Get rid of the FUCKING 120 second search limit!

[An Arky]

It's fucking ridiculous. F-U-C-K-I-N-G. R-I-D-I-C-U-L-O-U-S.

You can't handle a members-only function? WTF? If it was subject to guest/bot abuses, I'd understand, but this simply isn't something that should be difficult, at all.

[bordelond]

... I am wondering if it still necessary.

A lot of forums have similar functions, though. 2 minutes is long -- 30 seconds is more the norm. But then, the searching here may not be optimized for maximum speed.

[Lobsang]

I believe more frequent searches would really really improve the board performance.

[cmyk]

Every time I need to perform a search, it takes me at least 2 or 3 times to narrow down what I'm looking for. And each time, I bite into the head of a small puppy. Such is the intensity of my annoyance.

Kill the search buffer. Save Puppies.

[Lobsang]

Every time I need to perform a search, it takes me at least 2 or 3 times to narrow down what I'm looking for. And each time, I bite into the head of a small puppy. Such is the intensity of my annoyance.

Kill the search buffer. Save Puppies.


Your searches are causing page unavailable errors... causing me to bite into the head of a small kitten.

[Malodorous]

Kill the search buffer. Save Puppies.

Without time to rest, every search will kill 6-7 hamsters. Using a complicated moral calculus invented for the purpose, Jerry conclusively proved that the value a hamsters life is exactly one third that of a puppy life. Hence the 120 sec wait time.

ETA: of course, killing a cat is a good thing, and so if Lobsang can up his kitten kill count to 1.5 per every page unavailable message, it will in fact be more morally optimal to abolish the wait between searches.

[Beware of Doug]

I suspect much of the strain on the search enging is caused by Dopers constantly hitting New Posts to see what's fresh and freaky, and just incidentally, who might have responded to a posting of their own.

[Beware of Doug]

if Lobsang can up his kitten kill count to 1.5 per every page unavailable message, it will in fact be more morally optimal to abolish the wait between searches.There are more pleasant ways to kill kittens. But not with your pants on.

[cmyk]

When will the violence end?!

**squirts some ketchup on 1 puppy, 2 kittens, and 5 or 6 hamsters**

[A Monkey With a Gun]

120 seconds? Two minutes? Not for searches but between searches?! Good Lord, Arky, how impatient are you?

Do you throw a pop tart in the toaster and think, "I KNEW I should have used the microwave!"

Deal with it, man. If this bugs you then you do too damn many searches far too frequently.

[jtgain]

Dude, try to keep your dick in your pants. Two minutes bothers you?

I'll bet your wife is more frustrated than you are......:)

[An Arky]

Sorry it irks you if I can think of two things to search for in the span of 120 seconds.

This issue is just one of many TPTB can't be arsed to do anything about other than come up with 1980s "solutions".

If that makes you get all huffy with me, you're the ones with the problem.

[A Monkey With a Gun]

Sorry it irks you if I can think of two things to search for in the span of 120 seconds.So can I. And I have. But, however..... I can open another window, look at another thread, stand up and walk to the bathroom to take a piss..

Make a pop-tart.....

And you pit this?????!!!!!

[Lobsang]

There are more pleasant ways to kill kittens. But not with your pants on.

As long as the kitten isn't directly involved! :eek:

[CarnalK]

Yeah! What Monkey With a Gun and jtgain said! Don't let the doorknob hit you if you don't like it, Mr An "Wants computers to be fast" Arky!

[A Monkey With a Gun]

Yeah! What Monkey With a Gun and jtgain said! Don't let the doorknob hit you if you don't like it, Mr "Wants computers to be fast"!It ain't about "wanting computers to be fast". It's about common damn sense. We have all bitched when the threads don't load in a timely manner. I have been on this board for six years and I remember when it was a Hell of a lot worse. I have lost so many damn well written posts in the past to connection time outs that I do NOT appreciate an idiot like An Arky tieing up the servers with incessant searches.

Honestly, if you want to search that much and quickly, you search too much. Surf a bit. You might find you like broadening what you look at.

[CarnalK]

Well, I remember worse things too but it really boils down to wanting computers to be fast. It seems that the search problems could be mostly fixed with a software upgrade and a little extra setup but that is too much trouble for the Reader. Especially when they've got customers like you blaming the other customers for the slow service.

[A Monkey With a Gun]

CarnalK, I wish everything was perfect too. I wish that the Chicago Reader and Creative Loafing had so much money that they could upgrade everything to the exact specifications of our neediest Dopers.

You want to bankroll that?

I also want a Jet Pack.

And a pony.

[1010011010]

I want a jet pack for a pony.

[Lobsang]

Dear CarnalK I have been vewy vewy good all yeer and I would like a Bugatti Veyron and a Manson and an iphone and a pool table and a boat and a plane and a airport.

[Rubystreak]

Honestly, if you want to search that much and quickly, you search too much. Surf a bit. You might find you like broadening what you look at.

Do you not understand that sometimes, you need to do more than one search to find what you're looking for? Or that you did a search for thread titles (the default) and meant to do one for posts only? The 120 second wait then becomes a pain in the ass. It's not too much to ask that a member-only paid-for search function be available more often than once every two minutes. Other boards manage to do it. Blaming it on An Arky "searching too much" is ridiculous.

[A Monkey With a Gun]

Cry me a river.

[faithfool]

I want a jet pack with a pony in it.

[Lobsang]

It's a big tent.

[Tamex]

I'm also annoyed with the 120 second wait. I don't search posts very often, but when I do, it can take me 2 or 3 searches to find what I'm looking for. I know there were shorter limits in the past which I almost never ran into. I almost always run into the 120 second limit (it doesn't usually take me two minutes to figure out if I found what I needed or need to do another search) and it is annoying. Very annoying.

[Eliahna]

Hi, I'm Cazzle and apparently I search too much.

I log in, I hit new posts and then I wonder what became of that one thread that I replied to but didn't subscribe to so I search my old posts and get "You have to wait another 63 seconds before you can search again".

I am so terribly sorry to have abused the board's resources in this manner. :rolleyes:

[Mikemike2]

An Arky, I agree with you 100%. Two minutes of waiting to use the board is an abuse of the members. Especiallly when two minutes is all the time it takes for the boards to time out again. I did not join these boards so I can do a timer in my head only to find out I was wrong by two seconds and have to do my search again.

[Mikemike2]

We have a small group of members, so obviously there is a huge problem with the optimization of the software doing the searches. If it is the new posts search that is bringing the limping server to its knees, couldn't the results of the search be saved every thirty seconds or so, and just copied to anyone who requests it?

[Fugazi]

Does anyone here ever go to any other message boards? Other boards I use (for free) allow non-member searches, and still manage to serve up pages fairly easily. The folks who love this place (including me) are in denial about how incredibly bad these boards run. And no, I'm not leaving. I put up with the crappiness for the awesome content. That doesn't make the crappiness less crappy.

I would love to see the specs for the hardware and internet connection they're using. (wonder if they've upgraded from the 486 to the pentium class yet)

[Lobsang]

Does anyone here ever go to any other message boards? Other boards I use (for free) allow non-member searches, and still manage to serve up pages fairly easily. The folks who love this place (including me) are in denial about how incredibly bad these boards run. And no, I'm not leaving. I put up with the crappiness for the awesome content. That doesn't make the crappiness less crappy.

I would love to see the specs for the hardware and internet connection they're using. (wonder if they've upgraded from the 486 to the pentium class yet)

I am a member of a MB that has a higher volume/thruput than the SDMB. On that boar Searches have been completely disabled for over a year now due to the performance hit.

[Tamex]

Here's another annoyance. My last hamster-taxing search was for all my past posts in order to take a little trip down memory lane (well, the parts that have not been erased, yet, anyway.) I got about 30 pages of results. I was reading through them, going from page to page, and then eventually I got errors telling me that the links to the pages on my search were no longer valid!

So, I searched again. Fortunately, it had been longer than two minutes. However, if I had been able to page through all my results like I'd wanted to, I could have saved a few hamsters by not doing another search.

Another thing I noticed as I looked through my old posts is just how many people are no longer here since the board went to pay. It is mind-boggling.

[Rysto]

We have a small group of members, so obviously there is a huge problem with the optimization of the software doing the searches. If it is the new posts search that is bringing the limping server to its knees, couldn't the results of the search be saved every thirty seconds or so, and just copied to anyone who requests it?
No doubt something could be done, but the administrators of this board don't write the code. They've just bought off-the-shelf software.

Frankly, if you want better performance dumping PHP and MySQL are good first bets, but I'd bet that's a total non-starter for a lot of reasons(not the least of which the fact that all of the good forum software is actual written in PHP... *sigh*)

[An Arky]

We have a small group of members, so obviously there is a huge problem with the optimization of the software doing the searches. If it is the new posts search that is bringing the limping server to its knees, couldn't the results of the search be saved every thirty seconds or so, and just copied to anyone who requests it?

Basically, that's what I'm talking about. It's not that I expect blazing performance or anything (I've been a member long enough to be disabused of that notion), it's just that this is a very basic thing that plenty of other (ahem, FREE) boards seem to be able to do with aplomb.

Generally, I don't mind waiting a few extra seconds for something to happen, it's just that I KNOW it can be done better, and that's what is irksome.

We've had a lot of very technically savvy dopers offer assistance to bring them out of the pre-Cambrian era of computing, we pay a pretty fair price for being members, and we've all heard the hyperbolic promises of what that "new server" would bring, yet nothing happens, and indeed, they dialed back meaningful user capability. Then they try that Irsay-ish sneaking in of screaming banner ads. It just doesn't wash anymore.

I'm sorry some of you think I'm an idiot or have no patience, but really, I don't think it's unreasonable to be dissatisfied with such halfassery.

[Musicat]

Don't you remember when that 2 minute time period was imposed, not long ago? It was thought that too-frequent searches were the causes of some serious timeouts and slowdowns, and this was invoked as a compromise (it was better than no searching at all).

AFAIK, the problem was never diagnosed completely and no more work is being done about it. Still, I'd hate for it to reoccur. 2 minutes between searches bothers me, too, but it may be a small price to pay for minimal harmony.

[Slacker]

It ain't about "wanting computers to be fast". It's about common damn sense. We have all bitched when the threads don't load in a timely manner. I have been on this board for six years and I remember when it was a Hell of a lot worse. I have lost so many damn well written posts in the past to connection time outs that I do NOT appreciate an idiot like An Arky tieing up the servers with incessant searches.

Honestly, if you want to search that much and quickly, you search too much. Surf a bit. You might find you like broadening what you look at.
Spoken like a person who truly has no idea what he or she is talking about. Well done!

And regarding searches - disable the vBulletin search, and allow Google to index the site. Decrease the server load due to searches to zero and cut the database size in half at the same time.

[don't ask]

I like it when I misjudge whether 2 minutes has passed since my last search and some bandwidth is wasted to tell me I have to wait one more second, which has already passed by the time I get the response. Why not just queue the search for one second, honest I won't be able to tell.

[A Monkey With a Gun]

Spoken like a person who truly has no idea what he or she is talking about. Well done! Spoken like a person who misses the point completely. Christ Jesus, people, all I ever ask from you idiots is a little bit of perspective. It's 2 minutes! Take a piss! Make a pop tart! Don't be so vain that you think some idiot may have responded to your oh so witty response in the last thirty seconds. Perspective.

[Tenebras]

You see boys and girls, it turned out that a single member searching once every 30 seconds for 4 minutes is what passes for a denial of service attack in these parts. They instituted the 2 minute search rule back in April because somebody managed to shut down the boards by accident.

Post in which Ed explains the change. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8521894&postcount=68)

I will point out that I had to seach twice to get that thread. The first time I searched for jerry, search and minute and came up with only one thread, which was the wrong one. When I excluded the term jerry I got a whole bunch of threads, one of which was the one I was looking for. Oddly the original post contains both the words jerry and minute and has seach in the title and scattered through the thread, but that didn't appear. Wonders will never cease.

[Rubystreak]

Spoken like a person who misses the point completely. Christ Jesus, people, all I ever ask from you idiots is a little bit of perspective. It's 2 minutes! Take a piss! Make a pop tart! Don't be so vain that you think some idiot may have responded to your oh so witty response in the last thirty seconds. Perspective.

Why have I never noticed what an asshole you are before this? Let me make this simple for you: some people have restricted time to spend on the internet. I know, it's hard to believe, but it really is true. If I have half an hour to surf the boards on my break, and I have to do 5 searches to find what I'm looking for (it has happened), forget it. That post is not going to get made. Not all searches are vanity searches and looking for recent responses. Some of them are necessary to composing a well-supported post.

I know, cry you a fucking river. You wouldn't miss that post anyway, whatever. So you don't give a shit that it bothers people. But in the aggregate, the board gets less content, well-researched content for sure, and people are turned off from participating. Hell, I'm sure many people have walked away because of the shitty service that now costs money. It's a valid complaint.

Now go make yourself a pop tart and get some perspective on that.

[Frank]

Just out of idle curiousity, how many would be willing to get more frequent and faster searches in exchange for banner ads?

[Slacker]

Just out of idle curiousity, how many would be willing to get more frequent and faster searches in exchange for banner ads?
That's like asking how much would I pay my mechanic for him to add time-travel capability to my car. I would pay a lot, but I don't think he can pull it off. ;)

[A Monkey With a Gun]

Thank you, Frank. If, I may, I wish to reiterate one of my earlier points to all involved:CarnalK, I wish everything was perfect too. I wish that the Chicago Reader and Creative Loafing had so much money that they could upgrade everything to the exact specifications of our neediest Dopers.

You want to bankroll that? Rubystreak, yes. I am an asshole. No arguments there. But I'm an asshole with a point. Do you want to bankroll the necessary changes?

The dope is what it is. There is a finite amount of money involved. DEAL with it.

[Rubystreak]

Just out of idle curiousity, how many would be willing to get more frequent and faster searches in exchange for banner ads?

Only if I actually get the searches. I'm sure we'd get banner ads first, and then, maybe we'd get the faster searches, and maybe we wouldn't. Maybe we'd get the faster searches but they'd get taken away when someone crashes the board. Know what I mean?

MWAG: I am already paying for it. How much do you expect us to pay? Really.

[A Monkey With a Gun]

I am already paying for it. How much do you expect us to pay? Really.The same amount I do.

Jesus, you're like somebody that walks into a Waffle House and complains that the steaks aren't done right.

[Slacker]

Rubystreak, is there a reason you're arguing with someone whose main point is "UR N IDIOT!!!1"? If you're just a glutton for punishment can't you spare us all the grief and just slam your hand in a drawer or something? :P

[Rubystreak]

Rubystreak, is there a reason you're arguing with someone whose main point is "UR N IDIOT!!!1"? If you're just a glutton for punishment can't you spare us all the grief and just slam your hand in a drawer or something? :P

I'm in just that kind of mood tonight, I guess. I should stop.

[thirdname]

And regarding searches - disable the vBulletin search, and allow Google to index the site. Decrease the server load due to searches to zero and cut the database size in half at the same time.
No way. Google searches of message boards are horrible. The results are disorganized and out of order, and you can't search with the same various criteria that you can in a regular search.

[A Monkey With a Gun]

Rubystreak, slacker, That's it? No counter point? "I'm taking my ball and going home"?

My point isn't simply that you're an idiot, although I do believe that, my point is that everything comes with a price. You want improvement, but you offer no solutions that you would be willing to pay for. There is just no fucking pleasing you.

Pathetic.

[Heffalump and Roo]

Just out of idle curiousity, how many would be willing to get more frequent and faster searches in exchange for banner ads?
Could we force the banner ads just on them?

There are only a couple people in this thread that are concerned about faster search times. And oodles of people who spoke out against banner ads. The math seems pretty easy. Big minus small and all that.

[GuanoLad]

I have a potential solution. If they upgrade the boards to the latest version, there will be many features that have bypassed and optimised the memory problems this version currently suffers, freeing up its potential use via the search function.

[Slacker]

No way. Google searches of message boards are horrible. The results are disorganized and out of order, and you can't search with the same various criteria that you can in a regular search.
I agree - but if we're in a situation where searches are crashing the board and/or forcing it to be pruned repeatedly, I'd take Google over nothing.

[CarnalK]

I got to say, I really don't understand your response and references to me, Monkey With a Gun. Why bring the word "perfect" into the discussion? Why try to pretend that what I'm asking about is unattainable or outrageously expensive? Seems a pretty lame thing to do.

[Liberal]

I'm surprised that no one has pointed out the obvious. There is no time limit at all on manual searches. So if the 2 minute lag bothers you, you can search by opening each thread and doing a Ctrl-F on each page until you find what you're looking for. I think sometimes we overlook the simple solution when we're trying to complicate things.

[An Arky]

Been reading Swift again, Lib? :D

To answer Frank's curiosity, I'd say that I'd be willing to pay more, but many wouldn't. Same with banner ads.

But that's not the point. I'm no techie, but some suggestions for improvement made here and elsewhere aren't necessarily expensive or even hard to do.

Heck, if it's a matter of upgrading the software, call me an impecunious spendthrift, but I don't see how $160 (https://www.vbulletin.com/order/) is going to break the bank. Throw in another $135 and they'll install it for you. Plus, add on another $300 and you get a year of phone support.

I know it's craaaazy talk, but spending $595 doesn't seem like it would cause the Chicago Reader Creative Loafing to force it's employees' children to sell pencils on the streetcorner.

[Tuckerfan]

Well, Ed said that new stuff could be coming our way. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=446080)

Of course some us remember what happened the last time such things were promised to us. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=391250)

[jjimm]

I think the problem is - and I'm encountering it at work with another system - that TBTB have spent a long time extensively customising the current version of vBulletin. Upgrading isn't simply a case of copying the new software over the top of the old. Each customisation would have to be redone, then fully tested, on the new software. That would require a test server, properly also a staging server (which I'm guessing doesn't exist), and a copy of the database, which presumably would require work for the upgrade, and the process would probably take a few weeks, with minimal staffing.

These same staff, meanwhile, would have to run the live server at the same time, increasing the workload and thus the amount of time such an upgrade would take. Then at go-live you'd have to take another copy of the database, make whatever changes that are needed, test it, then launch. And if anything went wrong during this process, we'd all be going bananas.

I am not defending this, just telling it like (what I think) it is.

I personally think upgrading should happen way more regularly - perhaps by removing some of the customisations. But that would probably require further investment by the Creative Loafers.

[Tamex]

I have a potential solution. If they upgrade the boards to the latest version, there will be many features that have bypassed and optimised the memory problems this version currently suffers, freeing up its potential use via the search function.

What the fuck? If this is true, then do it! In Ed's thread explaining the change (link in Tenebras's thread), he explained that this is mostly a software problem. Are you saying that there is a software solution to this problem?

I'm surprised to hear that the SDMB has customized vBulletin so much. I was under they impression that they were against customization of the software. I tried to do a search about that, but I didn't find what I was looking for, and I would hate to crash the board or anything.

[Musicat]

You see boys and girls, it turned out that a single member searching once every 30 seconds for 4 minutes is what passes for a denial of service attack in these parts. They instituted the 2 minute search rule back in April because somebody managed to shut down the boards by accident.And there are those who dispute that theory. No one has shown (to the public, at least) conclusive evidence that one 4-minute long search is all it takes to bring the boards down.

I think the present rule is like a Pascal's Wager of traffic control.

[Musicat]

I'm surprised that no one has pointed out the obvious. There is no time limit at all on manual searches. So if the 2 minute lag bothers you, you can search by opening each thread and doing a Ctrl-F on each page until you find what you're looking for. I think sometimes we overlook the simple solution when we're trying to complicate things.A local, one-page-at-a-time search is a LOT different from a search on 10 years worth of data from all posts. Hardly comparable, even if you were to script a Cntl/F search on all threads.

[Liberal]

I think the problem is - and I'm encountering it at work with another system - that TBTB have spent a long time extensively customising the current version of vBulletin. Upgrading isn't simply a case of copying the new software over the top of the old. Each customisation would have to be redone, then fully tested, on the new software. That would require a test server, properly also a staging server (which I'm guessing doesn't exist), and a copy of the database, which presumably would require work for the upgrade, and the process would probably take a few weeks, with minimal staffing.

These same staff, meanwhile, would have to run the live server at the same time, increasing the workload and thus the amount of time such an upgrade would take. Then at go-live you'd have to take another copy of the database, make whatever changes that are needed, test it, then launch. And if anything went wrong during this process, we'd all be going bananas.[...staring in awe...] I bow to your superior Swiftian powers, my lord.

(On the off-chance that you were serious, this has to be the least customized site on the world wide web. Their reticence to alter even a byte of code is legendary.)

[GuanoLad]

Are you saying that there is a software solution to this problem?
"Solution" is probably too strong a word. But I'm pretty confident it would alleviate some memory issues.

[cmyk]

Despite searching being such a incendiary topic for some, I will say one of the side effects of knowing a search will bring all of the hamsters, that keep this board running smoothly, to their knees, dissuades me of performing even one simple search.

I'd hate to interrupt the flow of this board for even one minute because I want to see if an obscure question has been asked already, so instead I'll just post the question without due research.