Bite your tongue! I’m upset that I can’t go back at will and read about “Who is Mr Ruda Duda?” or review the history of the war between the CPB and the Warm Fuzzies to refresh my memory of what happened!
Tuba:
That oughta work! In fact, wasn’t there once a duplicate set of thread titles with “ARCHIVES” added to the title? You coudl go and browse them, or search them, separately from the modern ones? That was quite a while back, perhaps in the ubb days. Anyway, while I’d really like to see the old threads preserved (preferably forever), read-only sounds ideal for threads older than 90 days, and if they were held (and searched by) a different server using a different index, speed increase, yes?
I’ve been thinking of some of these ideas as well. For example, a CD version of static HTML pages could probably raise a few bucks. Especially if the info were no longer part of the SDMB online by the time it made it to CD. It would seem to be a simple Perl project that I’d do myself if I actually knew Perl.
Likewise, mirror sites with currently active threads in read-only format might be appealing for those who want to catch up while at work. Again, active threads could be retrieved overnight and converted to static html pages such that the links would work via a simple Perl script. You could probably get people to volunteer to host them. The only official connection that the Reader needs is to approve the use of material it has the copyrights to by others. Certainly, it would be in the Reader’s interest to disallow any comercial use of SDMB posts, but as an effort to spread the load around a bit, I think the idea has potential.
Actually you can still do a search with “any date” and “all forums” … you just have to type in the URL coding, but it still does work.
You suppose maybe that it’s not the best idea to tell everyone how to do what the administration doesn’t want them to do?
I wonder if creating an FAQ with links to previous discussions of the popular GQ and GD topics would help - it would certainly bypass the need for all of the posts in those fora to be searched.
As far as the other fora go, and I include my beloved Pit in this statement, the majority of the threads are relevent only to a specific time period or event and could be safely deleted after 90 days from the OP. Those that are worth archiving will have attracted a great deal of attention when they were current.
I’m inclined to go for a classics archive, an FAQ with links to prior discussions of popular topics, severe restrictions on the use of “search all” (definitely no further back than 90 days), and perhaps restricting “any date” searches to GQ and GD.
An example of the kind of FAQ I’m thinking of can be found here.
Yeah…another example of an annotated FAQ idea can be found here.
Now, on the other subject. I’m really happy that after 20 years of coding some people find value in such statements of Users along the lines of “it should be easy, however, I have no idea how to do it”. I guess having only 9 years of coding experience I just don’t see it.
How about this - the next person who suggests an HTML, Java, PHP, SQL, Perl, ActiveX, FORTRAN, or Cray Assembler solution post actual working code. Wouldn’t that be unique and different?
And yes, in my example above, I post an actual working example with working links.
I mean - it’s really great and encouraging that people are interested enough to think about solutions to problems. But a lot of shit in life just ain’t easy, and telling people ideas on how to do things without even knowing if it can be done for any amount of money and time is not really constructive towards finding an integrated solution.
Of course, after only nine years of coding, you still have to master the knack of reading what is actually said to you.
I made no mention of “it should be easy” and I explicitly said that I dislike hacks. I suggest that the idea of shutting down all questions is a sign of unwarranted arrogance on the part of a programmer (an arrogance that I have not seen demonstrated by the SDMB tech staff).
I agree that people popping off that the staff should “just do X” are out of line. I do not agree that there is a need to tell everyone who cannot, themselves, do the code that they must remain silent.
I do not support extended debates by the uninitiated into “we ought to do X.”
There are enough intelligent people, here, however, who can ask legitimate questions without telling them to go away if they don’t already know the answer. I have no idea whether searches can be broken into 90 day increments going back a year or more. I would still not know the answer if I downloaded the “lite” version and did not find such a feature, since that lack or presence could be one feature that distinguishes “lite” from “real.” Asking the question of the people who have the manual seems to be a modest contribution to the discussion. Harping on it if I did not like the answer would be counterproductive.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Lynn Bodoni *
**
My point was, that it might help eliminate clutter. Another issue, is giving more control to the original poster. Considering common courtesy, for example, would you allow obnoxious guests to remain in your house? You’d kick them out, cuz it’s your house, right? And here I’m not even advocating “eviction” but merely “tagging” (as I previously told you.
Finally, despite its not winning popularity contests, my site will come in handy for me anyway, as henceforth, when confronted with certain respondents, I’ll keep citing my site, until hopefully they’d get the hint. 
Another idea:
I often find that I receive the most instantaneous informative info via a good search engine like Google.
But sites like SDMB, Epinions & others have alot of valuable info. too.
So why not combine the best of both worlds? If feasible, perhaps SDMB (and Epinions & the like) might collaborate with Google so that Google’s search engine can be used to search within SDMB exclusively or within Epinions exclusively etc.
Thanks Dad. :rolleyes: Please, don’t edit yourself so.
Well I’m glad I never said anything about shutting down all questions then, huh. Stop over-generalizing.
No appeals for the “vast, martyred majority”, please. I took debate class too.
Look - this issue has been discussed and discussed and discussed since the slowdowns first started. The signal to noise ratio is extremely low, and the same sorts of off-the-cuff suggestions are thrown out every single week. And the ill-informed off-the-cuff suggestions contribute nothing towards solving any problems, are repetitive, and just pointless. Especially when someone says “it ought to be easy, why can’t you guys just do this…and no, I have no idea how to do it myself…nor am I willing to work on it”. It’s right from the third Dilbert book - “With the right tools, it should be easy to make a nuclear warhead…” It appears at least that you feel it is too much to apply any sort of filter or sanity check to the ideas before suggesting them. I disagree. “Free-association brainstorming” in coding and code problem solving went out of fashion a long time ago, along with DeLoreans and Molly Ringwald.
But then, we aren’t discussing the real issue you have with me yet, are we?
Say hi to you-know-who for me.
As long as you understand that trying to do this completely undermines what we’re trying to do here and might well end up getting the search function pulled altogether.
However, the issue of restricting searches in the manner that has been applied is recent. New participants are not likely to know about “all” the discussions (since we can’t go back more than 90 days to find them all).
Um, no. I made my point. I have no idea what issue I’m supposed to have with you since, as far as I know, the only time we’ve interacted was in GQ where personal issues tend to be rare. I have no idea who “you-know-who” is supposed to be (particularly since I have almost zero off-board contact with other posters).
It would be nice if, as well as picking your battles, you accurately identified your enemies (among whom I am not numbered).
Since it appears that further discussion will simply increase the hostility, I think I’ll wander back to the other Fora.
You see, tom (if I may call you that) my issue is in my professional career, I deal with this sort of thing all the time. Each week I fight a battle with a salesperson, client, or other manager in my area who says “wouldn’t it be great if your program could just do (insert something impractical, or impossible)”. And very often, I sit down for meetings with “technical gurus” who are called in to help with the program. These are people who sit in meetings with me all day and say things like “Oh, it’s really easy for you to change your whole program architecture to be client-server. You should be able to do it in a week.”
And, of course, when I challenge them on how to do it, they say “Hey! I’m just the idea guy/girl. It’s up to you to make (impossible thing) happen.” Well, tom, this is a hot-button issue for me, because it is a battle I fight each week, and have fought for 9 years or so.
I guess you must be lucky if you are not exposed to this in your 20 years of coding. I sure as hell am not that lucky.
Thus, this is my issue, tom. Since you are now likely Ignoring Me Pointedly, I guess there is no point in trying to clarify why this bothers me so much.
if you want to remeber where or what you posted cant ya just have a e-mail notification thing sent when someone responds to your post ? id think that woul;d be easier than searching and if ya use the link in the mail ya can go straight there rather than searching
In case nobody else has thought of this:
Change the “Show threads from:” field at the top of the forum to show all threads, and once the pages loads do a CTL+F to find a specific word in the thread title. Or just eyeball them all. It’s faster than the search engine was especially when it was asked to search all 1.3 million posts.
BTW I just tried it in GQ and in less than 10 seconds I was able to call up 529 pages of GQ threads and the oldest appears to be Multiple Moons Started by doobieous on may 31 1999.
Will have to see if it works as well during peak hours.
Anthracite, I’m not going to "pointedly ignore you. I am going to refuse to get into a pissing contest over ulterior motives and imagined grievances.
I understand your frustration, and I do, indeed, run into the folks who simply ask that the whole world be turned upside down (generally in two days at no cost and with a retroactive change to the database since its installation three years ago), ignoring that their new request is in direct contradiction to their original request.
On the other hand, I also encounter the simple worker who has to deal with the software who is merely asking a reasonable question “Can the software do A?” Sometime the answer is Yes, more often No. Having seen enough users with legitimate questions dismissed by preoccupied programmers, my personal experiences lead me to stand on the side of the users until the users’ questions get obnoxious. (And since I was a user for several years before I got into coding and, as a user, I made a suggestion that was dismissed as impractical (and later implemented as if the idea had come from someone else), I am more emotionally supportive of outside questioners.)
Again. I oppose hacking the code. Feel free to dismiss anyone who suggests a VB “patch” or a C “improvement” on software that is written elsewhere and installed with vendor support.
I read your initial statements (with their allusion to my question) as simply dismissing all questions and ordering all the busybodies to go home. Thus my response.
My only question has been whether the search can be broken into discrete periods of time. The SDMB folks should be able to get that answer pretty simply (from the manual or the vendor). If it cannot be done without a hack, I would not come back and demand a user-mod. The question, however, is a legitimate question, provided I do not make spurious claims that “it would be easy” or anything like that.
I think we do have that (or we did). Of course, once a thread has spun out of control, nearing five pages, and you’ve had 250 e-mails hit your in-box, that gets a little frustrating. (And if, like some of us graphirheic types, you initiate several threads at a time, that number can go a lot higher.)
It also does not answer the issue of how to identify older threads in which we have participated, but that we did not initiate or older threads with good information that are not getting new hits.
It’s not a bad idea, but it does not solve the specific problems we’re looking at.
An update – and a warning.
We have added parameters to the search engine. You may now search for posts in each individual forum as late as two years ago.
Once again, we ask you to be judicious in your use of the search engine. It’s the most resource-intensive action you can take and overuse of this function shuts other people out of the system.
The real test is how often people get timed out. I note that I can still read the board during the day, which, until we suspended “search all, search any” was an impossibility. If we get back to that place again and it’s plain to us that overuse of search is the problem, then we’ll have to take other steps.
Since not everyone reads this forum, please pass the word on to your friends.
your humble TubaDiva
Adminstrator