#1# recent additions/changes (11-JAN-2011) got flagged with #1#.
#2# recent additions/changes (12-JAN-2011) got flagged with #2# and apply to "beta 2".
#3# recent additions/changes (also 12-JAN-2011) got flagged with #3# and also apply to "beta 2". #4# recent additions/changes (13-JAN-2011) got flagged with #4# and apply to "beta 3". #5# recent additions/changes (16-JAN-2011) got flagged with #5# and apply to version cb4/sb4.
the alpha looks promising, startswith functionality looks great.
Comments on the search engine
101. seems not to see today's forum messages
#1# OK, it is seeing the latest additions to regular forums, albeit with some (unknown) delay, might be a couple of minutes. So adding messages for test purposes still does not work well, one never knows whether they are included yet or not, and hence should or shouldn't pass the search filters.
102. seems to use OR instead of AND when two words are searched for
(more hits for fourth estate than for fourth)
#1# this is wrong in that it deviates from what popular engines do (Google, Bing, the current CP search engine,
i.e. everything CP members use continuously), I have no doubt the community will have you change this!
#3# Has been fixed on 12-JAN-2011.
103. seems not to accept operators such as AND
#1# AND operator seems to work now, thanks
12+13 makes it hard to test the search engine! please fix at least one of them ASAP so I can
perform tests that search a lot but return only very few results.
104. I did not investigate relevance yet
#1# please show the relevance score (either permanently, or at least in the test/evaluation phase) As a tester, it would be really useful; as a user, I would use the information too. And when you show it, make sure it stands out more than the current "rating", which is the voting score of articles/messages, and, while useful, it rather confuses me (I would bold relevance, not bold rating).
105. I did not investigate performance yet.
#1# I will use the tool regularly to get a feeling about performance.
106. suggestion: show a version number, so I can refer to it when reporting back to you.
#2# is OK now, I see "beta 2" #3# not quite OK yet, as both server and client have a version, only client version gets shown so far.
107. #2# I'm experimenting with this message[^]. It has a single digit 2 in it.
OK: I can find the message looking for: "logging implemented" strange: I also find it looking for: "logging implemented" AND 2 (as if numbers do startswith automatically?) bad: I also find it looking for: "logging implemented" AND 29 (there is no 29 at all!) bad: I also find it looking for: "logging implemented" AND "29" (there is no 29 at all!) Looks like a bug. My wild guess: something is removing unwanted characters (digits and more) from the filter text, resulting in an empty string, which is always present. IMO we do need a way (an intuitive one at best) to search for pretty normal, as well as, pretty strange special characters. #3# OK, I learned numbers are not indexed; that is fine, it needs to be mentioned in the documentation though. Digits inside words are treated like letters, so "log4net" does not pose any problems.
108. #4# bad: I can't find it looking for: "logging implemented" AND programs (there is ->Programs-> in the body text)
#2# At best I'd like to search for "->Programs->" and find the message!
I still have to experiment with searches containing special characters.
110. #4# BUG Periods are treated (somewhat?) as letters, so object.field is one word and gives no hit when searching for object. I created a number of test messages in C# forum, they all contain "LPXYZ" and then some specials I'm trying to search for.
111. #4# BUG I have a message that contains object.method(parameter) which I find with object.method* (OK), not with object.method (so the "word" is longer) and not with object.method(* (so what is the word??)
Comments on processing
201. sortedby seems not to work reliably; performing the same search
with a different sort spec often gives the same result list.
#1# Problem not seen today. #3# Seems OK
202. #2# "filter by" does not work; when "any date" gives a number of results, any other
filterby choice returns nothing. Tried "logging implemented" again. Please fix. #3# Seems OK now (provided I allow for a sufficient time window!)
Comments on GUI
301. #1# I'm sure already I want one of these two:
- either change the default (or topmost) item to be "Date Created DESC" and "Last Month"
- or, better yet (less subjective), remember the last setting of each combobox (sortedby, filteredby, ...)
#3# Thanks, createddesc and 1month are comfortable. #4# It is great the way it is now, for my testing (and my use), however I think the community will prefer you remember the last setting for each of the comboboxes.
302. #1# I often overshoot the search bar, end up in the main menu bar, and have a menu roll down,
covering the search box I'm after. Quite annoying. In fact I have always disliked the hover menus,
but now I have good reasons to want click menus instead of hover menus. In my books, hovering should only cause minimal change, say a bolding or slight color change, and not open something.
303. #1# I would very much prefer a date format with a non-numeric month, as the American way is confusing to large parts of the world; the way the forums do it would be just fine.
304. #1#Of lesser importance right now, but mentioning it already anyway: I keep prefering a real grid-like display, with actual columns, and click-to-sort-me headers.
305. #2# In the result list, I saw some author names with HTML-escaped HTML tags. You probably want a text-only member name there. #4# Example: search for "logging implemented in your service" (with quotes; last year)
306. I'd like a wider textbox for the "for" parameter. Twice as wide would be good. #4# Solved in beta 3.
307. #2# The "for" textbox doesn't auto-scroll when dragging the mouse; say it contains more text than can be visible at a time, and is unscrolled (hence showing the leftmost content), I now click leftmost and drag to the right, attempting to select all (which I could do with CTRL/A as well), it does not scroll at all; regular WinForms textboxes do that, apparently web textboxes (such as Google's search box) don't. That is a pain. Probably nothing reasonable you can do about that. #4# Solved by the larger search box.
308. #4# I would suggest a help ("?") button on the search page, leading to a full-page description of what it does, how it works, what special operators are available, etc.
309. #4# I would make the result hyperlinks of the new-tab variety, so multiple hits can be looked at without querying the database again.
310. #4# I would swap the order of "sorted by" and "filtered by" on the query entry line as that seems more logical (the query summary line is fine already). Also there is some casing inconsistency.
311. #4# Rather than a simple "Go" button, I'd make it an icon, with Bob holding a magnifying glass, maybe a Sherlock Holmes cap, and a CP orange background.
312. #4# Rather than "All documents" I'd call it "All of Code Project" (even when that is not strictly correct; the documentation could clarify), as "documents" isn't an adequate term for most of the database content IMO.
313. #4# I think there better be a way to tell the user something is wrong when there is.
Example: you're not supporting "endswith" functionality (that is perfectly OK, just an example!) so searching for *urth estate is bound to fail. I suggest you don't even try the search, instead give a specific error message. (At the moment such failing search takes 10 seconds to complete, my FF progress bar fills 80% right away, then sits idle).
314. #4# I think I would not show any rating information for a hit when there aren't any votes yet, same as you do in forum messages (articles themselves always showing a rating is different, and OK IMO, the list of hits doesn't need distractors though).
315. #4# BUG It broke down completely: "All documents" has disappeared. This is bad. Messages that were found earlier are not found any longer (e.g. no LPXYZ). I still do find my "PRE tags" in Tips&Ticks.
316. #5# VERY BAD UI The default state of a search filter should be either "no filter" or wathever it was before. Having checkboxes getting cleared all the time is unworkable. And the query status line needs to show the full query, including the checkbox settings when the search was ran.
I stopped updating my list as the development seemed to have come to a stand still too soon, and I wasn't getting any signals. The list was getting too long to retest everything all the time without feedback.
remaining known problems in my descending priority: 301, 110, 309, 313, search page GUI inconsistencies, overall site search confusion, ...
please fix 301 ASAP, I want "order by creation date desc" in over 90% of my searches, so I want it either sticky or as (my) default.
I have a hunch 110 is bigger than what I described, your "letter and word definitions" are mysterious, maybe wrong (maybe it can't even be constant, i.e. it may have to depend on language or context), anyway it should be documented.
- I sometimes need a "search literally, no matter what, even with symbols" so I could locate "@#$%", not just "abcd", if that is what I am looking for.
- search CP member list
- search downloads could be useful at times.
- The help balloon is insufficient.
conclusion: much better than the old search, it finds more; I am not satisfied yet; it is still rather unreliable, i.e. it does not find all there is that matches the user's interest. The GUI should be improved. The last mile would add the most value.
I tried saved searches yesterday (read about it in newsletter); it didn't work for me, I never seemed able to save more than one. It does work today. I think I would prefer the saved search widgets to be on a single horizontal row, above the search box.
However, 301 isn't urgent any longer, I installed a little browser bookmark button that links to the search page with ?sort=createddesc in the URL and that works just fine (as long as I don't reach the page in another way).
110 is very relevant when searching for code examples on a class. The way it is now, a statement such as Button.Font=new Font(...) is not matched by Button which is, er, not good.
I understand literal search is either expensive or hard; on rare occasions it is the only way to retrieve something, say an example of the ?? or ?: operators in C#.