Indeed, that was my expectation.I am sure one of the techies here could probably address your question about the search tool.
I would rather not provide KAOS with too much information, if you don't mind.
Would be happy to answer those questions under a "cone of silence".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.
Uh, thanks. I think this is the first forum I've been to which has an official greeter. (Besides Wal Mart.)Welcome
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: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
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?The following words were not included in your search because they are too short, too long, or too common: all
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.Is that what you mean, that the search feature is partially broken?
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:It works - now that I have rebuilt the search index after the recent forum upgrade.
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:Well, we do mind. It is simple politeness to introduce oneself when meeting new people. That's how we do things here.
Can I have two years to prepare a statement, like you allowed for this member?
In any case, you cannot know me without knowing my opinions. And you are not going to like my 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.
I came here on STO business, and this bug report is only a means to an end:
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.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.
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.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.)
That’s straw man argument btw. But here’s where you are showing a lack of understanding: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.
Interesting parallels between this thread reaction and 'Get Smart' story line?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.