Search Revisited

[arn]

I changed the search method for this site.... so the search function may work better.

There's actually a bit of controversy if this new method is actually better... in that some people think the results are worse, but it is much faster and won't timeout as much (I don't think). Overall should be a big improvement.

Tell me what you think. (And if you can't find your result, you can always try MRoogle (http://mroogle.yo-momma.net/))

There is a better (but less efficient) method... but I tested it and it took 75 seconds when I searched from "Apple Store"... so I decided not to use that one.

arn

[mad jew]

Thanks as ever arn. :cool:

Buuut, I was finding myself (as I do) and got no matches. Any reason why I can't find "jew"? :o

[jsw]

But you see, that's why it's so fast. It'll never find short terms, like "jew" or "mad jew" or "jsw" or "arn"... or "RAM", "CPU", "PPC", "duo", "OWC", "Mac", etc. ;)

[arn]

hm.... 3 letter words were supposed to make it in...

will try to fix it.

arn

[mad jew]

Okay, cool. Thanks for all the work arn. :)

[arn]

3 letter words work now, but overall search seems a little slower.
we'll see how this works out for now

arn

[mad jew]

Appreciated, thanks. I'm not finding it to be all that much slower, although I didn't play 'round with it much before you changed it back.

[WildCowboy]

Wow...it's actually searching thread titles now! That used to be one of my biggest pet peeves: If I searched for a word in the title of a thread that wasn't used in the body of the thread, I'd never find it. But now it seems to work...yay!

Thanks, arn!

[neocell]

I was about to start a thread about the search function being broken. What did you switch, cause it sure isn't working for me know. I'm getting tonnes of incorrect results. Take a look for example.
I really doubt there's 120 threads with "nympsdfh asdklfuu ahhhhhh" in them, I would expect only 1, this one :eek: :confused:
Is it just searching for letters and not complete words now?
Is there something I need to change in my preferences to get it to search for the letters as complete words?

[yippy]

I think it is by default and "or" search. Therefor it is probably picking up the ahhhhhh as it is a common expression.

[neocell]

Thanks yippy, tried it again and it seems that's it. Gotta get rid of the "or"

[neocell]

Really, really, really don't like the new search :(
How do you use AND statements in it? It doesn't seem to work for me when I type in "blah AND blah"
Is this done another way?
Please let me know.

Thanks

[arn]

Really, really, really don't like the new search :(
How do you use AND statements in it? It doesn't seem to work for me when I type in "blah AND blah"
Is this done another way?
Please let me know.

Thanks

Not sure if you can. Did you actually prefer the old search?

arn

[neocell]

Not sure if you can. Did you actually prefer the old search?

arn
I definitely prefer the old search from my "minor" use with both versions. I didn't use it that much, a couple of times a week, and I never had a problem with it, but I guess others were complaining about it. My brain works in the exclusive search mode, thus the old search mode worked much better for my already strapped neural resources. :o
I guess I can start using MRoogle instead (or just not search anymore :D )

[mkrishnan]

Thanks for your hard work Arn! :) I will try it out too and see what happens. I found that with the old method, using site:macrumors.com on Google tended to provide more accurate results, but fewer results, and especially wasn't great for finding the newest posts. I got stumped, though, using the built-in forum search, trying to find threads I knew I'd posted in....

[Heb1228]

After a week or two of trying to get used to this new search feature, I'm really struggling. The two main issues I'm having:

1. Anything I search for, even things that should be pretty obscure, seem to return almost 500 hits, most of them with very little relevance. There have been a few times when I've been searching for something that I know I posted myself and have typed in a very close description, and either gotten no returned results or gotten so many that I couldn't go through all the results.

2. On the advanced search page, if I tell it to search only within thread titles, it returns many results that have only one of the terms, even if I add "AND" between the words.

Arn, as always, you do a great job with the site! But I think I'd rather have the old search back! :o

[WildCowboy]

I agree...the whole "OR" thing in the search is extremely frustrating. If I add search terms, I'd like the default operation to be to narrow my results not broaden them. I don't know if Boolean operators can be implemented, but if not the default should definitely be to use "AND" when multiple search terms are used.

[mad jew]

Yeah, the new search isn't finding everything for me either. It's a bit weird.

[thedude110]

To be contrarian, I love the new search. I haven't tried any advanced features -- haven't used and or or. But it has allowed me to perform general searches more effectively than the "old" search.

[Butthead]

BTT,

I do not see a link to a thread/tutorial showing exactly how the search function options work, what parameters are useful to get more relevant hits. Anyone?

And I still don't see anything from arn on this thread saying exactly what was changed from new to old? Can we get a revision number update thread going, to explain the differences ;).