moderated New search up for testing


 

Hi All,

The new search is available for testing. To access it, change the search URL from /search to /newsearch. So, for example, the new search URL for beta is https://beta.groups.io/g/main/newsearch.

One known issue is that the total count of results is wrong when viewing in Collapsed Topics mode.

Please let me know what you think.

Thanks,
Mark


 

I forgot to mention one thing. The new search index is not being updated in real time. It's currently an import of all messages from about two hours ago. Any messages sent since then will not appear in new search results right now.

Thanks,
Mark

On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 1:57 PM, Mark Fletcher <markf@corp.groups.io> wrote:
Hi All,

The new search is available for testing. To access it, change the search URL from /search to /newsearch. So, for example, the new search URL for beta is https://beta.groups.io/g/main/newsearch.

One known issue is that the total count of results is wrong when viewing in Collapsed Topics mode.

Please let me know what you think.

Thanks,
Mark



 

Mark,
I don't get the other URL when I go into search, so I can't just change it to "newsearch." How do I get there? Thanks!
J

On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 2:03 PM, Mark Fletcher <markf@corp.groups.io> wrote:
I forgot to mention one thing. The new search index is not being updated in real time. It's currently an import of all messages from about two hours ago. Any messages sent since then will not appear in new search results right now.

Thanks,
Mark

On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 1:57 PM, Mark Fletcher <markf@corp.groups.io> wrote:
Hi All,

The new search is available for testing. To access it, change the search URL from /search to /newsearch. So, for example, the new search URL for beta is https://beta.groups.io/g/main/newsearch.

One known issue is that the total count of results is wrong when viewing in Collapsed Topics mode.

Please let me know what you think.

Thanks,
Mark




--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. Especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


 

It's working for 

B12

but not for 

edited

which still brings up "edit," "editing," etc. It seems to still be working by the word root.
--
J

 

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. Especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


 

Oh, I see. It's after entering the search term and clicking on search. Never mind!

On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 2:07 PM, J_Olivia Catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:
Mark,
I don't get the other URL when I go into search, so I can't just change it to "newsearch." How do I get there? Thanks!
J

On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 2:03 PM, Mark Fletcher <markf@corp.groups.io> wrote:
I forgot to mention one thing. The new search index is not being updated in real time. It's currently an import of all messages from about two hours ago. Any messages sent since then will not appear in new search results right now.

Thanks,
Mark

On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 1:57 PM, Mark Fletcher <markf@corp.groups.io> wrote:
Hi All,

The new search is available for testing. To access it, change the search URL from /search to /newsearch. So, for example, the new search URL for beta is https://beta.groups.io/g/main/newsearch.

One known issue is that the total count of results is wrong when viewing in Collapsed Topics mode.

Please let me know what you think.

Thanks,
Mark





--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. Especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


 

Check out these bad search results:

https://beta.groups.io/g/main/newsearch?q=edit

And things sometimes get worse if you put quotes around the search term (i've had cases where with the quotes, nothing comes back at all, even though occurrences exist).
--
J

 

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. Especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


 

I take part of that back. I think the results are good because "edit" is contained in all the results. But if you put quotes around it, nothing comes back. 
--
J

 

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. Especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


 

These are bad results, though:

https://beta.groups.io/g/main/newsearch?q=editing

--
J

 

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. Especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


Linda
 

Hi Mark,
I was hoping the new search would default to most recent first. The two tests I just ran returned messages from 1999 first. I know I can switch the order but I think it would be nice not to have to.

Thanks,
Linda


Duane
 

On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 05:39 pm, Linda wrote:


The two tests I just ran returned messages from 1999 first.
On my test, it returned the newest first, both old and new search. My groups didn't transfer any posts from Yahoo though. I suspect your results may have something to do with the transferred messages.

Duane


 

My group is in Russian language. In old search I can search for Истранов* (with an asterisk at the end of word) and get results for Истранов, Истранову, Истрановым (the name in various cases). In new search it doesn't work, the asterisk is ignored.


 

On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 08:42 pm, Lena wrote:
. In new search it doesn't work, the asterisk is ignored.
I'm guessing that you got the same results in the old search even without the asterisk (and that was precisely the problem). I don't think the asterisk accomplished anything. I do agree, though, that the asterisk should do what you want in the new search.

I'm still getting too many false positives in the new search (anything with the same word root), and also, quotation marks seem to negate the whole search and cause it to return nothing, at least in the cases I've tried.
 
--
J

 

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. Especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


Duane
 

I found an inconsistency. It sometimes finds a partial match within a word/string and sometimes doesn't. I searched for 01m and it found B01M9GOWGR, 01m-filter-change, and Volkswagen_01M_transmission as it should have. When I searched for 927, it found 01P 927 733 AJ as I would expect, but didn't find 01P927733AJ.

(This group is mostly technical stuff, so part numbers are often given.)

Duane


 

Another bad example: I retested the "lymphom" search, which I'd posted here in response to the request for bad search examples. With the old search, it was incorrectly bringing back only "lymphom" and "lymphoms" (the latter being someone's typo of "lymphoma"), but not any of the hundreds of instances of "lymphoma." Newsearch does the same: 

https://groups.io/g/Feline_Smallcell_Lymphoma/newsearch?q=lymphom

--
J

 

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. Especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


 

On Sat, Jun 17, 2017 at 05:49 am, Duane wrote:
It sometimes finds a partial match within a word/string and sometimes doesn't.
Right. I haven't found the pattern yet (assuming there is one....)
 
--
J

 

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. Especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


 

On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 08:57 pm, J_Catlady wrote:

I'm guessing that you got the same results in the old search even without the
asterisk
You guessed wrong.


 

Lol. My bad guess was based on the fact that in many examples, although unpredictably, both the current search and newsearch have returned what you'd expect they would return if there in fact were an asterisk present.

J
Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 17, 2017, at 12:18 PM, Lena <Lena@lena.kiev.ua> wrote:

On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 08:57 pm, J_Catlady wrote:

I'm guessing that you got the same results in the old search even without the
asterisk
You guessed wrong.


--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. Especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


 

Hi All,

Quoted searches should now work. And Lena, wildcards should also now work with the new search.

Duane, we're still looking into how to solve your part number search.

J, your lymphom search example is proving a bit problematic to fix. Can you give me some information on why you search on that instead of lymphoma? I tested those searches on Google, and they don't handle the lymphom -> lymphoma search either.

Thanks,
Mark


 

On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 09:29 am, Mark Fletcher wrote:
I tested those searches on Google, and they don't handle the lymphom -> lymphoma search either.
Mark,

That's odd. I tested both Google and Yahoo and both bring up all instances of "lymphoma", which we still don't do here. So I don't know what you're seeing in Google.

As for why I searched on that string, it was, to be honest, to test the search function. THAT SAID, here are a couple of substantive reasons someone might search on it: (1) the German spelling of lymphoma, I see after testing on Google, is lymphome, so maybe you'd want all instances of either spelling in one search rather than two separate searches; and (2) there have been misspellings of the word "lymphoma" in our group (as you can see from the typo that came up in the search - "lymphoms"). It's very wrong (and weird) that our search brings up the typo "lymphoms" but not the actual word "lymphoma," which is used hundreds and hundreds of times in my group!
 
--
J

 

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. Especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


 

p.s. Even when you put "lymphom" in quotation marks, it brings up the exact same results:  lymphoms but no lymphoma.

It seems that there are two problems here. (1) a search in quotes should bring up only that exact term, yet it doesn't; (2) a search without quotes should either behave like an asterisk search or not. But here, it does neither one. It brings up SOME of the terms with a suffix (lymphoms) but not others (lymphoma).

On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 9:41 AM, J_Catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:
On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 09:29 am, Mark Fletcher wrote:
I tested those searches on Google, and they don't handle the lymphom -> lymphoma search either.
Mark,

That's odd. I tested both Google and Yahoo and both bring up all instances of "lymphoma", which we still don't do here. So I don't know what you're seeing in Google.

As for why I searched on that string, it was, to be honest, to test the search function. THAT SAID, here are a couple of substantive reasons someone might search on it: (1) the German spelling of lymphoma, I see after testing on Google, is lymphome, so maybe you'd want all instances of either spelling in one search rather than two separate searches; and (2) there have been misspellings of the word "lymphoma" in our group (as you can see from the typo that came up in the search - "lymphoms"). It's very wrong (and weird) that our search brings up the typo "lymphoms" but not the actual word "lymphoma," which is used hundreds and hundreds of times in my group!
 
--
J

 

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. Especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu



--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. Especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu