|
09 Jul 12 - 12:26 PM (#3373998) Subject: Search problem From: SunrayFC Why does the search tool never reveal anything that is "latest"....I did several searches and nothing came up later than 2010. |
|
09 Jul 12 - 12:45 PM (#3374008) Subject: RE: Search problem From: Mick Pearce (MCP) That's probably the last time the index was updated. Text searches over large bodies of text are usually made by keeping indexes of the words, otherwise searching becomes too time-consuming. IIRC, the Mudcat indexes aren't updated in real-time, but by a one-time indexing job. 2010 is probably the last time that was done. With song-titles (and anything where a suitable word appears in the thread title) it's usually possible to use the filter on the thread titles, setting Age to All. You can also search on usernames if you know someone who contributed to a thread you're looking for. Otherwise you can start a thread and see if anyone remembers what you're looking for. You can also use a google site-specific search adding site:www.mudcat.org to your google search parameters Mick |
|
09 Jul 12 - 09:56 PM (#3374229) Subject: RE: Search problem From: Sandra in Sydney Google site search is my preferred way to search Mudcat & other complicated sites sandra |
|
09 Jul 12 - 11:15 PM (#3374246) Subject: RE: Search problem From: Joe Offer If you're looking for threads on a subject, the Filter is our fastest, easiest, and most accurate search engine. Put a pertinent word in the Filter box, set the age back to where you want it, and click "Refresh." Where's the Filter? Right at the top of the list of threads on the Forum Menu. -Joe- |
|
10 Jul 12 - 02:37 PM (#3374545) Subject: RE: Search problem From: GUEST,leeneia There was no filter box on my page, Joe. But I got it to appear by selecting "Home" on the third line down from the top of the page. I searched for a recent thread and it came up, bedad. |
|
10 Jul 12 - 02:51 PM (#3374553) Subject: RE: Search problem From: Mick Pearce (MCP) leeneia I think that's where Joe meant by at the top of the list of threads Mick |
|
10 Jul 12 - 04:23 PM (#3374606) Subject: RE: Search problem From: JohnInKansas Another useful method for finding old threads: IF YOU POSTED TO THE THREAD, find any other post you've made and click on your own name at the post. (Clicking in the list of posts in the thread, at the top, just takes you to the post in that thread.) This will take you to the listing of all the posts you've made (which is usually a shorter list than the list of all the posts everyone has made), and If you can guess an approximate time when the thread was up you can cut the amount you have to "eyeball search." IF YOU REMEMBER someone else who was active in the thread, you can search all their posts the same way. The "construction" of a link to anyone's list of posts is pretty simple, but I find it easier to just find one of the suspect's posts and click there. (You do have to "spell the username" right to make the link, and I usually have to find one of their posts to make sure I've got that right, anyway.) I've also had some difficulties with recalling a "time frame" for when a thread was up, since things I remember like they were last week often turn out to have been ten or twelve years ago ---- but of course others won't have that problem. John |
|
10 Jul 12 - 05:29 PM (#3374627) Subject: RE: Search problem From: Joe Offer Another useful collection of tools is the Old Advanced Forum Search, found in the "QuickLinks" dropdown menu that you'll find on almost every Mudcat page. -Joe- |
|
08 Oct 12 - 04:47 PM (#3416562) Subject: RE: Search problem From: JohnInKansas I've used Google "search on site" frequently in the past, but there appears to have been a change in how Google reports the results. The results obtained today show an individual "post number" and the date posted, but do not show the name or even the "thread number" of the thread in which the post appears. Clicking on the link to what was found brings up what appears to be a plain text copy of the individual post but still no indication of what thread it was in. Since I usually search to find the most recent thread on a subject the results produced by searching Mudcat with Google are apparently completely useless. The change(?) appears to be a fairly recent thing. Comments? John |
|
08 Oct 12 - 05:11 PM (#3416577) Subject: RE: Search problem From: Newport Boy Interesting, John. If I add site: to the Google search, I do indeed get the limited info you describe. If I use Advanced Search and put mudcat.org as the site, I get a different set of results, with most of the additional info you want. I usually use Advanced Search, so your comment surprised me. Phil |
|
08 Oct 12 - 05:20 PM (#3416587) Subject: RE: Search problem From: GUEST Currently, much of MC has many meta tags for "no robots " ... hence the "security " of backup from the national archives "way back machine " does not have many of the unique features that Max has inserted. |
|
08 Oct 12 - 08:07 PM (#3416692) Subject: RE: Search problem From: JohnInKansas Newport Boy - You're apparently referring to the "Advanced Search" built into mudcat? I've found it somewhat limited, possibly due to lag in indexing as for the mudcat regular search. Google sometimes will direct you to a GOOGLE ADVANCED SEARCH but there's no way I've found to start there, and it doesn't appear uniformly regardless of what you do or what results you (don't) get. And it's possible that it doesn't appear at all any longer(?) since I haven't seen it recently. It's sort of like the Windows Explorer search that has to fail before you can get (easily) into "Advanced Search" to enter what you really want to find. With Windows it doesn't matter all that much since they're both mostly useless, but Google used to be helpful. An additional irritation with Google is that the "spellcheck" that previously would check whatever you highlighted on the page you were looking at has been replaced with a new "feature" that requires you to paste the text you want to check into a window with limited capacity, and then go to an "online spellchecker" with dubious properties (not much better than the multitude of "on line translators.) If I have to paste stuff somewhere I'll paste to Word where I know how reliable the check is, and I can "correct" the dictionary when it makes misteakse. I note also that several "buttons" for the Google Toolbar that previously allowed you to make quick links to several methods of searching, or to search specific kinds of sites, have been replaced by buttons that just take you to "popular social sites." Apparently Google is losing interest in adults, and has joined the crowd that only talks childishness.(?) John |
|
08 Oct 12 - 11:04 PM (#3416750) Subject: RE: Search problem From: Sandra in Sydney Google search on "Oz bushfires" site:mudcat.org Some go straight to the thread, others just show a 'plain page' version of the post. There seems to be no sense - th first post in results is in the format MUDCAT MESSAGE # & goes to the plain page, the second in the same format goes to the thread. weird. search for oz bushfires site:mudcat.org on yahoo.com gives the results google used to give! I might just search Mudcat that way in future sandra |
|
09 Oct 12 - 12:52 AM (#3416768) Subject: RE: Search problem From: JohnInKansas It's possible that changes at mudcat affect how Google searches and what it reports. Until fairly recently, threads saved from the 'cat showed the bare thread title as the subject line (the name of the file saved) but recent saves always include the leading "mudcat.org" bit, at least the way I save them. It's also possible that several of us are using different browsers, or different versions of the same browser. Some changes in the "next to latest" version of IE, that I use, may have forced some changes by Google. I believe that WinXP must use an older version of IE and it may not have changed, and it isn't clear whether Vista has a choice(?). (The latest version, I'm told, only works with Win8, and for the present at least I'll continue to refuse to let that $!@%# anywhere near my computers.) It looks like this is going to require some study, and may not be worth a lot of effort; but if someone stumbles onto anything helpful please toss it into the pot. John |
|
09 Oct 12 - 12:55 AM (#3416769) Subject: RE: Search problem From: JohnInKansas Sandra - When I click on your link it only shows me ONE result - this thread. Just more confusion. John |
|
09 Oct 12 - 04:43 AM (#3416794) Subject: RE: Search problem From: Newport Boy JiK - I was referring to Google Advanced Search. The only toolbars I have in my browser (Firefox) are the default Firefox ones. I find Advanced Search in the links below the Gooooogle page indicator at the bottom of the first page of results. I'm sure there are other ways to get to it, but I rarely use it as a first option. If the regular search doesn't offer me anything that looks hopeful on the first page, I go to Advanced Search and refine the details. Phil |
|
09 Oct 12 - 12:30 PM (#3416983) Subject: RE: Search problem From: JohnInKansas NB - I guess I just hadn't noticed that the Google Advanced Search does appear down at the bottom of the results pages consistently now. Recollection is that I used another way of getting into it before an earlier round of "improvements," and that's what seems to have disappeared. I have the Google Toolbar loaded, and they've made so many recent changes on the toolbar it must have confused me. For searching mudcat with Google, I've been using the Google toolbar icon for "search on current site" and that may also do something different than if the search entry is coded as part of the query. Another bit of weirdness is that in the results I usually right-click the link and "open in new tab" so that I can come back easily to the search results to try the next one; but recently many of the links insist on "open in new window" and the "new tab" choice doesn't appear. There seems to be a multiplicity of ideas about what "new window" means, and some links don't allow you to go back to the search results page either by using the Back button or by closing the new window. Some times one works, and sometimes it's the other, but often its neither. There don't seem to be any problems with the links that allow opening a new tab. There is the possibility that the inability to get back to the original search results is a Windows artifact rather than just a Google thing, but the evidence is "vague" at best. "Crashes" (ABENDS) in Internet Explorer are annoying, but crashes in Windows Explorer when I get busy moving files around are approaching "unacceptable" frequencies. I'm pretty sure I know what causes the problems with WinExplorer, but don't have a theory as yet on how that might affect IE; and of course Mickey is no help. John |
|
09 Oct 12 - 12:39 PM (#3416987) Subject: RE: Search problem From: Newport Boy Sorry, John - can't help you with Windows. I still have an installation of XP running in VirtualBox (I need it for some database work) but otherwise I left it a few years ago. Phil |
|
09 Oct 12 - 01:36 PM (#3417019) Subject: RE: Search problem From: Q (Frank Staplin) A toolbar (by Google) at top of my screen shows "Global News Update..., the name of my cable supplier (My IE opens here without help from google), Page vierge S (??), Celtics Lyrics Corner (a browser lockup danger) Cancionero Folklorico Canto... (I went to this site sometime ago and am unable to get it deleted from my Windows IE), hotmail and >>. I don't use any of them. I would like help in removing this "toolbar." I do use google search, but that is in the opening line of my IE. I don't search mudcat outside of the mudcat search and the filter. If I don't find the item(s), I post. |
|
09 Oct 12 - 02:29 PM (#3417040) Subject: RE: Search problem From: JohnInKansas The toolbar you refer to is probably the one called the Favorites Bar and I believe it's an Internet Explorer thing rather than a Google one. When you add a link to Favorites, you have the option of adding the site to your list of favorites, or of adding it to the toolbar (if the bar is displayed). It's handy to have a few links you use often on the bar so that you don't have to scroll through the list where you keep "links to everything." It's fairly easy to mis-click and put something you intended to put on your list land on the bar instead. Since you may have intended to put the links in the list, you might want to check whether they may also be where you wanted them before removing the ones on the bar(?) IF THIS IS THE BAR YOU MEAN all you have to do is right click on the link name/icon on the bar and then click Delete to remove that link. If you're using IE(?): I keep the Menu Bar displayed, showing File - Edit - View - Favorites etc. If you have it displayed, you can click View and hover on Toolbars to drop a list down. Check or uncheck "Favorites Bar" to display or hide the entire bar. If you don't have the Menu Bar displayed, right clicking to the right of the bar where the "tabs" stick up (in a blank space) will get you the same list of bars you can turn on or off. If you're using something other than IE, you're on your own, but something similar should work. If you're talking about some other bar (in IE) you'll need to explain which it is to confuse me better. John |
|
09 Oct 12 - 02:37 PM (#3417043) Subject: RE: Search problem From: Stilly River Sage He could have the Google Toolbar, but these days it only can be added to IE. Google's chrome doesn't use it and Google hasn't kept up so Firefox won't allow the addition of an old version of the Google toolbar to a newer version of Firefox. You should be able to uninstall the Google toolbar from your Control Panel (the Microsoft icon in the lower left and go to Control Panel and "Programs and Features" will let you uninstall it. SRS |
|
09 Oct 12 - 03:24 PM (#3417070) Subject: RE: Search problem From: Q (Frank Staplin) Thanks, John. It was the favorites bar, and right click brought up "delete". |
|
09 Oct 12 - 04:33 PM (#3417123) Subject: RE: Search problem From: JohnInKansas The Favorites Bar is usually placed adjacent to the Google bar, so it's difficult to tell who it belongs to. All the controls for it are in IE though, and not in Google, so it appears to be strictly an IE thing. Theoretically, you can remove an item from any of the Windows/IE toolbars just by dragging it off the bar, but sometimes that just moves it to some other place, and it may not tell you where it put it, so the Delete is the safest option. John |
|
10 Oct 12 - 02:31 AM (#3417337) Subject: RE: Search problem From: Sandra in Sydney JohnInKansas - something happened to my first blicky - as we all know, my post to this thread didn't exist while I was creating it. Perhaps it might have in another universe or dimension! weird. I just did the "oz bushfires" site:mudcat.org search again & all I get is mt post to this thread! Doing the same search without quotation marks gives the other results. even more weird sandra |
|
10 Oct 12 - 03:04 AM (#3417346) Subject: RE: Search problem From: JohnInKansas Sandra - I wouldn't worry too much about it. It seems possibly to be related to some other funny stuff I've been seeing, so keeping it in mind as an interesting puzzle until the obvious answers appear (they nearly always do) is probably the best we can do at the moment. AS A NEW BIT OF "almost interesting news" related to searching, an article appeared yesterday that would be of some interest if not for the garbled writing by the numnut who wrote it. Bing leads Google in spam, malware search results, report says Suzanne Choney, NBC News Sophos Security Sophos found 65 percent of poisoned search results were via Bing, 30 percent on Google, and 5 percent via other search engines. Nearly two-thirds of search results on Bing were found to have links that spread malware or spam, compared to 30 percent for Google, said Sophos Security in a recent study. "Search engine poisoning," as it's called, affects all search engines; it might turn up the link you see first, or high up in results, for example, when you search for a popular celeb like Jessica Biel or Justin Bieber. Clicking on the link can take you to a spam site, or worse, one filled with malware aimed at infecting your computer. [End Quote] more babel at the link. Note that the first paragraph of the article says that in all searches there are some bad links. Two thirds of the bad links are in Bing and one third are in Google results. But the second paragraph says two thirds of all Bing searches and one third of all Google searches contain bad links. These are two distinctly different things, so we don't know which is true from this article (if either). It most likely wouldn't do much good to ask the reporter who posted it, since she appears to be either (numerically?) illiterate or very confused, so before we'll have anything useful to think about from this report I'd guess we'll have to wait for Sophos to put up something of their own, or at least for someone who hasn't been quite so far into the bottle to post a less twisted report. Writers who mangle tech reports actually do seem to be less common than those who mess up politics and disasters, but I guess the main point here is that you can't always trust any of them, regardless of their area of interest. I'll watch for clarification, but anyone who stumbles into something is welcome to beat me back on this one. John |