The Lemon Fool

I have resumed a deeper site Search index so more words can be found.
It might take a while to take effect.

I am also looking at removing the pruning of the of posts soon.
Regards

stooz wrote:I am also looking at removing the paining of the of posts soon.

What does that mean?

TJH

tjh290633 wrote:

stooz wrote:I am also looking at removing the paining of the of posts soon.

What does that mean?

TJH

Isn't it obvious?

csearle wrote:

tjh290633 wrote:

stooz wrote:I am also looking at removing the paining of the of posts soon.

What does that mean?

TJH

Isn't it obvious?

No.

The following words in your search query were ignored because they are too common words: supercalifragilistic.
You must specify at least one word to search for. Each word must consist of at least 3 characters and must not contain more than 7 characters excluding wildcards.

supercalifragilistic too common? Is there a hidden Mary Poppins board somewhere?

And really, the maximum length of word you can search for is 7 characters?!?

Typo sorry, I meant pruning

7 characters seemed enough? I really don't see why we need supercal... Whatever
I will monitor performance and increase it bit by bit.

stooz wrote:7 characters seemed enough?

7 enough? Good grief, how about:

investment
dividend
portfolio
property
financial
companies
diversification
stoozing ...

mc2fool wrote:

stooz wrote:7 characters seemed enough?

7 enough? Good grief, how about:

investment
dividend
portfolio
property
financial
companies
diversification
stoozing ...

Why should there be any limit? For that matter why bother with site search at all if it is going to be crippled? We can just use google...


GS

tjh290633 wrote:

stooz wrote:I am also looking at removing the paining of the of posts soon.

What does that mean?

TJH

I also have no idea what that means, even with corrected spelling [and personally I think the covert editing of earlier posts is a bad idea]. Which posts are pruned and why -- and why is the pruning being removed?

Apologies if I'm bumbling into a secret society meeting here!


GS

GoSeigen wrote:Apologies if I'm bumbling into a secret society meeting here!
GS

Kill him!!

GoSeigen wrote:Why should there be any limit?

The limitations introduced and now being reduced were explained in this Topic (before the change of server):

Search indices broken?
viewtopic.php?p=254731#p254731

For that matter why bother with site search at all if it is going to be crippled? We can just use google...

We could but that is more time consuming and when the search was less restricted, I found the internal search pretty good.

What we've yet to learn is if the missing months are to be reintroduced.

GoSeigen wrote:
We can just use Google...

As someone who regularly has reason to search the Lemon Fool site, I do find the in-house search functionality rather limited for a number of reasons, some of which have already been discussed in this thread.

So I do actually find myself using Google to search the site more often than using the built in tool.

I compiled a 'show-and-tell' post a while ago explaining how Google can be used to help with site-searches where the internal tool is causing problems -

https://www.lemonfool.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=19727#p254743

The results from using the specific Google technique covered in the above link, along with the other Google-search features such as 'Google / Tools / Past Week, Month, Year' etc., prove more than adequate for the vast majority of searches that I find myself unable to carry out using the internal search tool.

It's also a great deal better for finding quoted phrases, such as "Vodafone dividend", so I'd recommend giving it a go if anyone is finding issues with the in-house solution.

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

Itsallaguess wrote:As someone who regularly has reason to search the Lemon Fool site, I do find the in-house search functionality rather limited for a number of reasons, some of which have already been discussed in this thread.

So I do actually find myself using Google to search the site more often than using the built in tool.

In my experience most website in-house search facilities are hideously inefficient and or ineffective (eg. the BBC), such that I really don't know why anyone bothers hosting them. The answer always seems to be: just use Google.