The search function

[wetwarev7]

From this thread: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=134642

Originally Posted by Able72

problem with the search funtion is the number of 3 letter words used. Mod, air, co2, and bug are all words that the search function won't look for.

You know, I've had a lot of problems searching for stuff myself because of the way the search engine is set up. I see alot of question threads get answered with "use the search function" (I've answered a few of them myself like this).

I wonder, just how many new people do you think have we given a bad impression to because they were not able to do a quick search, so they start a thread only to get the typical "use the search function" answer?

Is there a particular reason why the search function is the way that it is? Is it fairly common for search functions to be like this? Should we look at the search engine and see if maybe it needs to be tweaked? I dunno.

Just kind of wondering out loud and wanted to see what y'all think.

[Soundman]

I only use the advanced search, which some people may not notice the first time they try. Most of the time I can however, find what I'm looking for. Sometimes it is hard to get to right where you need to be and therefore, the new thread. The main issue I see now is this...with all the new mods and patches, much of the info in older threads is obsolete now. That I believe, is what should be considered, but that's a tough nut to crack.

[wetwarev7]

Thats' true too.

And I believe the advanced search still ignores many common three letter words like mod and bug and stuff. In practice, it tends to purposly ignore many key words I need to use for my searches.

[-Pv-]

Warning, this is a peeve of mine so answer is verbose...

I've been able to find everything I've searched for myself. Maybe being a programmer I'm more aware of the limitations of search engines and more creative with my search words. If I see a post where the person asking the question STATES they used search and couldn't find what they were looking for, I do not respond by asking them to use search.

I only mention the search option to people when:
1) There is no evidence in the post they have tried it.
AND
2) I KNOW for CERTAIN there is a large and detailed post or collection of posts answering the question.
AND
3) It's a frequently asked question.
AND
4) I'm feeling lazy (most of the time) and do not want to type a long answer yet AGAIN.

It really does get tiring typing out detailed answers to complicated procedural or historical background questions over and over again. Crew Management is a good example of a subject which cannot be answered in 25 words or less.

I realize the frustration of people who only ask questions and rarely answer them, but speaking for myself (and I suspect many others here who know a lot more than I) I spend more time on this forum answering questions than asking them (estimated 500/1 ratio on that) and I consider my time valuable. I would like to think the thousands of words I've typed here can be used to help more than one person per post. I would rather speak at a convention or seminar than speak with 500 people over the phone.

There is so much activity on this forum, even very active threads only stay on the 1st page a couple days before they get pushed off onto the second page. One of the frustrating reasons this happens is 10 people starting new threads asking the same question within a day or two. Another reason it happens is most people don't read beyond page one (If it's not on page one, it's old news and not helpful.) The third reason is laziness. Why SEARCH for an answer which might already exist when I can ask my question now, and get an answer now? Or, Why should I read 500 words of text to get my answer when someone could simply tell me exactly what I want to know in the next post after my question? Well actually, a person doing that might have to wait 12 to 24 hours until the right person reads the post at the right time with a real answer, not just a guess. Then you still have to wait until YOU can get the opportunity to read the result. Even though we all WISH the next post or two after our question give us everything we wanted to know, you'll learn soon enough the likelyhood of this happening every time is low. This is because the quality of the answer is largely based on the quality of the question and the availability of the person with the quality answer.

Related to this is it's more helpful to the search engine (and the results) if the questions (asking person's responsibility) and the person answering are specific and use words related to the question in their answer.

Example:
Post title: "sucks"
post content: "this game sucks"

Answer: "Why"

Response: "Slow"

This converstation might eventually morph into a discussion of hardware capability and system tweaks long after people ask for more information and the original poster leaks out the answers a few words at a time over the space of days. Unfortunately for the search engine, there is a lot of non-useful content, lowering the "score" of the results, pushing this thread way down on the list of results compared to other threads where there might have actually been less useful information, but the conversation was more specific and had less non-technical fluff, opinion, and off-topic side tangents. If the searching person put in the word "sucks" they might actually get this post to appear near the top of the list, AND they might actually find very useful information near the end of the thread. If instead they put in the words "game tweaks" this thread might appear at the bottom or not at all. From my experience here and elsewhere where I have participated over the span of 23 years, these kinds of conversations are more common than concise, focused conversations. The search engine has to sort though GIGs of this junk to find the 20 words (100 bytes) that answer your question.

In short, the search engine can be fantastic (I've found this one better than most low-cost systems) but the question and answer content so poor the engine has little to work with. Garbage in-Garbage out.

Be smart, be paitent, be creative. Realize everyone's time is valuable, not just your own.
-Pv-

[Wilcke]

good post above....

Its all about the attitude your post conveys, remember all we see is your words, spelling, grammar and punctuation. No intonation, pitch and visuals...so its hard to glean and read between the lines.

Sample: this game sux I have a fast computer and I only get 10 fps.....

Sample: Hey guys I am running SH4 1.4 no mods on XYZ computer at XYZ resolution with all the bells and whistles on and when I spawn at Pearl to start my career I get 2 FPS is this normal with my rig.

What can I do to improve this? I am a NOOB but will buy drinks for anyone that can get this solved!

Oh I did the search and I am an idiot....I could not find an answer.

Guess who is going to get help?

[claybirdd]

search engine hates it when you search for "AI" or "TMO".

plus lets face it these forums are getting huge.

[wetwarev7]

Originally Posted by claybirdd

search engine hates it when you search for "AI" or "TMO".

plus lets face it these forums are getting huge.

This is kind of what I was wanting to see discussed. I think we all know how we feel regarding certain behavior from first time posters! :p

I'll ask in a different way. Is the Subsim search engine user/newbie friendly enough, or do you think it may actually discourage use of itself(by not allowing searches for three letter words, for example)?

[Rockin Robbins]

Use the Google site search function. If you use the googlebar or Google Toolbar, just type your search in the search field and press the site search button. It works much better than any site's search fuction I've found.

[-Pv-]

Got 8 posts linked to nearly 1000 replies using the terms "Artificial Intelligence"

Not sure what relationship "TMO" has with sub simming.

Problem with those "toolbars" is they come at a cost. Many are malware slowing down your computer and sometimes making your browser unresponsive. In November of last year, Google distributed a virus with their toolbar. The Acrobat "helper" toolbar kills IE. The Yahoo toolbar slows down IE.
-Pv-

[Rockin Robbins]

Some toolbars come at a cost. Googlebar, a Firefox add-on is as good as Google's bar and has no problems. I wouldn't worry about Google's own toolbar either. Anything you download can have a virus, and most virus claims turn out to be false anyway. As long as your defenses are up, you are pretty impervious and any downloaded viruses are found before their host can ever be executed.

Unless you can make the argument that Google purposely included a virus with their toolbar (no laughing now!) I wouldn't worry about it too much.

Now some of the lesser known "toolbars" are nothing more than spyware vectors. Especially if a program claims to be anti-spyware or anti-virus and you haven't heard of it and it is not well-known to be harmless, it is suspect. "Accidentally" misspelled major programs qualify as well, seeing that we have an entire culture of script kiddies who revel in their inability to spell, punctuate or convey any sense in what they claim to say. They are particularly vulnerable, but they should be. It is only natural selection at work.

[Able72]

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

Some toolbars come at a cost. Googlebar, a Firefox add-on is as good as Google's bar and has no problems. I wouldn't worry about Google's own toolbar either. Anything you download can have a virus, and most virus claims turn out to be false anyway. As long as your defenses are up, you are pretty impervious and any downloaded viruses are found before their host can ever be executed.

Unless you can make the argument that Google purposely included a virus with their toolbar (no laughing now!) I wouldn't worry about it too much.

Now some of the lesser known "toolbars" are nothing more than spyware vectors. Especially if a program claims to be anti-spyware or anti-virus and you haven't heard of it and it is not well-known to be harmless, it is suspect. "Accidentally" misspelled major programs qualify as well, seeing that we have an entire culture of script kiddies who revel in their inability to spell, punctuate or convey any sense in what they claim to say. They are particularly vulnerable, but they should be. It is only natural selection at work.

But dood, my box is the RoXeRs

I'm 1337t/-\5t1k and you kant toch dis. :rotfl:

Gotta love the Script Kiddies

[skwasjer]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&r...MO&btnG=Search

Works for me

I always use google instead of forum search functions. The usual search function of boards like these can't match up to the algoritms google uses.

PS: I use IE7's builtin search box, with Google as default provider. Works like a charm...

[ReallyDedPoet]

Originally Posted by skwasjer

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&r...MO&btnG=Search

Works for me

I always use google instead of forum search functions. The usual search function of boards like these can't match up to the algoritms google uses.

PS: I use IE7's builtin search box, with Google as default provider. Works like a charm...

Nice post S


RDP

[Able72]

Originally Posted by skwasjer

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&r...MO&btnG=Search

Works for me

I always use google instead of forum search functions. The usual search function of boards like these can't match up to the algoritms google uses.

PS: I use IE7's builtin search box, with Google as default provider. Works like a charm...

Cool, very usefull. I didn't know Google would do that. Thanks.

[piersyf]

I'm going to throw in my 2c worth, being a noob to this forum. I think it is an OK search engine. Not great, but it does work. If I was allowed to make one change, I would have the results broken down into specific forum threads. I have used the search function a few times, had lots or returns, and found 2/3's of them to apply to SH3. If I could refine to SH4 it'd give closer, more accurate results.

If the system will already do that, I restate, I am a noob to the forum, and that facility (if it exists) is not obvious.