Robespierre

I believe that simplifying the search function would solve the "re-indexing" issues mentioned by many posters.

When a search request is received, simply scan the thread titles (and not the posts) for a match. Returning huge threads where the search criteria happen to be buried in a single message is rarely productive.

I have some other ideas, if you're interested.

elaine

I see your point, but there are a number of threads that contain decent information that don't state the destinations in the titles, or the destinations are misspelled.
This isn't the best example regarding information in the thread, but see the title

http://www.fodors.com/forums/threads...p;tid=34637499

elaine

Interesting.

Well the verb to f--- around is consistent, whichever f verb it started out as



alternative definitions
snafu:
Situation normal, all fouled up
Situation normal, all f---ed up

Still the meaning comes out, I use
'futz around' all the time, myself

elaine

oops, sorry, wrong thread

Scarlett

elaine, a lesson in Yiddish is welcome anywhere LOL especially the f word

Robespierre, I believe a lot of people still don't know about linking old threads instead of topping them also.

Sure, I am always interested in ideas
Saves me having to Think for myself ~lol

Robespierre

I think that's quibbling. The fact is that a search function that <u>always</u> returned terms found in thread titles would be infinitely more useful than what we have now.

We might even lobby for some &quot;fuzzy&quot; comparison to be implemented, such that <i>rom</i> would be located when searching for <i>roam</i>.

indytravel

I've posted this hypothesis before. It still holds true today.

&quot;I have an unproved hypothesis about the Fodor’s travel forum: “Every imaginable question has been asked and answered at least twice on the forum.” So if every question has been answered at least twice, why can’t I search and find it?

Well, here we go with my own personal conspiracy theory. If every answer is out there why would people keep visiting and using the forum? You could pop in, type a couple of words and get the answer. I don’t think many people would bother to be on the site too much because answers would be quick, easy and painless. So if the search doesn’t work well, new people have to keep asking the same questions and regulars have to keep answering for the new people. Therefore when everyone visits the site they’re exposed to the advertising.

It’s not as good as JFK, Elvis or Marilyn Monroe, but it’s the best I have going right now. &quot;

Scarlett

David, I like your theory

icithecat

Advertising? I link to fid=2 and see no advertising.

guykb

ah, but indy, to carry that thought on, that would mean there would be no reason to post new info as it's all been said and so the regulars would stop coming (because they already know it all anyway...) and the the information would become old and stale (like Lynne's famous trip report to Bangkok - see the Asia forum).

I think keeping the search function less than perfect is probably what keeps the forum alive - new questions get posed, the travel elite get to wax forth on their knowledge of this and that and everyone is happy.

Marilyn

Robespierre, why don't you write directly to fodors? I don't think you'll get a response to anything you put in a post.

Nikki

I'm not crazy about limiting the search to thread titles. Many times my searches have involved particular hotels, for instance, which are seldom mentioned in the titles.

111op

It's an interesting conspiracy theory, but I don't think that one can stop people from talking. I mean, people who participate on internet forums just love to talk, and have no trouble answering the same questions for the umpteenth time. If not then these people wouldn't hang around in the first place.

I do wish that the search function were a little more useful.

artsfan

When you search on Ebay, you have a choice. The default search is on titles only, but you can check a box that gives you a search on titles and descriptions.

Passepartout

Choice is good.

It would be great if users could be offered a choice of searching thread titles, or bodies, or both.

But I think there are mechanical reasons that prevent bodies from being searched successfully, and that's why I offered the suggestion that they simplify.

elaine

You did?

Scarlett

....&quot;that's why I offered the suggestion that they simplify.&quot;

???
Robespierre/Passepartout??

rex

They must have something better up their sleeves - - they wrote to me last week saying cryptically, &quot;we're working on it&quot; or something like that.

I do wonder if they have run into some problem of limits on indexing tags or soemthing like that (I never have been able to tell if they have a &quot;stop word list&quot; - - words like &quot;and&quot;, the&quot;, &quot;is&quot; which the indexing process opught to ignore).

They have never needed a long time to update the indexing before (once they acknowledged that they needed to &quot;get it fixed&quot; - - so they are spending their time on something else, presumably, rather than patching up a less than optimally functional search &quot;system&quot.

Best wishes,

Rex

elaine

I got a couple of 'new and improved' (?)
Post a Reply boxes last night and this morning, but not every time

Scarlett

Do you like the post a text boxes? They are so small and the text is minute on my computer..
This size (the usual) is the one I prefer..