Forum Moderators: open
Thanks,
Philip
"mod rewrite" or "mod_rewrite" [google.com]
Using "and" isn't necessary, that's FINDALL mode and it's the search default:
using and [google.com]
For an EXACT match search, use quotes. For an either/or search for either of two exact phrases, use quotes for each of the phrases with an OR in between them.
You'll find Google's search help very interesting, and it can be a lot of fun playing around with different operators and options.
For an "or" search put OR in capital letters (in Advanced Search [google.com] help):
To find pages that include either of two search terms, add an uppercase OR between the terms.
So for either of two phrases, it would be "mod rewrite" OR "mod_rewrite" in upper case (not lower case as in the first post) and incidentally, it helps to use advanced operators when searching for a word that can be one word or a two word phrase if you want both: like cufflinks or cuff links, or website or web site.
[edited by: Marcia at 11:16 am (utc) on Oct. 22, 2007]
> SearchShow me one that will work and we will use it. We have tried every major and most minor packages available on the net. The only one that is even remotely promising (on 5m+ pages) is ASPseek and tests have been going on for awhile. There simply are no software site search engines available that can handle 5m-10m (plan for future) pages.
The thing that baffles me is that I have never come across anything in my internet career that simply couldn't be done. There is always a way. BUT, I have come across plenty of people who aren't willing to do what it takes to get it done (no offense intended to Brett or the WW staff/volunteers :)).
The thing that baffles me is that I have never come across anything in my internet career that simply couldn't be done. There is always a way.
--Starts at $1,995 for searching up to 50,000 documents
--300,000 max document capacity--Starts at $30,000 for searching up to 500,000 documents
--30 million max document capacity
BUT, I have come across plenty of people who aren't willing to do what it takes to get it done.
Maybe a good Supporter's perq.
Rather, I'd suggest expanding the scope of the search engine research forum to include, both in the content and forum title (and the charter) techniques for using search engines, which is perfectly consistent with the intent of the forum and would help educate users.
Proposed: Expand the scope of the "Research" forum and direct all whiners there to learn how to properly use search engines.
<sidebar>
Yes, I'm being cranky and there's no sense denying it. I'm getting OLD (*very* senior member, if you'll kindly notice), and I'm entitled to be cranky. :)
</sidebar>
[edited by: Marcia at 3:12 pm (utc) on Nov. 8, 2007]
The thing that baffles me is that I have never come across anything in my internet career that simply couldn't be done. There is always a way.Oh, there is definitely a way:
--Starts at $1,995 for searching up to 50,000 documents
--300,000 max document capacity--Starts at $30,000 for searching up to 500,000 documents
--30 million max document capacitySee? There's always a way things can be done; 500K documents should be a good start.
BUT, I have come across plenty of people who aren't willing to do what it takes to get it done.You first; someone always has to be the first. If we start a fund-raising drive for a search appliance, how much are you willing to pledge toward the project?
I noticed that you addressed the end of my reply but ignored the beginning (which addresses a FREE method of improving the site search). This is the second [webmasterworld.com]time I've seen the idea of increasing the usefulness of footprints put up here, and the second time I've seen it completely ignored. Am I being simple? I've been known to be dense on occasion so please just tell me if I am :) I just don't see why this has to be an all or nothing proposition.
Oh well..
[edited by: Fribble at 1:33 am (utc) on Nov. 24, 2007]
The current search capability is very powerful, and in most instances, meets the vast majority's demands.
If you want to look at a particular members posts, the current search capability works fine.
If you want to look at the top threads, check out the forums' library.
Maybe I don't know how best to use Google to search webmasterworld. I would appreciate if someone could point me to a tutorial or best practices for using Google to search webmasterworld if it exists.
That makes sense, but why not implement a limited search function, and only include the past couple of years worth of posts in the index? Or create several indexes, one for each forum? Or add more concrete footprints to make searching using external engines more intuitive, or etc etc etc..
How about breaking down how you think that could be accomplished for your suggested options, and what kind of programming structure and logic it would take for each of your three solutions.
How about breaking down how you think that could be accomplished for your suggested options, and what kind of programming structure and logic it would take for each of your three solutions.
Ok, here's a free way that you could optimize WebmasterWorld's footprints in a way that would make purchasing a search appliance redundant:
*Adding text before the poster's name in each thread and reply (so a search for "reply by engine" or "Thread started by Engine" will return actual replies/threads by Engine. So many users use common word names that searching for certain user's posts is currently impossible. If adding this type text right before the poster's names would clutter up the look too much, make the font small and place the text elsewhere. Surely there's a place where it could go and look professional.
*Tweaking the date stamps on posts to let people search for things like "Oct 2007" (the current date stamps read "Oct 5, 2007" the day in the middle messes it up). Why not change it to "28 November 2007" so we can search for "November 2007" and get only posts from that month and year? It wouldn't sacrifice readability in the least.
*Adding some small text to each TYPE of page (Forum index page, Thread view page 1, Thread view page 2, etc so we can search for "Thread view" and excude all of the forum index pages from the results.
*changing the copyright text from the bottom of the page so it doesn't screw with searches that involve dates (make it an image, add spaces, use special characters, anything).
Right now, if I wanted to search for all of the threads started by Engine, in October of 2007 the best I could do is:
site:webmasterworld.com "engine" "oct" "2007"
Which would return every page with the word engine on it, the word oct, and every page containing the copyright date.
If just a little bit of text was added in the right places in the forum templates then you could use searches like this:
site:webmasterworld.com "thread view page 1" "Thread started by webwork" "Sept 2007"
To retrieve all first page thread pages started by WebWork in September of 2007.
or
site:webmasterworld.com "thread view" "Reply by marcia" "2007"
To retrieve all thread view pages (regardless of page number) that contain replies by Marcia in all of 2007.
or
site:webmasterworld.com "thread view" "by engine" "furry widgets" "2007"
To retrieve all thread view pages (regardless of page number) that contain replies OR were started by Engine in the year 2007 AND contain the phrase "furry widgets".
A simple site-search form could even be made that could string together the advanced modifiers in a nice, clean user interface and submit the query to Google, Yahoo, or whichever search engine the WW user prefers, and it would be dirt cheap - just a few template modifications and a couple simple forms. No search appliances, extra servers, databases, hardware, nada.. Just some time. I'd even be willing to throw my hat in and help if I thought anyone would take me up on the offer.
Does this make sense? I just don't see why it has to be so difficult.
[edited by: Fribble at 9:29 am (utc) on Nov. 28, 2007]
By username within a specific forum, during a certain year:
marcia 2007 site:webmasterworld.com/google/ [google.com]
With dates, including month and year, within a particular forums and with the username:
tedster oct 2007 site:webmasterworld.com/google/ [google.com]
Even with added text such as "Posted by" or "Started by" it wouldn't work unless a search was done using exact match (in quotes), because that isn't how Google works with retrieving results for queries. In addition, without using an exact match query, how about the name of a moderator of a forum? Like this:
tedster site:webmasterworld.com/google/ [google.com]
And removing moderator names from forums would not be a good idea at all. It's not only very valuable for members to know for a number of reasons, but in forums where it gets removed mods can get very irritated by it, also for a number of very good reasons.
Maybe what's being referred to has something to do with snippet generation, which is an entirely different matter to be able to control.
Most who search aren't really into the intricate details of using search yet, and the best bet for those folks to get maximum benefit from the site is to read and read, and then read some more, until they pick up on the terminology that's used, and then move on to searching by topics, which is much more productive for meeting user needs.
