New and "Improved" Boolean search

Originally posted by ValhallDo you realize how many threads/posts have been made in the past 3 months on Peak oil?

Why didn't you search on Peak Oil then?

I think I liked both search features for different reasons, and different expectations. Although the new search tool is very powerful in comparison to the old, I wonder if a dual existance could happen so that more parties could use them.


The simple search, the old style, as a link somewhere on the new search page, for those who wish to use the old style of searching.

and the new advanced search as the main site search page.


Like I said, I like the new search, but the old search seemed more intuitive in results ordering for some general queries.

Okay...major simplistic question...

why the hell would I have to search on "peak oil" when "oil" is contained within "peak oil"...why in the fromunda-cheese would "oil" not pick up on absolutely every return of "peak oil"???? Your example does nothing but make my gut churn about the new search engine.

This NO reflection on anybody here at ATS...it just doesn't work good! That's the long and short of it in my opinion.

And why are we limited to 100 returns? That automatically knocks out the more ancient posts on a subject and/or keyword?

The problem with the old search is the massive drain on server resources. The more precise queries of the boolean system execute much faster, and are optimized for the way the mySQL database "thinks". I've enabled "slow query" logging on the server, and I'd regularly see old-style searches taking over 60 seconds, and as a result, slowing down the entire board. It's the nature of search for simple text matches in 460,000+ posts in a 500 megabyte database.

At this point I'm convinced we need a new tutorial for the boolean search.

Would DJ being willing to create this for us?

Gawd knows I can't work the thing well enough to create one. **

Originally posted by Valhall why the hell would I have to search on "peak oil" when "oil" is contained within "peak oil"

I'm confused, didn't you say you were looking for peak oil? The whole point is to enable more specific searches, for more relevant results. If you're looking at more than 100 returns, there's something wrong with the way you searched. If you want all posts with "oil" you'll get hundreds, if not thousands!

Originally posted by Valhall At this point I'm convinced we need a new tutorial for the boolean search.

Screen shot of the area below the search?

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
It's the nature of search for simple text matches in 460,000+ posts in a 500 megabyte database.

Well that explains it clearly for me, as that is a HUGE DB to search. (I hadnt considered that, except in retrospect, of the recent optimization efforts) I can imagine the load on the server, having to chug thru all that for a dozen or more different simultaneous searches going on in a very dynamic environment.

People, if you want a different search do this:

GO to google

type in site:abovetopsecret.com

then type in whatever you want to search for. You'll get mad hits.

Excellent point, try this: Bush Oil Conspiracy site:abovetopsecret.com

Ahhh,...an idea ktpr...


A thought comes to mind of a simple text input box for simple google searches using the string you suggested.

Type your text in the box, and submit, and the search box script adds the prefix and directs you to the google results page.....


but this would be dated and possibly incomplete info spidered off ATS.

Originally posted by smirkleybut this would be dated and possibly incomplete info spidered off ATS.

Correct, there's no guarantee you'll search all posts. [Edited on 20-4-2004 by SkepticOverlord]

Originally posted by ktprktpr
People, if you want a different search do this:

GO to google

type in site:abovetopsecret.com

then type in whatever you want to search for. You'll get mad hits.

Doesn't this defeat the purpose of the Boolean seach? That idea works great, and I will probably do that from now on for fear of a moderator post after one of my duplicate thread topics.

I do agree with the other people who posted about searching thread SUBJECT lines only and/or thread POSTS only. Doing that will definitely prevent duplicate threads, that is how I learned.

I also agree with the Mods that the new seach function HAD to implemented to prevent server problems.

This is a FREE site last time I checked, and a damned good one at that. I think we take bandwidth for granted. It takes a lot of $ for that. Maybe if everyone clicked more Google ads or something (I try to click 10-20 everytime I'm on ATS) ATS would have more dough.

I honestly don't know what kind of a differnece it makes having duplicate threads, but it obviously does or else the Mods wouldn't ride us for it, would they?

More than likely, it has been discussed here, just try using the search a few times, or better yet, try reading the very simple instructions below instead of typing one word and then hit search.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by Valhall
why the hell would I have to search on "peak oil" when "oil" is contained within "peak oil"

I'm confused, didn't you say you were looking for peak oil?

Yeah, no...my point was that I was looking for "oil", but I personally know that there have many posts on "peak oil" here lately, and therefore the no return was a bit aggravating.

You mean all that verbage at the bottom means something? **

I think I've learned enough on this thread (the google suggestion, and all) that I can be better at this than I was. But I still contend that for newcomers, the current search function promotes duplication of old threads. Because they aren't going to know that they shouldn't be searching for "oil" to try to find all related threads. And when they get no hit against "oil" - we'll get another Peak Oil post...lol.