Can the Fodor's search function be streamlined?
Feb 19th, 2005, 07:16 AM
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 19,000
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can the Fodor's search function be streamlined?
I notice that when I search for something on this site, I almost always get way (way) too many hits. This is because the search engine looks through the <u>text</u> of every post, inevitably resulting in a glut of unrelated information.
I think it would be useful if the user could choose whether to search only the thread titles or the titles plus the text of all the posts.
In the long run, such a capability would cut way down on redundant threads such as:
Airport transfers in _____
Things to do in _____
Hotels in _____
Restaurants in _____
Day trips from _____
I think it would be useful if the user could choose whether to search only the thread titles or the titles plus the text of all the posts.
In the long run, such a capability would cut way down on redundant threads such as:
Airport transfers in _____
Things to do in _____
Hotels in _____
Restaurants in _____
Day trips from _____
Feb 19th, 2005, 07:31 AM
#2
Seems to me it's working as well as it could.
Many titles are not sufficiently communicative to convey the "meat" that's within the text, so to search only titles would miss a lot.
Try more imaginative usage of Boolean logic and operators ("",-,+)
Many titles are not sufficiently communicative to convey the "meat" that's within the text, so to search only titles would miss a lot.
Try more imaginative usage of Boolean logic and operators ("",-,+)
Feb 19th, 2005, 07:47 AM
#3
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 16,067
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Completely agree that streamlining would be great. I'd be happy though if it just worked on even a rudimentary level.
I just went and copied a random phrase out of a post that I started late last year - "lodge along the lake". No country selected.
Without any boolean arguments, it didn't find the very same thread it was copied from, but did find others that had all of those words in them. Then putting " marks around it, it found nothing at all. Using lodge + lake (no quotes), it found a number of threads, but not mine. And even weirder, doing lodge AND lake got a different list than using +. That phrase never brought up the thread, even when I selected the country I used (Romania) when I started the thread to begin with.
I think it could probably use some work. But then, people have been pointing that out at least since 2000. That much I learned by doing a search.
Feb 19th, 2005, 07:47 AM
#4
Guest
Posts: n/a
i've been off this board for a while, recently came back to do some research for a trip to paris
i don't understand the search function
if i do a search on 'paris hotel jones'
i get different results if i choose general interest or if i choose france, and even with one category or the other, i get different results at different times
same holds true even if i search on my own name as opposed to just clicking on it
i don't understand the search function
if i do a search on 'paris hotel jones'
i get different results if i choose general interest or if i choose france, and even with one category or the other, i get different results at different times
same holds true even if i search on my own name as opposed to just clicking on it
Feb 19th, 2005, 08:20 AM
#5
I'm unsure the meaning of your apostrophe ' Do you really mean ', or do you mean "?
Do you get different results between:
Jay Myra
and
"Jay Myra"
??
(perhaps) obviously the first would get results for Myra Jay, Jay Leno, Myra Cohen, etc.
restricting the results as in the second, with surrounding quote marks, would exclude Jay Leno type results.
Paris hotel jones in the search box, with no " marks, would include any text including those words, including Paris Hilton's stay at a hotel in Paraguay with Tom Jones.
Do you get different results between:
Jay Myra
and
"Jay Myra"
??
(perhaps) obviously the first would get results for Myra Jay, Jay Leno, Myra Cohen, etc.
restricting the results as in the second, with surrounding quote marks, would exclude Jay Leno type results.
Paris hotel jones in the search box, with no " marks, would include any text including those words, including Paris Hilton's stay at a hotel in Paraguay with Tom Jones.
Feb 19th, 2005, 08:36 AM
#7
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,793
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find the Fodors search function very primitive. It doesn't slow much flexibility in shaping the search. Sometimes it just doesn't work, because some threads, even siome excellent ones like the original "minorized languages" thread, have been lost from the indexing system. I like the search function on AboutCom, and I hope it will not be downgraded now that the site has been bought by the New York Times. Here's an example of an AboutCom forum, if you'd like to play with the search function to try it out (choose "advanced search"
: http://forums.about.com/ab-italian/start/?lgnF=y
: http://forums.about.com/ab-italian/start/?lgnF=y
Feb 19th, 2005, 08:38 AM
#8
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 16,067
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It appears that the apostrophe char is ignored (as if you'd typed only the words), while quotes as you might use on Google are treated as literals so that it expects to see those characters in your search text. I just don't think they're doing phrases at all.
Feb 19th, 2005, 08:48 AM
#9
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
these problems are minor compared to the fact that many things won't appear at all on a search. you can enter an exact phrase or name of a place that has been used here over and over again and still end up with a no hits response.
Feb 19th, 2005, 09:08 AM
#10
Original Poster
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 19,000
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the responses to my OP, it is clear that the search directions in the FAQ could be improved.
First, there is an implicit AND function between terms. So when you search for multiple terms, such as
<b>cheap hotels paris</b>
the search engine looks for posts that contain
<b>cheap AND hotels AND paris</b>
...which would return threads that refer to cheap train fares, hotels in London, and changing airports in Paris (excuse me if you find my example strained, but I think it makes the point).
Quotation marks specify strings to search for. Thus
<b>"cheap hotels in paris"</b>
would only find posts with that exact sequence of words, but NOT a post that said "in paris there are cheap hotels" even though all the words are present.
There does not seem to be any way to do an OR function (which would be a useful addition) except to perform multiple searches.
But I reiterate that being able to search on titles only would add a useful dimension to the experience here (and might even induce posters to be more circumspect about how their titles are phrased).
Obviously, if you don't get enough information by searching titles only, you can always fall back to searching the entire text. But if you could eliminate the addition of redundant threads by making it more convenient for people to get their questinos answered, the entire site would probably run faster.
First, there is an implicit AND function between terms. So when you search for multiple terms, such as
<b>cheap hotels paris</b>
the search engine looks for posts that contain
<b>cheap AND hotels AND paris</b>
...which would return threads that refer to cheap train fares, hotels in London, and changing airports in Paris (excuse me if you find my example strained, but I think it makes the point).
Quotation marks specify strings to search for. Thus
<b>"cheap hotels in paris"</b>
would only find posts with that exact sequence of words, but NOT a post that said "in paris there are cheap hotels" even though all the words are present.
There does not seem to be any way to do an OR function (which would be a useful addition) except to perform multiple searches.
But I reiterate that being able to search on titles only would add a useful dimension to the experience here (and might even induce posters to be more circumspect about how their titles are phrased).
Obviously, if you don't get enough information by searching titles only, you can always fall back to searching the entire text. But if you could eliminate the addition of redundant threads by making it more convenient for people to get their questinos answered, the entire site would probably run faster.
Feb 19th, 2005, 12:02 PM
#12
Clifton: Interesting. Even when I had the "lodge along the lake" phrase showing (on the right side of display) on your post from December, it wouldn't find it.Or Lake Bicaz (sp?)
Something is indeed wrong with it.
Something is indeed wrong with it.
Feb 19th, 2005, 01:00 PM
#14
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I often have a lot of trouble locating past threads whether I use a phrase or a couple of subject words. I try all sorts of combinations, like Clifton, and still can't bring up the thread. If I've posted on it, sometimes the best way to find it is to scroll through my posts until it turns up.
But this really makes me wonder what I'm missing when I use the search function. There must be some way to improve it.
But this really makes me wonder what I'm missing when I use the search function. There must be some way to improve it.
Feb 19th, 2005, 01:09 PM
#15
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 16,067
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tomboy, actually I think it probably is something wrong with the indexing on the post.
I used to be able to pull it up in a search. The things got 100+ replys on it, but when I type Bicaz, nothing comes up at all on this whole board. Sighisoara, which I mentioned several times, still doesn't bring the post up.
Bothers me a little, in that I tried to put it out there for others who may need info. There's not a huge amount written on Romania or places within, compared to a Paris or London. But if someone wanted some info in Sighisoara, they'd never even find the post.
Hrmmph...
