|
14 Nov 12 - 12:59 AM (#3436263) Subject: Tech: mystified: can't find thread From: MGM·Lion I wanted to check back on an old thread of mine. I entered its name, correctly, into Forum Search, but got "No results". This happened repeatedly. Eventually I accessed it by going right back over my posted messages till I found it. I had its name correctly all along. But, trying again just to check, I still got "No results" from a search. Why? ~M~ |
|
14 Nov 12 - 02:16 AM (#3436281) Subject: RE: Tech: mystified: can't find thread From: JohnInKansas I've found the best method for general use here is to enter the one least common word that I think was in the thread title in the Filter box and set the Refresh time back to something reasonable. I'm just too simple minded to ever be able to enter an entire thread title without at least one typo, and it only takes one to blow the whole search with most of the other methods smarter people use here. When it looks like I've got it exactly right in the other search methods I might copy the whole title, and the one I thought was the right one, and paste them into Word where I can compare them side by side, and usually find a double-space or something else that crashed my search. I do, fairly rarely, use more formal search methods if something is old enough that the 'cat engine would have to go back a really long time into the pits. Most of the "formal" searches built in here are by indexes, and the index has to be updated before the result will show. Updates are sporadic, and not really frequent. John |
|
14 Nov 12 - 02:36 AM (#3436283) Subject: RE: Tech: mystified: can't find thread From: Keith A of Hertford the filter thread refresh search works well, but the forum search is only reliable for very old stuff. |
|
14 Nov 12 - 03:41 AM (#3436290) Subject: RE: Tech: mystified: can't find thread From: Mr Happy I generally use 'Old advanced forum search' from the drop down menu at top right |
|
14 Nov 12 - 05:56 AM (#3436330) Subject: RE: Tech: mystified: can't find thread From: MGM·Lion To be a bit more precise: I wanted to check whether someone had posted on a thread I put up last April about my imminent 80th birthday, with a quote from W B Yeats: so the precise name of the thread was "tattered coat upon a stick". I entered "tatered coat": immediately a small-print line reading "tattered coat upon a stick" appeared below ~~ so the Cat recognised the quote, in full. So I clicked on that line, which then appeared in the 'search' line; and clicked on 'search'. Result: "No results". I have just repeated this exact operation, to identical effect. Some mistake, surely. All cannot be right. ~M~ |
|
14 Nov 12 - 05:57 AM (#3436331) Subject: RE: Tech: mystified: can't find thread From: MGM·Lion Lest anyone note the misspelling above, I actually did enter 'tattered' correctly spelt. |
|
14 Nov 12 - 06:06 AM (#3436336) Subject: RE: Tech: mystified: can't find thread From: Mick Pearce (MCP) Michael - did you set the Age drop down to All; if you don't the default is to search only threads in the last day which have the string in the title. The correct method with filter is to a) enter your search string in the box, b) set the Age drop down to a suitable time period if you know one, otherwise just select All, c) press Refresh. I just did with entered tattered coat as search item and it found your thread immediately. Mick |
|
14 Nov 12 - 06:08 AM (#3436338) Subject: RE: Tech: mystified: can't find thread From: MGM·Lion Thanks Mick; shall remember that ~~ tho in general most threads I have ever searched have responded just by operating "Search". Wonder why this one an exception? ~M~ |
|
14 Nov 12 - 06:26 AM (#3436344) Subject: RE: Tech: mystified: can't find thread From: MGM·Lion ... and in fact, just tried again as experiment, setting refresh to 1 year. Still "No result". Mysteriouser & mysteriouser! |
|
14 Nov 12 - 06:32 AM (#3436346) Subject: RE: Tech: mystified: can't find thread From: maeve As Mick said, your thread shows immediately when I enter "tattered" and set the Filter time to one year. Perhaps you could try it again. It's likely there was some small typo in your recent Filter search. |
|
14 Nov 12 - 06:35 AM (#3436348) Subject: RE: Tech: mystified: can't find thread From: Jeri It's below the line, hiding in "BS:". The filter worked for me. |
|
14 Nov 12 - 06:38 AM (#3436349) Subject: RE: Tech: mystified: can't find thread From: MGM·Lion Yes; I know: I set filter, entered, got the small-print line reading "BS: tattered coat upon a stick" so clicked on that to get that into 'Search' space. Clicked. Still "No result". So it works for all of you, but not for me! Boo-hoo... Somebody up there hates me! |
|
14 Nov 12 - 06:39 AM (#3436350) Subject: RE: Tech: mystified: can't find thread From: maeve Excellent observation, Jeri. I forget that some have set their Mudcat settings to only see above the salt threads. |
|
14 Nov 12 - 06:42 AM (#3436351) Subject: RE: Tech: mystified: can't find thread From: maeve MtheGM- All you need to do once you see "BS: tattered coat upon a stick" is to click on it. The problem occurs when you "...clicked on that to get that into 'Search' space.". Just click on the result rather than transferring it to the 'Search' space. |
|
14 Nov 12 - 06:46 AM (#3436353) Subject: RE: Tech: mystified: can't find thread From: MGM·Lion But just clicking on it transfers it to the Search space, maeve ~~ what I have been doing all along. |
|
14 Nov 12 - 06:48 AM (#3436354) Subject: RE: Tech: mystified: can't find thread From: maeve Ok now that's weird. When I click on the thread title the thread opens. Does the same effect occur when you do other searches? |
|
14 Nov 12 - 06:50 AM (#3436355) Subject: RE: Tech: mystified: can't find thread From: maeve I wonder if your mouse is set in an unusual way? Still thinking... |
|
14 Nov 12 - 07:01 AM (#3436358) Subject: RE: Tech: mystified: can't find thread From: maeve MtheGM- If I understand correctly, when you click on the resulting thread title it appears in the Filter search box. Does this happen : 1. For every Filter search result? 2. For every forum thread title on the main page? 3. Only when you perform this particular search? |
|
14 Nov 12 - 07:09 AM (#3436360) Subject: RE: Tech: mystified: can't find thread From: MGM·Lion #1, maeve. Many thanks for all your trouble. |
|
14 Nov 12 - 07:18 AM (#3436362) Subject: RE: Tech: mystified: can't find thread From: maeve I'm not sure I'm helping much, but at least with the issue clarified someone with the right tech knowledge can stop in and shine a light for you. A couple of the usual computer problem default cures for odd little things are: 1. Clear history, cookies, cache, etc. 2. Close down computer, wait a few minutes, then start up again. If you have nothing better to do while we wait for someone who knows what they're doing, you might try those. One never knows...it might help and it won't hurt! |
|
14 Nov 12 - 07:21 AM (#3436363) Subject: RE: Tech: mystified: can't find thread From: MGM·Lion Theanks. I had, independently, on principle of switch.off/switch.on.again, restarted computer; repeated entire op. Still No Results... ~M~ |
|
14 Nov 12 - 07:23 AM (#3436366) Subject: RE: Tech: mystified: can't find thread From: maeve Somebody will recognize the issue and suggest something useful. After all this IS Mudcat! |
|
14 Nov 12 - 07:36 AM (#3436372) Subject: RE: Tech: mystified: can't find thread From: JohnInKansas It appears that there may be confusion about which box the search term is being entered in. There is a SEARCH box at the top of the page. This works off an index that isn't reliably up to date, and often things as much as a year old haven't been entered in the index and won't be found. Adjacent to the "Create a new Thread" link, there's a block where you can enter a thread title, the whole thing or just a word or two from it, in the FILTER box, and click a button labeled "REFRESH." This one does a real-time new scan of all the thread titles and finds any that contain what was entered. To limit what's reported and how long it may take for the search, you can select how far back in time to go. The default selection is one day, with choices of several different number of days, months, or years, or ALL as options. THIS IS THE ONE THAT IS MOST LIKELY TO WORK for recent threads. If you've set to not show BS threads, you may not find them returned, although I can't say whether or not that's the case. Note that a thread doesn't have to contain BS in the title if an elf moved it from up above based on content or purpose of the thread, so a thread could have started up above and been moved below. If it's been moved, it's still BS even if it doesn't say so. I probably use the REFRESH most often with about 3 days or a week for time, when a thread drops off the front page before I think up my smartass comment. It has been noted previously that a setting of "ALL" for the time doesn't necessarily go back all the way. I don't know whether there's a time limit (timeout) or space limit (buffer size?) on number of returns to be reported, but you just about have to use other methods to search for a thread number or post number to get the very oldest atuff - or did the last time we all worked the "how did Mudcat get started question." (The first post ever was number 7 or so IIRC(?).) John |
|
14 Nov 12 - 07:43 AM (#3436380) Subject: RE: Tech: mystified: can't find thread From: maeve John, can you suggest why MtheGM sees the thread title appear in the box when he clicks on the thread link- rather than the thread opening for him? What are we missing, please? |
|
14 Nov 12 - 08:04 AM (#3436387) Subject: RE: Tech: mystified: can't find thread From: Mick Pearce (MCP) Michael It sounds as if you are clicking on the autocomplete saved text for the search box; if that is so, all you will do by clicking on it is enter the full text into the search box. It will not do any search. The full and exact procedure should be: a) In the box marked Filter (to the right of Create a New Thread) enter tattered coat. If when you start entering this it comes up with tattered coat (or something starting with that) underneath it, you can click on that and it will fill in the box for you; otherwise just type the text into the box. Note that if you click on any text shown below the box it only fills in the box - it does not do any seach. b) Set the Age drop down to 1 Year (click on the up/down arrows at the right of Age to get the selection. I generally use All, but 1 year is fine for your thread. It will show Age 365 Days in the box. c) Make sure the box marked Filter Out is clear. If it has a tick in it, click it again to clear it. (This stops the search excluding the term searched for). d) Press the Refresh button. You should get one result returned (below the two horizontal lines below the Filter box) showing the thread BS: tattered coat upon a stick. e) Click on the thread title to open it. This should work. I don't know what happens if you have Mudcat set up to ignore BS threads. I don't; I just don't read them. If you do, it's possible that the Filter result excludes them too. In this case I would suggest you change your Mudcat settings to show BS threads and retry the Filter procedure above. That's the only thing I can think of that would stop your result appearing. If you normally see BS threads then the above procedure should work. Mick |
|
14 Nov 12 - 08:19 AM (#3436396) Subject: RE: Tech: mystified: can't find thread From: maeve "It sounds as if you are clicking on the autocomplete saved text for the search box; if that is so, all you will do by clicking on it is enter the full text into the search box. It will not do any search." Good point, Mick. MtheGM- Once the text ("tattered", or whatever else you've chosen/clicked on from the autocomplete function) appears in the Filter box, have you then clicked on the "Refresh" button just to the right of the Filter box? I suspect Mick has nailed it- that little detail we were missing. |
|
14 Nov 12 - 09:30 AM (#3436423) Subject: RE: Tech: mystified: can't find thread From: JohnInKansas So far as I know, the autocomplete is NOT a "mudcat thing" but probably is set up in your browser, or in your OS, or in your Google Toolbar, or in your Bing bar, or in your AV, or ... . Add as many "etc., etc. ..." as you want. It's a "feature" that's can be in any of several programs you might have. If you get enough of them all turned on you may need a referee when they start arguing with each other, or you can take bets on which one will win. There's a slight difference between a plain vanilla autocomplete and the "suggestions" that some programs (e.g. Google) may flash up for you, but results are generally similar. If one of them actually works, it generally means that the program that's doing it has been tracking you long enough to guess where you want to go. John |
|
14 Nov 12 - 09:32 AM (#3436424) Subject: RE: Tech: mystified: can't find thread From: MGM·Lion OK. Will try it when have time ~~ bit busy with something else at present. But why am I only having this difficulty with this one thread? Have never had it before with any. Yes, have always clicked on 'refresh'. Many thanks for helpful suggestions, Mick & maeve. Of course I have no setup to ignore BS. In fact, the last tech I queried was why it went straight to BS these days [used not to & I never asked it to. Joe's answer didn't quite meet these criteria.] |
|
14 Nov 12 - 11:25 AM (#3436476) Subject: RE: Tech: mystified: can't find thread From: Nigel Parsons If you're on the "Lyrics & Knowledge" page & 'right click' to add it to favourites, it will, in future, take you there. Even if you scroll down to BS and try to set in favourites it will set up to take you to 'lyrics & knowledge'. If you view the BS section by clicking the link 'BS/General Discussion threads are listed below (click) ' and then try setting as favourite, then the favourite will always take you to the BS section. Simples :) |
|
14 Nov 12 - 12:59 PM (#3436512) Subject: RE: Tech: mystified: can't find thread From: Mick Pearce (MCP) Re what I described as autocomplete above. As JiK says it's not a proper autocomplete (ie suggestions for what you're likely to want to enter based on what you've entered so far plus some heuristic ideas), but my browser (Firefox) keeping track of things I've previously put in the filter box. As I type it shows a drop-down with previous things I've typed that start the same way as the characters I've just entered in the box. I can click to select one of them, saving having to reenter the whole thing. From Michael's description I thought this is what it sounded like that he was seeing (ie a previously entered search string rather than a search result). Mick |
|
14 Nov 12 - 12:59 PM (#3436513) Subject: RE: Tech: mystified: can't find thread From: MGM·Lion Yes, I know its simples, Nigel. But what puzzles me is that I used always to default to Lyrics & Knowledge; then, with no action on my part, about a month or so ago it took it on itself to default to BS. Don't much care either way ~~ simple to get from one to other wherever one starts. But, being like the character in Little Dorrit who always "wants to know, you know", I just can't help wondering why this happened. ~M~ |
|
14 Nov 12 - 01:01 PM (#3436515) Subject: RE: Tech: mystified: can't find thread From: MGM·Lion Mick ~~ Think you are right and it is Firefox doing the remembering, at that. But still doesn't explain why I can get no result when searching for a thread I know is there ~~ and everyone else [see above] can. ~M~ |
|
14 Nov 12 - 04:10 PM (#3436591) Subject: RE: Tech: mystified: can't find thread From: JohnInKansas If you consistently click to use the autocomplete choice, it's possible that the first time you did that there was some minor - possibly "invisible" - error in what the browser suggested so that you're actually consistently repeating the same corrupt search term. The filter should return every thread name that includes whatever you type, and sometimes it's best to NOT try to put the entire title in. If I type just the four letters tatt and set to one year I find three threads, two up above and yours down in BS, and it's easy to pick the right one. The thread names returned must contain the characters you enter, but must exactly match what you type, but it should return all the threads that contain exactly that character sequence along with anybunchofotherstuff. The more characters you enter, the more likely what you type will include an error that isn't in any thread title. Typing "tattered" or "tatte" or "tatt" works, but "tat tered" doesn't, and with some fonts a random space is hard to see, and/or rn looks like m, etc. The autocomplete/autosuggest will generally "recommend" something you have typed recently. Doing it wrong once likely will return the same error as long as you "click to complete" your entry instead of typing all of the term you want to use each time - or at least once after the filter didn't find what (you thought) you asked for. John |
|
14 Nov 12 - 04:49 PM (#3436612) Subject: RE: Tech: mystified: can't find thread From: MGM·Lion Nope ~~ tried all that, but "No results". The wrinkle now is that, when I go on to "Magic" ~~~ I get this thread! |
|
19 Mar 13 - 07:06 PM (#3492378) Subject: RE: Tech: mystified: can't find thread From: Joe Offer New RequestHere's an e-mail I got today. Can anybody help the requester find the thread?
Thanks. -Joe- |
|
19 Mar 13 - 07:10 PM (#3492379) Subject: RE: Tech: mystified: can't find thread From: GUEST You're going mad. You saw it maybe at http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/03/13/all-neanderthals-needed-to-survive-was-a-sweater-and-a-mammoth/ |
|
19 Mar 13 - 07:19 PM (#3492382) Subject: RE: Tech: mystified: can't find thread From: JohnInKansas There was a post in a thread about "cognition in music" or some such blather, with a link to the news(?) report on the research. It might take a bit to find the thread, but somebody usually beats me to it anyway. John |
|
19 Mar 13 - 07:23 PM (#3492388) Subject: RE: Tech: mystified: can't find thread From: Mick Pearce (MCP) I happened to have posted to that today, so here it is: Improvisation and the brain. Mick |
|
19 Mar 13 - 07:31 PM (#3492391) Subject: RE: Tech: mystified: can't find thread From: JohnInKansas The Post in the Thread The article that made the claim was, I believe, posted at msnbc.com but doesn't seem to be still up at that site. John |
|
19 Mar 13 - 07:40 PM (#3492394) Subject: RE: Tech: mystified: can't find thread From: JohnInKansas Neanderthals Doomed by Vision-Centered Brains Tia Ghose, LiveScience Staff Writer Date: 12 March 2013 Time: 08:01 PM ET Neanderthals' keen vision may explain why they couldn't cope with environmental change and died out, despite having the same sized brains as modern humans, new research suggests. The findings, published today (March 12) in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B, suggest that Neanderthals developed massive visual regions in their brains to compensate for Europe's low light levels. That, however, reduced the brain space available for social cognition. "We have a social brain, whereas Neanderthals appear to have a visual brain," said Clive Gamble, an archaeologist at the University of Southampton, who was not involved in the study. As a result, the extinct hominids had smaller social and trading networks to rely on when conditions got tough. That may have caused Neanderthals to die off around 35,000 years ago. Brain size riddle Just how smart Neanderthals were has been a long-standing debate. "Either they get regarded as lumbering brutes, or the other side says, 'No, they weren't that stupid. They had enormous brains, so they must have been as smart as we are,'" said study co-author Robin Dunbar, an evolutionary psychologist at the University of Oxford. To help solve the riddle, Dunbar and his colleagues looked at 13 Neanderthal skull fossils dating from 25,000 to 75,000 years ago and compared them with 32 anatomically modern human skeletons. The researchers noticed that some of the Neanderthal fossils had much larger eye sockets, and thus eyes, than do modern humans. Low lighting The team concluded that Neanderthals used their oversized eyes to survive in the lower-light levels in Europe, where the northern latitude means fewer of the sun's rays hit the Earth. (Modern humans also tend to have slightly bigger eyes and visual systems at higher latitudes than those living in lower latitudes, where light levels are higher.) The researchers hypothesized that Neanderthals must, therefore, also have had large brain regions devoted to visual processing. And in fact, Neanderthal skulls suggest that the extinct hominids had elongated regions in the back of their brains, called the "Neanderthal bun," where the visual cortex lies. "It looks like a Victorian lady's head," Dunbar told LiveScience. Anatomically modern humans, meanwhile, evolved in Africa, where the bright light required no extra visual processing, leaving humans free to evolve larger frontal lobes. By calculating how much brain space was needed for other tasks, the team concluded that Neanderthals had relatively less space for the frontal lobe, a brain region that controls social thinking and cultural transmission. Isolated and dying The findings explain why Neanderthals didn't ornament themselves or make art, Gamble told LiveScience. These results may also help explain the Neanderthals' extinction, Dunbar said. Smaller social brain regions meant smaller social networks. In fact, artifacts from Neanderthal sites suggest they had just a 30-mile (48.3 kilometers) trading radius, while human trade networks at the time could span 200 miles (321.9 km), Dunbar said. With competition from humans, a bitter ice age and tiny trading networks, the Neanderthals probably couldn't access resources from better climates, which they needed in order survive, he said. John |
|
21 Mar 13 - 02:30 PM (#3493110) Subject: RE: Tech: mystified: can't find thread From: GUEST,Grishka I read that all mankind except for pure-lined Subsaharan Africans have Neanderthals among their ancestors. So it stand to reason that properties which are clearly distinct between the two groups of humans are due to the Neanderthal impact. I cannot think of any such property, and certainly not the non-African's better eyesight - what a pity. The Neanderthals' ancestors also came from Africa, but considerably earlier than homo sapiens. Fascinating, but presumably of little practical relevance. |
|
21 Mar 13 - 02:59 PM (#3493117) Subject: RE: Tech: mystified: can't find thread From: JohnInKansas The origins of both Neanderthals and Homosapiens etc. are still very much the subject of debate, as are disagreements about what attributes should be considered typical for either or both. A growing consensus attributes much higher intelligence to Neanderthals than was assumed by earlier researchers, but it's not unlikely they were "differently intelligent" than other more or less successful groups. One recent proposition that's received very little debate is from evidence that Neanderthals were predominately "red haired" so the carrot-top trait may have come from them. (Little comment has appeared on whether they were fair-skinned - under all that hair they they might have had - and had freckles like many modern red-heads.) It's unclear whether the sparse debate is because other researchers don't think there's enough evidence to reach a conclusion or whether they just don't think it's interesting enough to justify debate. It's what we don't know that's most interesting, but it's what we don't know we don't know (the "UNK UNKs") that make it difficult characterize our multiple genetic ancestors with a lot of confidence. John |