Improved Search Engine?
Nov 1st, 2005, 06:09 AM
#4
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 13,194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with the improved speed.
Not every "black hole" is fixed yet... in particular the well-known "Basilicata" thread - - http://www.fodors.com/forums/threads...mp;tid=1300139 (perenially championed, and topped... by cmt) STILL can not be retrieved by searching "Basilicata".
Still, each "fix" deserves applause, even if incomplete.
Best wishes,
Rex
Not every "black hole" is fixed yet... in particular the well-known "Basilicata" thread - - http://www.fodors.com/forums/threads...mp;tid=1300139 (perenially championed, and topped... by cmt) STILL can not be retrieved by searching "Basilicata".
Still, each "fix" deserves applause, even if incomplete.
Best wishes,
Rex
Nov 1st, 2005, 06:20 AM
#5
Original Poster
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 8,862
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not a computer scientist, but a search engine can't be expected to return everything, presumably?
I guess a later thread where cmt pasted the contents of the earlier thread does come up in the search.
I guess a later thread where cmt pasted the contents of the earlier thread does come up in the search.
Nov 1st, 2005, 10:07 AM
#6
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 13,194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<<...a search engine can't be expected to return everything, presumably?>>
It can, in a finite database such as this one. The "black hole" (my own terminology... obviously not "technical jargon"
is a glitch of some sort; I don't know how much it has to do with something that Fodors can't find and fix... and how much they are not aware of it.
It can, in a finite database such as this one. The "black hole" (my own terminology... obviously not "technical jargon"
is a glitch of some sort; I don't know how much it has to do with something that Fodors can't find and fix... and how much they are not aware of it.
Nov 1st, 2005, 10:14 AM
#7
Original Poster
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 8,862
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"It can, in a finite database such as this one."
As I said, I'm not a computer scientist, but that statement doesn't say much -- the Web itself is, after all, also finite.
Surely there must be a size limitation.
I obviously don't know anything about database infrastructure to know.
But I'll take your word that it's a glitch that affects that thread for some reason.
As I said, I'm not a computer scientist, but that statement doesn't say much -- the Web itself is, after all, also finite.
Surely there must be a size limitation.
I obviously don't know anything about database infrastructure to know.
But I'll take your word that it's a glitch that affects that thread for some reason.
Nov 1st, 2005, 11:11 AM
#9
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 13,194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<<that statement doesn't say much -- the Web itself is, after all, also finite...>>
You're right. "finite" was a poor word choice. What I meant to say was closer to "defined" or "known", with regard to the size of the database, as opposed to more "open-ended", which is what Google has to deal with...
In any event, the Basilicata thread has (apparently) been part of an identifiable "cohort" of data elements here on Fodors for a long time that are "lost" to the indexing process.
You're right. "finite" was a poor word choice. What I meant to say was closer to "defined" or "known", with regard to the size of the database, as opposed to more "open-ended", which is what Google has to deal with...
In any event, the Basilicata thread has (apparently) been part of an identifiable "cohort" of data elements here on Fodors for a long time that are "lost" to the indexing process.
