Forum Search Engine - It's been said before
Posted by: MJSM on 23 November 2003
Message to the administrators
The search engine on this Forum is bloody awful !!!
I would dearly like to research some views on the NAC72 vs NAC82 as I'm sure this topic has been done to death.
All I can say is - YOU TRY IT !!, or alternatively, please advise on how you would "try narrowing your search criteria"
Come on chaps, this needs fixing
Mike
The search engine on this Forum is bloody awful !!!
I would dearly like to research some views on the NAC72 vs NAC82 as I'm sure this topic has been done to death.
All I can say is - YOU TRY IT !!, or alternatively, please advise on how you would "try narrowing your search criteria"
Come on chaps, this needs fixing
Mike
Thanks chaps, thought it was just me (not).
There are many ways within standard SQL (standard database query language) to improve this search engine (they could try extending the date/time options for starters.
And have you noticed that the AND or '+' option does'nt improve matters, all you get is the second word - I reckon I could do better than this myself (almost)
Mike
There are many ways within standard SQL (standard database query language) to improve this search engine (they could try extending the date/time options for starters.
And have you noticed that the AND or '+' option does'nt improve matters, all you get is the second word - I reckon I could do better than this myself (almost)
Mike
I think you need to talk to the people that wrote this software: www.infopop.com
Their other software, UBB, does not appear to have the 3 character limitation on searches.
My guess, coming from a software support backgound, would be performance degredation if allowing searches for 3 chars or less.
But what the heck do I know
Their other software, UBB, does not appear to have the 3 character limitation on searches.
My guess, coming from a software support backgound, would be performance degredation if allowing searches for 3 chars or less.
But what the heck do I know
quote:
My guess, coming from a software support backgound, would be performance degredation if allowing searches for 3 chars or less.
Basically yes. As someone who writes discussion communities commercially, I know all too well about the forum search conundrum.
Techie bit:
To some degree it depends upon whether something like the text fragment 'the' would be treated as a substring (including, then, words like 'theatre' and 'theology') or as an atomic word (which would only resolve 'the'). Infopop, or whoever configured the Infopop search facilities, seem to have taken the second approach, though it shouldn't make that much of a difference technically...
In reality, from a sql perspective it's six of one and half a dozen of the other: the 'like %the%' clause returns instances of the pattern 'the' within something that contains a string - e.g. a varchar field, for instance. That can mean a lot of results. However, in SQL server the 'top n' construct would return the first n results, and assuming the 'order by' clause is sensibly created there's every reason for things to work perfectly.
It's just implementation decisions coming back to bite the user, as always.
However, it is also a trade-off between server load and responsiveness, and extending the search 'scope' would have some impact on the responsiveness of the rest of the site (unless searches were performed on a seperate, replicated copy of the community database).
Fascinating stuff, and one of the reasons I roll my own communities...
John
TC '..'
"Sun went down in honey. Moon came up in wine. Stars were spinnin' dizzy, Lord, the band kept us so busy we forgot about the time."