search engine

[benfox]

Don't you think the search engine of the forum is bad. Maybe something could be done to change that.
Aron your forum is interesting but it's always hard to find what you want !!!
benfox :?

[hilbi]

I'm sorry, but i think the search function is quite ok. Once you you get used to it, use "and" commands etc it works fine.

I use it a lot.

[benfox]

I do the same as you but it's hard to find a particular stuff.

[The Tone God]

I think the biggest problem when people do searches is the "Search for any terms or use query as entered" option is the default which can return a huge number of results if you use many specific search terms. Adding more terms only increases the number of hits. Using the "Search for all terms" option requires all the terms you specified to be in the thread in order for a hit to occur. It gives a much better result.

The "Search for Author" critieria sucks large but I belive that is due to the software and not Aron or this forum itself.

Andrew

[aron]

I too think it's kind of weird. The phpBB guys know it. Lately it's been working ok for me, but yes, I agree it can be improved.

[mveitch]

i'm building an orange squeezer at the moment, and am using the search function a lot to find info about it. I was just going to create bookmarks to all the threads so i didnt have to keep using the search function, but then i thought it might be a good idea to start an Orange Squeezer thread instead.

Inside the thread id just have links to all the threads that I had found useful or that are related to the pedal. So if someone searches for orange squeezer in the future they would find the thread and all the links that i had found.

The only problem i thought of was that someone might see it, think that its an exhaustive list, not find what theyre looking for, and ask a question that had already been answered in unlisted thread. The upshot of that might be though that, assuming this person added the previously undiscovered link to my thread, the question need never be asked again.

i was just wondering what aron/peter/anyone thought? its not perfect, but it might make finding information easier...

matt

[ninoman123]

Its hard to find stuff about small clones, because people just write small clone instead of small clone chorus. Do you know how many threads contain the words small and clone. lol. But no once you take the time to shift through it its not a problem.

[moosapotamus]

This is my biggest rant, but I'll keep it short... For starters, I think people should think a lot more about the subjects they use when they start a new thread. Really... subjects like, "hey, look at this," do absolutely nothing to help people find any useful information that might eventually be added. C'mon folks! [/rant off]

On topic... I think matt's suggestion is an excellent one - META threads.
But, it requires some effort on everyone's part to make it work.

The cool folks over at The Lab have embraced the idea. Check them out for a great example of how META threads should work. And, see the META META sticky that contains links to all of the META threads that various members have not only started, but are maintaining.
http://www.prodigy-pro.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=2&sid=6949bb7fbd0d2a283403846a778e5d03

The basic idea is... start a META thread on a particular topic , like "Effects for Bass" or "Orange Squeezer" or "BBDementia" or whatever, but don't make the subject too broad. Keep it descriptive and focused (OK, now I'm really done with that rant, again ). Then, like matt wrote, put links to all related threads in the initial post. Other members can then reply to the META with other threads on the same subject that the person who started the META thread (the META owner) may have missed. Then the META owner edits the initial post to include the additional suggested links and indicates when it was last edited. That way, when anyone goes to a META thread, they need only look at the first post to find what's available.

Again, this idea requires a level of commitment from anyone who wants to start a META. It needs to be maintained if it's going to remain useful to everyone. But, it's a great idea, IMO.

~ Charlie

[Karmasound]

i'm building an orange squeezer at the moment, and am using the search function a lot to find info about it. I was just going to create bookmarks to all the threads so i didnt have to keep using the search function, but then i thought it might be a good idea to start an Orange Squeezer thread instead.

Inside the thread id just have links to all the threads that I had found useful or that are related to the pedal. So if someone searches for orange squeezer in the future they would find the thread and all the links that i had found.

The only problem i thought of was that someone might see it, think that its an exhaustive list, not find what theyre looking for, and ask a question that had already been answered in unlisted thread. The upshot of that might be though that, assuming this person added the previously undiscovered link to my thread, the question need never be asked again.

i was just wondering what aron/peter/anyone thought? its not perfect, but it might make finding information easier...

matt

I think that is a great idea. Maybe even making a sticky you can go to that has a tone of those project threads, then open the thread and it is full of links.


Or whatever the META thread things is.

[cd]

IME as long as your terms are sufficiently broad/specific (as the case may be) the answers are ripe for the picking.  Play with it for a bit, you'll get a feel for it and know what terms to use.  Naturally you should always select "all" terms and not "any" term.

For example, just now I needed a picture of the PCB of a DS-1 for comparison purposes.  So I typed "ds-1 pcb" and searched for "all" terms.  Brought up a page worth of results.  The first three & 5th do not have DS-1 in the subejct so I ignored them.  The 4th is asking about SIP repacements, ignored that too.  6th has "parts layout" in the subject... hm, let's look at that one: BINGO! just what I was looking for.

[mrsage]

Its hard to find stuff about small clones, because people just write small clone instead of small clone chorus. Do you know how many threads contain the words small and clone. lol. But no once you take the time to shift through it its not a problem.

Can't you use quotes to search for the two adjacent words "small stone"?

If not, that's a very key feature that a lot of search engines should have...

[benfox]

i'm ok with mrsage about the quote fonction it's quite a basic fonction and that's why i add this topic to the forum. I think the engine is too much mathemaical (that's not a good word but in my language that's it and i'm shure every one catch it)
mveitch had a good idea too. Most of the time you are looking for a particular project and you ask already asked question. With a good engine the search could be easier and nop repetition.
sorry for my english today yesterday and tomorrow
benfox

[davebungo]

sorry for my english today yesterday and tomorrow
benfox

I wish people (note I did not say "foreigners" like we English usually do), would NOT apologise for their English.  That's for us English to do and in any case you haven't heard my French yet

[ninoman123]

Does quotes work? Never tired it. I guess I could try before posting but that wouldnt be fun. If you cant use quotes we need it. it would help.

Yah dont worry about apologizing for english. You try and thats all that counts.  

[Paul Perry (Frostwave)]

I've found the search engine very useful. But, as with ANY search engine or indexed system, some answers are much easier to find than others. That's true for google or anything else.
Plus ther eis the problem for beginners (and we are all beginners in some field) that, if you don't know the accepted name for something, you can't find it, no matter what you do.
Whenever I'm trying a new search system, IO start by looking up something that I know MUST be there.. if I don't see it, I know something is wrong (usually with me).
As for completely uninformative headings.. nobody would be stupid enough to do that, surely? :roll: (fortunately, they are usually the posts nobody wants to find anyway, so it works out).