| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/11/2005 10:49:02 PM · #1 |
| I've seen a number of posts lately about people being unable to search because the site's search function is disabled. You'll note that on the same page that says it's disabled, there is a handy dandy link to google search. The link even contains your search terms. And it works really well. Really! That's why it's there. Give it a shot. |
|
|
|
05/11/2005 11:01:33 PM · #2 |
Works even better than the DPC function did. Allows you to preview a bit of what you're finding. As far as I'm concerned, no need to even HAVE the DPC engine back up; let Google do it.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
05/12/2005 12:38:48 AM · #3 |
yes it does work but it also generates pages of results...that become tedious to sift through...
|
|
|
|
05/12/2005 01:18:47 AM · #4 |
sorry, wrong login.
Message edited by author 2005-05-12 01:21:20. |
|
|
|
05/12/2005 01:22:35 AM · #5 |
Sure it finds results -- but...
... it has multiple hits per thread.
... the hits are not organized in any thread relevant manner (date posted, most recently posted to, etc.)
... it doesn't know the difference between content and filler (signatures and such).
... troublesome and unreliable when trying to limit search to a single forum.
... every thread I've opened from google has been in reverse order (newest to oldest) -- very annoying.
The site search, while perhaps not always as accurate, is much more useful for forum searches. Google and other generic search engines are great for searching mounds of unorganized data (such as the internet as a whole), but when the data has an order already they fall short of the simpler but more specialized site engines.
Now, if D&L wanted to do the Google search, capture the results, sort by thread and then list in the old way it would be much more useful. As it is, it's too much hassle to bother with -- and that from someone who uses the various internet search engines daily for many diverse things.
David
|
|
|
|
05/12/2005 11:24:56 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Works even better than the DPC function did. Allows you to preview a bit of what you're finding. As far as I'm concerned, no need to even HAVE the DPC engine back up; let Google do it.
Robt. |
Bullshit. It does not work. I can't find half the threads I have looked for. They just do not come up. |
|
|
|
05/12/2005 11:27:45 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by mk:
I've seen a number of posts lately about people being unable to search because the site's search function is disabled. You'll note that on the same page that says it's disabled, there is a handy dandy link to google search. The link even contains your search terms. And it works really well. Really! That's why it's there. Give it a shot. |
It does not work really well. I'm calling BS on this one. Half the searches I have done have not brought up the threads I was looking for. I gave it a shot and it did not work. |
|
|
|
05/12/2005 11:28:14 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by mk:
I've seen a number of posts lately about people being unable to search because the site's search function is disabled. You'll note that on the same page that says it's disabled, there is a handy dandy link to google search. The link even contains your search terms. And it works really well. Really! That's why it's there. Give it a shot. |
Show me. I was looking for an old thread from a couple of months ago that some perv posted about erections so I could link it to another recent thread. Nothing.
Message edited by author 2005-05-12 11:31:17. |
|
|
|
05/12/2005 11:42:33 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by awpollard:
yes it does work but it also generates pages of results...that become tedious to sift through... |
I guess as long as it's not tedious to sift through the same posts with the same answers over and over again, we're fine.
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Show me. I was looking for an old thread from a couple of months ago that some perv posted about erections so I could link it to another recent thread. Nothing. |
That's a little vague, care to explain it further? If it was all that perverted, it was probably deleted. |
|
|
|
05/12/2005 11:59:33 AM · #10 |
Is it possible that google has outdated index files of DPC? I was searching on the phrases from recent threads and nothing came up. (Using "" to reduce the number of hits)
I haven't been lucky with the google site search. I'll try to post concrete examples with links to threads where they show up soon... |
|
|
|
05/12/2005 12:08:47 PM · #11 |
Rather than complaining about the lack of DPC searching, maybe we should be writing to Google to get them to fix their crummy search engine, and implement some useful features for a change? They float themselves for a few billion and next thing, they think that they are above providing a fully functional search facility for sites as important as DPC... sheesh!
|
|
|
|
05/12/2005 12:19:06 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by mk:
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Show me. I was looking for an old thread from a couple of months ago that some perv posted about erections so I could link it to another recent thread. Nothing. |
That's a little vague, care to explain it further? If it was all that perverted, it was probably deleted. |
The thread had several hundred posts and probably over 2000 hits, so I doubt it was deleted. Some guy posted it saying he was a she taking pics of her boyfriends weenie when the whole time he was just taking pics of himself. Google did not bring it up. |
|
|
|
05/12/2005 12:26:23 PM · #13 |
I found it, but not through the google search. I found it because I rembered the girl/guy's name. Google never brought it up. Would have been so much quicker and easier if the DPC search engine that we paid for when we bought our memberships was still up.
Here is the LINK for anyone who is curious or perverted. |
|
|
|
05/12/2005 12:27:43 PM · #14 |
Yeah, Google sucks. 8 billion pages searchable in a twenthy of a second. Pfft.
|
|
|
|
05/12/2005 12:32:31 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
I found it, but not through the google search. I found it because I rembered the girl/guy's name. Google never brought it up. Would have been so much quicker and easier if the DPC search engine that we paid for when we bought our memberships was still up.
Here is the LINK for anyone who is curious or perverted. |
Okay, I'll change my assertion to "works decently." It's worked fine for me but I see other have problems. However, the site search had it's own set of flaws (which I believe you did your share of complaining about) and is currently disabled to help resolve some of the slowness problems so that you may more easily view the rest of the site that you paid for. |
|
|
|
05/12/2005 12:37:51 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by mk:
Okay, I'll change my assertion to "works decently." It's worked fine for me but I see other have problems. However, the site search had it's own set of flaws (which I believe you did your share of complaining about) and is currently disabled to help resolve some of the slowness problems so that you may more easily view the rest of the site that you paid for. |
currently? Does this mean temporarilly or permanantly? And the only time I complained about it was when I tried to type three letter words into it and nothing came back. Otherwise it worked fine (for me). |
|
|
|
05/12/2005 12:41:55 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
currently? Does this mean temporarilly or permanantly? And the only time I complained about it was when I tried to type three letter words into it and nothing came back. Otherwise it worked fine (for me). |
I have no idea about timelines or plans or any of that. That's a D&L question. And no, you definitely weren't the only one who complained. I thought the old search was awful and I much prefer the google one which is why I'm surprised that other people are having such bad results with it. I guess I just search for the right things? |
|
|
|
05/12/2005 12:44:03 PM · #18 |
Whenever I search for something it doesn't show me a page containing the thread I'm looking for. This is probably a google issue though since it's consistent in bringing up page one of the right category.
If the thread is no longer on the first page of threads then good luck finding it.
|
|
|
|
05/12/2005 02:18:43 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by PaulMdx:
Yeah, Google sucks. 8 billion pages searchable in a twenthy of a second. Pfft. |
Not quite -- the indexes of 8 billion pages searchable in a twentieth of a second. If what you are looking for is not something they felt important enough to index your out of luck. And, since what they feel is most important is likely to be what most people (on the internet, not just DPC) search for on a freaquent bases, Google works great for popular phrases and such.
Taking the example search term nsbca7 used above, 'erection'. This word comes up from time to time when male nudes are being discussed, particularly in conjuction with the site rules regarding such. Someone invariably states their opinion of the dividing line between porn and art with the term 'erection'. So while it is not a common term here, it has come up as content in a number of useful threads. However, Google doesn't find those threads, all it finds are 41 instances of bamartin's signature, "Dear Future Wife: Men have two emotions, Hungry and Horny. If you see me without an erection, make me a sam'mich!" I would even go so far as to say it would not have found those if the wok 'Horny' was not also included in it.
Using Google is a popularity contest -- popular searches are rewarded well, but it is next to worthless for any kind of 'serious' research. By which I mean researching data I want to evaluate on my own, and don't need Google censoring what it provides for me to evaluate.
David
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2026 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 01/05/2026 01:13:55 AM EST.
