what follows is a PM message i sent to the moderators of the Isuzu boards. one of them suggested i post this here for administrators to see:

please ?

EDIT ADD: btw, i'm not suggesting MAX dates, but 1 week is worthless imo unless you've been away 1 week and want all posts during that time frame.

EDIT ADD 2: if you all insist on not setting the default to a more realistic time (for whatever good reason you have) may i suggest that you leave it blank like all the other boxes, which will *force* the searcher to enter a date -- and the searcher won't, thus, overlook this.

The message that was relayed to me was that its a good idea in theory; but realistically a default of 1-5 years would put a lot of strain on the site. I'm not intraweb savvy enough to realize how minor changes like that can have a major effect on the overall system. IMHO, its better to keep things running as smoothly as they do than to have a broad search default. I am a member of some forums that get bogged down frequently and its a pain. Our admin has been/is very busy right now doing much of the behind-the-scenes stuff that is essential to making 4x4wire what it is; so I thought I'd pop in on his behalf since I pointed you here. At least we know there is a reason for things being the way that they are. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/cyclops.gif" alt="" />

thanks for the followup and the reply

but, i don't get it. it's useless at 1 week. it's not a strain because it's useless. doesn't make sense to me.

of course "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". but in this case it's usefulness is broke.

so -- if a useful default is out of the question:
i strongly lobby that the default be left blank to force the searcher to be aware of the time frame, perhaps with a simple instructive error message if left blank.

im(h)o

//bc

It would be 'useless' if it couldn't be changed... but people can take 5 seconds to reach over and set it to whatever best suites thier needs. For all of the free help members of this site are privy to, IMHO that's not asking a lot. Many people will probably continue to get it wrong the first time; but that is an error on their part as it clearly says 1 week.



You're worrying me with the above terminology... this isn't a big enough issue for any 'lobbying' to be necessary. There is a way for searchers to be aware of the time frame; they can look at what they're doing before they hit 'search'. They can also read the search tutorial which is always found on the first page of the Talk forum. They probably need to do so anyway; as chances are slim of them knowing the tricks to optimizing the search page if they aren't even looking at the chosen parameters.

Strawmyers brought this up offline. We simply cannot set the default search interval to one year or 5 years - each search is a set of queries on the database over many millions of records and some queries lock tables, so while you and 3 friends get your search results, the site is unusable. This is because most people just accept the default!

I will try to implement a more meaningful default, say 3 to 6 months. It is incumbent upon the Searcher, though, to always select the proper criteria; and extend the date range if 3 or 6 months (or whatever we set it at) is not adequate.

i agree, and that's my point. blaming people because they find the feature difficult to use is, to me, a knee-jerk reaction of the 'pro' to the 'newbie', and tends to obscure the whole point of the forums intent and purpose. but...


thanks, i think that will be a help.

btw, my original comment on this was in a thread by a new member who couldn't get a search result; another poster pointed out the time frame problem, noting it was a common occurance.

i accept that a too-large time frame causes you resource problems, so perhaps this 'compromise' would help (though i still lobby for at least a year).

thanks kindly for your reply and your willingness to try a possible solution for what appears to be a common frustration.

thanks again, little_joe, and thanks to you strawmyers for your interest.



//bc

i was saying that 1 week was useless (in most all cases), not the feature..

no need to worry, they's just words. change it to 'urge' or 'suggest' or whatever puts you at ease.
as to not being a big enough issue for expressing a suggestion, i disagree, obviously, and my point has been that this *is* quite a big issue judging by the numbers of times moderators and others find the need to remind users, new and old, how to use the search. so, maybe this is one aspect of that that will be less of a problem if little_joe is able to institute a "more realistic" time parameter as he mentions in his post.

i'm taken a little aback by your comments here since your PM to me seemed to agree with my point

sounds like a good point to lobby... <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />


thanks again for your replies and interest


//bc

My PM did agree with your point... and you know that PM was sent before I realized the drain that would cause on the site. Don't ask for my help and then come back later and quote me out of context. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />

wha ?? man, i truly don't understand the attitude. i don't believe i quoted you out of context: you also seem to increase the time parameter to something more meaningful as a norm.

nor am i engaging you in any kind of battle -- 'twas meerly replying to your post. take it where you want, but jeeze, use the rolleyes graemlin all you want: i made a suggestion in good faith, you helped i thought in good faith, the board's administrator is taking the suggestion in good faith and replied with a cooperative idea.

sounds good to me.

my suggestion should not be taken as an afront to you or any other moderator or administrator. it's meant to be positive, constructive and meant to make search use easier, with less need for the oft search-reminder posts. i think it's a good suggestion.

that's all, that's it. and as a user and contributor of and to this board, i expect i will make other suggestions if they occur. . .

I think the idea is good in theory; but I do not think it should be implemented if the board will suffer in other ways as a result. I was not yet aware of the potential effects when I was exchanging PM's with you. That's as simply as I can put it.