Forum search feature is partially broken

Agent 86

A Disturbance in the Force
When I search for a phrase, the forum server returns irrelevant results. I provide an example here from Google for comparison, to demonstrate how it should work. I have used dozens of forums, and this is the only one I can recall that seems to have a dysfunctional search tool.

29051
 

Meg

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
Hi Agent 86,

I am sure one of the techies here could probably address your question about the search tool. Meanwhile, since this is your first the forum, we would appreciate it if you would post a brief introduction about yourself in the Newbies section, telling us how you found this forum, how long you've been reading it and/or the SOTT page, whether or not you've read any of Laura's books yet, etc. You can read other's introductory posts there to get an idea.

Welcome :-)
 

trendsetter37

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Can you elaborate more on how it is "broken"? You say irrelevant results are returned but are you also searching in the same manner you are using Google there?

Further, maybe you could attach a screenshot of the faulty search results as well for comparison.
 

Agent 86

A Disturbance in the Force
I am sure one of the techies here could probably address your question about the search tool.
Indeed, that was my expectation.
Meanwhile, since this is your first the forum, we would appreciate it if you would post a brief introduction about yourself in the Newbies section
I would rather not provide KAOS with too much information, if you don't mind.
telling us how you found this forum, how long you've been reading it and/or the SOTT page, whether or not you've read any of Laura's books yet, etc.
Would be happy to answer those questions under a "cone of silence".
Uh, thanks. I think this is the first forum I've been to which has an official greeter. (Besides Wal Mart.)
 

Agent 86

A Disturbance in the Force
Can you elaborate more on how it is "broken"? Further, maybe you could attach a screenshot of the faulty search results as well for comparison.
If you type the same phrase from the picture into the forum search box, I think you will see what I mean.
 

Gawan

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
When I search for a phrase, the forum server returns irrelevant results. I provide an example here from Google for comparison, to demonstrate how it should work. I have used dozens of forums, and this is the only one I can recall that seems to have a dysfunctional search tool.

View attachment 29051
Retyping your search on the forum has a problem with the word "all" in your search phrase and is also complaining in a message that "all" is too short:

The following words were not included in your search because they are too short, too long, or too common: all
It then highlights all the words that contain "all", which maybe is a glitch instead of highlighting the entire phrase. Nonetheless, it gives the same results when searching for "presence awareness", but there nothing is highlighted in the results. Is that what you mean, that the search feature is partially broken?
 

Agent 86

A Disturbance in the Force
Is that what you mean, that the search feature is partially broken?
More or less. My point is that this forum does not support searching for an exact match on a designated string of words. Instead of displaying only those records which contain an exact match, it displays every occurrence of every word, except words that are (inexplicably) "too short." None of the major search engines or forum software packages work this way. Even the old Cass WebExe application did not work this way. I am honestly kind of baffled that any sincere student of the C material would not notice this bug and be frustrated by it.
 

Agent 86

A Disturbance in the Force
It works - now that I have rebuilt the search index after the recent forum upgrade.
Okay, that's good. But the forum search engine continues to highlight individual words which do not represent an exact match on the phrase, in cases where it should be possible to do so. For example, it treats words like "actually" as a match because it contains "all", and displays that in the summary instead of the matching phrase. It even shows results which are inside HTML tags, which should never occur under any circumstances because they do not represent statements made by the post author:

<iframe width="420" height="315" src= {_} frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I think it's matching on records properly now in most cases, but many of the summaries are still not relevant to the search query. So now the question is: can you change this behavior in the administrative control panel? If not, I still regard it as a bug:

When you use quote marks in a search, it specifies that you want to see exact matches first. If you put words in quotes, you don't want them to be excluded. But when I do that, the forum says:

"The following words were not included in your search because they are too short, too long, or too common: all"

It then proceeds to include them anyway -- but not in the manner that I requested:

A: Jopalla. Q: Where do you transmit through? A: Cassiopaea. Q: Before we get started on all our other stuff

This behavior is contradictory, counter-intuitive, and an example of bad user interface design. I don't know of any other forum that works this way, and it makes finding things much more difficult than it needs to be, in my opinion. Has anyone raised this issue with the software developer, and if so, what was their response? Do they intend to fix it?
 

Agent 86

A Disturbance in the Force
Well, we do mind. It is simple politeness to introduce oneself when meeting new people. That's how we do things here.
Well I don't think it's polite to badger people and interrogate them in a manner or venue which could expose them to harm or harassment. If you have no experience with that, you are not qualified to dictate how I should do things. Since I can't share that experience here, I apply a little levity, instead of telling people outright that they are out of their depth and their lack of knowledge is dangerous. In any case, you cannot know me without knowing my opinions. And you are not going to like my opinions. But remember, you asked for it:

1. I thought this area was purely for tech support issues. On any other site, the rest of the stuff in this thread would be considered off-topic. I don't mind the off-topic stuff, but I don't really get the feeling that your request for more information here is necessarily an expression of a desire for friendship:

Since you already know that I'm going to balk at a public interrogation, I think you are dropping the tech support issue and changing the subject to that because you plan to use it as an excuse to ban me, before this line of inquiry goes too much farther. I think you want to get rid of me because I embarrassed you (which was impossible to avoid if I want to address the problem correctly.) However, you did invite me to come in here and complain -- and you never said anything about being required to answer personal questions. It's not like this is a dating site or a cocktail party, so what is the point of this ritual formality? If I "introduced" myself to every person that I speak to online, I would never get any work done. (And a lot of that work is done for others, not for self-centered advantage.)

2. Even if I wanted to comply with your demands, I still don't know what constitutes compliance, because those demands are not specific. This is very much like the way that Scientology operates: when someone expresses an interest, they ask the newbie to spill his guts at the earliest possible opportunity, so it can be used against him later if necessary. Same for the Skull & Bones.

I don't believe that this is a dangerous cult, but it is the first time that I have been asked to provide an "introduction" on the internet, and I don't know what it will take to satisfy your requirements. Are those requirements codified and enforced uniformly, or do you bend the rules according to how much you like or dislike someone's personality? Can I have two years to prepare a statement, like you allowed for this member?


3. How do I know if the statements of others are truthful? Confessions which are extorted under threat are rarely accurate. You could even live with someone for decades and still never know them (and I could give you lots of examples). The best way to make friends is to interact with people in a normal fashion, not treat them like a suspect.

4. What if I just invented some fake story to satisfy your curiosity? You would then accept it and be none the wiser. I therefore submit that your screening methodology is just as dysfunctional as your web site. As the old saying goes, "by their fruits ye shall know them." But you don't always give people the opportunity to produce anything before you censor and exclude them, so you will never know if you made the right decision.

5. Like the Wal Mart greeter, when you ask for an introduction it's another way of saying that you are watching me because you don't trust me (and holding my posts for review is the proof.) But I don't believe that you are more spiritually advanced than the rest of us, and I don't trust you to moderate my comments in a manner that's fair and just. I also don't trust you with the power to decide who I can communicate with. If I have a missing piece of somebody's puzzle, are you certain you want to be the one who determines if they will be allowed to receive it? After all, karma's a bitch.

"If the individual comes upon the life work of another and expects to benefit and gain by that work, they will naturally wish to have their own position balanced by putting forth a commensurate amount of energy. Otherwise there will be an imbalance of energy. This then leads to an STS pyramid." — Nomihha

6. If you really want to know, I was "here" before SOTT and the forum even existed. You might even be here because of me, if you found the WebExe before you found the web site. Although I would like to be friends, this is not a social call -- I came here on STO business, and this bug report is only a means to an end:

I cannot share what I came to share until I get my post count high enough to avoid your automated interference. So if I am going to post for the sake of posting, why not make it something productive that benefits others as well? That's how I see it. If the subject matter offends you, it was merely incidental, and not my objective: I am not responsible for your bad purchases, but perhaps I can help to mitigate the damage.

As for the manual interference, I think it's powerfully relevant that you want to know how I found the site and which of the books I have read, but you don't seem to care if I have read all of the transcripts (which are by far the most important thing here, to those who recognize the application.) So we obviously have different priorities. For me it's more about the material, not the social club. The value of my attempts to apply the knowledge I gained from this research cannot be measured in badges or trophies or post counts or likes or Star Wars analogies.

If you understood the nature of my work and the effort which it has involved, you would understand why I regard talking about myself as a waste of time. My sense of self-worth is not derived from the number of friends that I have, or my position within a hierarchical power structure. People come and go; the only thing of lasting value is the knowledge they share. So you might want to consider the possible consequences if you proceed to censor or ban me: Twenty years is like a day to me. I can wait twenty more for the interference to subside, but I can't guarantee there will be another opportunity to collaborate. (That 'free will' thing sure can be a bitch too.)

— "Unity to combat a threat" ...nuff said, I hope.
 

Ant22

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Agent 86, since you're so unhappy about the forum rules, maybe it would be a good idea for you to create your own? I'm sure you'll be totally comfortable when your forum members start to tell you how to run your forum - becuase they have opinions.

Can I have two years to prepare a statement, like you allowed for this member?

https://cassiopaea.org/forum/threads/hi-im-new-here-thanks-for-having-me.46780/#post-788482

"This member" happens to be myself. The two year period was the time between creating an account and writing my first post. My very first post was an introduction that you were asked to write. In other words, I wasn't posting on the forum before I wrote my introductory post. Which is the opposite of what you are doing.

Context is king.

In any case, you cannot know me without knowing my opinions. And you are not going to like my opinions.

Funny you say that, we have an interesting thread on opinions here: Opinions


As the old saying goes, "by their fruits ye shall know them." But you don't always give people the opportunity to produce anything before you censor and exclude them, so you will never know if you made the right decision.

Now that you've produced a number of posts, what would you say is the fruit of that "production"? What does it tell us about you?


I came here on STO business, and this bug report is only a means to an end:

STO gives to those who ask and does not determine the needs of another. At which point you were asked to share what you want to share?
 

fabric

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
Well I don't think it's polite to badger people and interrogate them in a manner or venue which could expose them to harm or harassment. If you have no experience with that, you are not qualified to dictate how I should do things.
Scottie gave an honest answer to your statement. We do mind because we actually do have experience with that and that’s part of the reason we ask people to introduce themselves. But it instead you chose to take offense and come up with a bunch of narratives on why we’re the bad ones. Not a good start.

If you were concerned about private details, you don’t have to specific or even disclose them. A simple general statement would have been fine. No one is telling you that you have to write out your life’s story. The leap you make from being asked for a brief introduction to a ‘public interrogation’ is something like this:

29085


As the old saying goes, "by their fruits ye shall know them." But you don't always give people the opportunity to produce anything before you censor and exclude them, so you will never know if you made the right decision.

[...]

Like the Wal Mart greeter, when you ask for an introduction it's another way of saying that you are watching me because you don't trust me (and holding my posts for review is the proof.)
Ok, and what have you done that makes you so trustworthy one should simply trust you? Just because? If you’ve been around as long as you say, then you know the reasons why things are done a certain way and you would also know that most of the time, we did make the right decision. The poster him/herself gets plenty of opportunity to ‘produce’ something. Whether you trust the mods or not, that’s your prerogative and you’re welcome to find a forum more to your liking.

For me it's more about the material, not the social club. The value of my attempts to apply the knowledge I gained from this research cannot be measured in badges or trophies or post counts or likes or Star Wars analogies.
That’s straw man argument btw. But here’s where you are showing a lack of understanding:

I think we don’t make whether you have read all the transcripts or not the most important thing because what is of more value (at least to me) is the work and efforts that were inspired by them. It is the research and efforts of the group to put them into useful knowledge that can be practiced in one’s life where the focus is now and there is much more to be gained by that approach, osit.

It also appears that are referring to the transcripts on their own but remember that there is also the context surrounding them which is also equally important to understand when reading them. That’s why books like The Wave are essential reading as well as others which came about during the research done. Hence the question ‘which books have you read.’

Here's another area, regarding the social club. Granted the material is key but it is about the ‘social club’ – but not in the sense of post counts or trophies etc. The social aspect is exactly where the possibility of networking takes place, and through networking and aligning our priorities do we begin to develop the ‘unity to combat a threat.’ Interesting you should finish off with that quote after everything you had written before that goes against the spirit in which that was said.
 

seek10

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Being not familiar with the "Agent 86"and KAOS I searched google and this is what wiki says
The series centers on bumbling secret agent Maxwell "Max" Smart (Don Adams), also known as Agent 86, and his more sensible female partner, Agent 99 (Barbara Feldon) Agents 86 and 99 work for CONTROL, a secret U.S. government counter-intelligence agency based in Washington, D.C. The pair investigates and thwarts various threats to the world, though Smart's incompetent nature and demands to do things by-the-book invariably cause complications. However, Smart never fails to save the day. Looking on is the long-suffering head of CONTROL (Edward Platt), who is addressed simply as "Chief".

The nemesis of CONTROL is KAOS, described as "an international organization of evil". In the series, KAOS was supposedly formed in Bucharest, Romania, in 1904. Neither CONTROL nor KAOS is actually an acronym. Many guest actors appeared as KAOS agents, including William Schallert (who also had a recurring role as The Admiral, the first Chief of CONTROL). Conrad Siegfried, played by Bernie Kopell, is Smart's KAOS archenemy. King Moody (originally appearing as a generic KAOS killer) portrayed the dim-witted but burly Shtarker, Siegfried's assistant.

The enemies, world-takeover plots and gadgets seen in Get Smart were a parody of the James Bond movie franchise. "Do what they did except just stretch it half an inch", Mel Brooks said of the methods of this TV series.
Interesting parallels between this thread reaction and 'Get Smart' story line?
 
Top Bottom