[QUOTE=guizot]
No, sorry, you lose that bet. I’ve spent money at McDonald’s only once, and that was ten years ago, about $3.50. And I don’t go to places of “similar quality.”
[/QUOTE]
I spent $52 on Chivas Regal 18 years old scotch. I lost $50 in the poker game I took it to. I think that qualifies as a counter example, so DSYoungEsq hasn’t lost anything yet.
[QUOTE=Q.E.D.]
Are you “many of you?”
[/QUOTE]
I don’t know. You tell me. I don’t really care, actually. I’d just like them to return the “new post” function as soon as possible.
[QUOTE=lakai]
I spent $52 on Chivas Regal 18 years old scotch. I lost $50 in the poker game I took it to. I think that qualifies as a counter example, so DSYoungEsq hasn’t lost anything yet.
[/QUOTE]
Well, maybe you’re reacting too strongly to a mere message board. I repeat: it’s just a message board. And the original “Cecil” is probably dead, anyway.
[QUOTE=Ed Zotti]
Not to drag this out indefinitely, but we went over the numbers, positive response, gotta tweak a few things. Have no fear, will say more as soon as I can.
[/QUOTE]
Yea, right. I’ll believe it when we can search again.
[QUOTE=guizot]
I don’t know. You tell me. I don’t really care, actually. I’d just like them to return the “new post” function as soon as possible.Well, maybe you’re reacting too strongly to a mere message board. I repeat: it’s just a message board. And the original “Cecil” is probably dead, anyway.
[/QUOTE]
Are you one of the imposters?
[QUOTE=guizot]
Well, maybe you’re reacting too strongly to a mere message board. I repeat: it’s just a message board. And the original “Cecil” is probably dead, anyway.
[/QUOTE]
How am I doing this?
I just noticed your post and wanted to set the record straight. The fact is that most people are probably not near frugal enough not to get their money’s worth from this board. Even if you did only go to McDonald’s once, it doesn’t change that.
[QUOTE=guizot]
I don’t know. You tell me. I don’t really care, actually. I’d just like them to return the “new post” function as soon as possible.Well, maybe you’re reacting too strongly to a mere message board. I repeat: it’s just a message board. And the original “Cecil” is probably dead, anyway.
[/QUOTE]
The “original” Cecil is the same person “he” has always been. Ed Zotti. Supplemented by the work of the same “group” of people as always: the group now officially entitled the Straight Dope Science Advisory Board.
[QUOTE=danceswithcats]
That would be how many years?
[/QUOTE]
You’ve put up with it for 10 years, and now all of a sudden you think it’s vital it get fixed?? 
[QUOTE=DSYoungEsq]
You’ve put up with it for 10 years, and now all of a sudden you think it’s vital it get fixed??
[/QUOTE]
No, if you check my join date, you’ll see that I’ve been putting up with it for less than 6 years. I’ve also bitched over the course of those years, but also recognized that I was getting something free of charge. Once they requested my money, and accepted same, I became deserving of service, and was no longer someone willing to be ignored.
Defend terrible quality all you like-that’s your choice, not mine.
[QUOTE=Lakai]
How am I doing this?
[/QUOTE]
Sorry. It was just a joke.
[QUOTE=Lakai]
I just noticed your post and wanted to set the record straight. The fact is that most people are probably not near frugal enough not to get their money’s worth from this board.
[/QUOTE]
There’s not much one can do anyway, other than not re-subscribing.
I note that performance has been rock solid since Seach was disabled. I may be succumbing to the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy but it sure looks like Search was the culprit.
[QUOTE=aldiboronti]
I note that performance has been rock solid since Seach was disabled. I may be succumbing to the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy but it sure looks like Search was the culprit.
[/QUOTE]
Timeouts = 
Disabled search = :mad:
[QUOTE=DSYoungEsq]
The “original” Cecil is the same person “he” has always been. Ed Zotti. Supplemented by the work of the same “group” of people as always: the group now officially entitled the Straight Dope Science Advisory Board.
[/QUOTE]
Your first sentence is correct, but the rest is totally wrong. Ed didn’t join as Cecil’s editor until many years after Cecil had been writing his column. And the Straight Dope Science Advisory Board writes staff reports, they are NOT Cecil and they do NOt write Cecil’s columns. Only Cecil writes Cecil’s columns. Sometimes, the SDSAB are called upon for help with research (as with popping mosquitoes or causing ducks to quack) and sometimes for their expertise in certain fields, but they ain’t Cecil. Not by a long shot.
This I will swear on a stack of bibles or pancakes or whatever you’d like.
[QUOTE=C K Dexter Haven]
Only Cecil writes Cecil’s columns. . . .
This I will swear on a stack of bibles or pancakes or whatever you’d like.
[/QUOTE]
Swear it on a stack of Betty Crocker’s pancakes. Only Betty Crocker writes the recipes in her cookbooks.
[QUOTE=C K Dexter Haven]
Your first sentence is correct, but the rest is totally wrong. Ed didn’t join as Cecil’s editor until many years after Cecil had been writing his column. And the Straight Dope Science Advisory Board writes staff reports, they are NOT Cecil and they do NOt write Cecil’s columns. Only Cecil writes Cecil’s columns. Sometimes, the SDSAB are called upon for help with research (as with popping mosquitoes or causing ducks to quack) and sometimes for their expertise in certain fields, but they ain’t Cecil. Not by a long shot.
This I will swear on a stack of bibles or pancakes or whatever you’d like.
[/QUOTE]
If you read what I said carefully, where in there did I say that the SDSAB write the columns?
As for the Ed/Cecil thing, I’ll accept that they are two different people, or were, when “Cecil” steps out from behind the curtain and identifies himself.
[QUOTE=DSYoungEsq]
As for the Ed/Cecil thing, I’ll accept that they are two different people, or were, when “Cecil” steps out from behind the curtain and identifies himself.
[/QUOTE]
Thou shalt not tempt the Master!
Any indication yet when the search hamsters will get back from rehab, or do they need the full treatment?
[QUOTE=Una Persson]
To the best of my knowledge I’ve never used it.
[/QUOTE]
Ditto here.
How come Google doesn’t index the SDMB threads? Other forums I visit can be searched with a Google search string like “homeopathy site:jref.org”, and it quickly returns any page that mentions homeopathy. It might not have the very latest data, but it’s pretty damn effective when you’re searching for old stuff.
I know there is a way you can prevent Google from indexing your site/pages, but I don’t see anything in the forum web page here that makes me think this is going on (nothing I see in the meta tags).
What is it that prevents us from using Google?
Google lists the various methods here.
I assume SDMB uses a robots.txt.
In that case, does it make sense to disable Google indexing when the board’s own search feature is problematic? I would think the first thing an administrator would do, when disabling search, would be to allow Google to index.