeek.LadyGeek wrote:I found 686 (bdpb's current post count listed) using the forum's advanced search.
Search for all terms or use query as entered
Search for author: bdpb
Search subforums: Yes
Search within: Post subjects and message text
Display results as: Posts
Logged in: 686 Results
Not logged in: 630 Results
The difference between 686 and 630 is that the Consumer and Recreation forum is not visible to guests (what you are when not logged in). As a guest, you will not be allowed to see information that's for "members-only"; the software adjusts its results accordingly.
Now a requirements question.
Should a guest user be able to determine that I've made 56 posts that are for "members only"?
Should they see 686 or 630?
Re: Search function fails big-time (i.e. sux)
Great timing. Look at the top of the page (refresh browser).petrico wrote:It's coming along great, LadyGeek. Thanks for all your time and effort. I guess some of us get a little impatient. --Pete
A guest will see 630 and have no idea of anything else you may have done.bdpb wrote:Now a requirements question.
Should a guest user be able to determine that I've made 56 posts that are for "members only"?
Should they see 686 or 630?
Re: Search function fails big-time (i.e. sux)
That's excellent!LadyGeek wrote:Great timing. Look at the top of the page (refresh browser).petrico wrote:It's coming along great, LadyGeek. Thanks for all your time and effort. I guess some of us get a little impatient. --Pete
Looks like several other important additions just below the banner also. We got paint on the walls just in time for the furniture to arrive.
--Pete
"Discipline matters more than allocation.” |—| "In finance, if you’re certain of anything, you’re out of your mind." ─William Bernstein
Re: Search function fails big-time (i.e. sux)
I'm sorry, I guess I wasn't clear enough. When viewing posts, a guest user sees 686 inLadyGeek wrote:A guest will see 630 and have no idea of anything else you may have done.bdpb wrote:Now a requirements question.
Should a guest user be able to determine that I've made 56 posts that are for "members only"?
Should they see 686 or 630?
the author's information (Posts:, Location:, etc.) area.
Re: Search function fails big-time (i.e. sux)
OK, let's take this a little slower. Logout and be sure you see the "Register" and "Login" links at the top right corner, which means you are really logged out.
Try to find the "Members" list in the forum header - it's not there. There's no way for guest to access the member list. However, I saved the link. When I pasted it back into the browser, I was presented with a login screen. So, there's no way a guest could see your (now) 689 posts. If you figured out how to do this as a guest, I'd be interested to know the technique.
This software can be difficult at times to understand; if this description helped straighten anything out, it's not a problem.
Try to find the "Members" list in the forum header - it's not there. There's no way for guest to access the member list. However, I saved the link. When I pasted it back into the browser, I was presented with a login screen. So, there's no way a guest could see your (now) 689 posts. If you figured out how to do this as a guest, I'd be interested to know the technique.
This software can be difficult at times to understand; if this description helped straighten anything out, it's not a problem.
Re: Search function fails big-time (i.e. sux)
I'm not logged in when I read posts. I didn't say a guest could see my 689 posts. I said a guest could see that I haveLadyGeek wrote:OK, let's take this a little slower. Logout and be sure you see the "Register" and "Login" links at the top right corner, which means you are really logged out.
Try to find the "Members" list in the forum header - it's not there. There's no way for guest to access the member list. However, I saved the link. When I pasted it back into the browser, I was presented with a login screen. So, there's no way a guest could see your (now) 689 posts. If you figured out how to do this as a guest, I'd be interested to know the technique.
This software can be difficult at times to understand; if this description helped straighten anything out, it's not a problem.
made 689 posts. This info is displayed in the author's info area to one side or other of all posts when viewed as
a guest user.
Re: Search function fails big-time (i.e. sux)
OK, my mistake. I didn't get the "info is displayed in the author's info area to one side" intention. I checked against this thread and see what you mean. Good point, but I don't have an answer for this - it's what the software does.bdpb wrote:I'm not logged in when I read posts. I didn't say a guest could see my 689 posts. I said a guest could see that I have
made 689 posts. This info is displayed in the author's info area to one side or other of all posts when viewed as
a guest user.
Re: Search function fails big-time (i.e. sux)
That's why I stated it as a "requirements" question.LadyGeek wrote:OK, my mistake. I didn't get the "info is displayed in the author's info area to one side" intention. I checked against this thread and see what you mean. Good point, but I don't have an answer for this - it's what the software does.bdpb wrote:I'm not logged in when I read posts. I didn't say a guest could see my 689 posts. I said a guest could see that I have
made 689 posts. This info is displayed in the author's info area to one side or other of all posts when viewed as
a guest user.
Many thanks for all your efforts around here.
Re: Search function fails big-time (i.e. sux)
Many thanks for the improved search on the forum. I'm glad it didn't take too long to get implemented. Thanks!