Lighten the load

Report · Apr 30, 2009

The top participants in the testing sub-forum just now:

Yesterday I was allegedly the top participant, which is definitely not so. Hover over someone's profile and you see recent threads - but they are rarely the most recent. 'More like this' is wildly inaccurate.

I just get the feeling of wheels somewhere grinding and groaning, trying to calculate all this stuff and keep it up to date. I think we need to strip this system down considerably to where the software can cope. I'm not seeing much in the way of slowness but a number of people are - can't we put the extraneous fluff out of its misery and concentrate on the essential functions?

Eg the current 'More like this' by this post:

It just doesn't work and must waste 'fuel' somewhere in the effort to come up with sensible entries.

Report · Apr 30, 2009

I heartily agree!

Waste of space and waste of CPU cycles.

Bring back SIMPLE!

Report · May 01, 2009

Quite:

KISS

Will never let you down

Report · May 01, 2009

I think it just looks for matching words, anywhere, with no clue about context. Now it's saying:

Report · May 01, 2009

Kath-H wrote:
I think it just looks for matching words, anywhere, with no clue about context. Now it's saying:

That's because you called this thread "lighten the load".

Report · May 01, 2009

Umm, yes, that's what I meant.

Report · May 01, 2009

Kath-H wrote:
Umm, yes, that's what I meant.

OK, I thought you were pointing out the irrelevance of Lightroom rather than the synonymity of it!

Report · May 01, 2009

maybe it has something to do with tags http://forums.adobe.com/tags but heck knows where/how those have been implemented around here. Anyway, i'm still waiting for them to disable the "more like this" widget so i can stop adblocking it

Report · May 01, 2009

Agreed. That's a useless bit of information. In fact, the entire with column is full of fluff. Hmmm. I may have made that last comment before

Report · May 01, 2009

Search Results

( 0 )

Your search for "bob peters fluff" returned 0 results.

Try a less restrictive search, make sure all words are spelled correctly, or try different keywords.

Report · May 01, 2009

but note it didn't even catch the post you just made...

WARNING: percieved results may differ from actual results and are not biased by expectations.

Report · May 01, 2009

dave milbut wrote:
Search Results
( 0 )
Your search for "bob peters fluff" returned 0 results.
Try a less restrictive search, make sure all words are spelled correctly, or try different keywords.

I'm so insignificant that my comments are not being recorded for posterity. I'm feeling VERY fragile today. Again.

Report · May 01, 2009

[edit - @ Bob, Phos jumped in while I was waiting for the damn stats to finish loading]

There, there, have some points

(Waited what felt like a week, good thing I was busy elsewhere, for the message box to load right up - waiting for stats.adobe.com or some such).

Report · May 01, 2009

Kath-H wrote:
[edit - @ Bob, Phos jumped in while I was waiting for the damn stats to finish loading]
There, there, have some points
(Waited what felt like a week, good thing I was busy elsewhere, for the message box to load right up - waiting for stats.adobe.com or some such).

Pathetic! I bare my soul for all to see and I get 5 lousy points?

Report · May 01, 2009

Call that bare? You want more points, it ALL comes off

Report · May 01, 2009

dave milbut wrote:
Search Results
( 0 )
Your search for "bob peters fluff" returned 0 results.
Try a less restrictive search, make sure all words are spelled correctly, or try different keywords.

Yup, the search engine ignores the author and title of a thread, no matter what. So unless you leave out the author's name, and also unless the name of said person is in the body of text of a post that includes the other key words, the stupid search engine will ignore it. I'm sure a search on "fluff" alone will find Bob's posts, along with who know how many other posts include the word "fluff".

Report · May 02, 2009

the search engine ignores the author and title of a thread, no matter
what. So unless you leave out the author's name, and also unless the
name of said person is in the body of text of a post

thanks for the explaination ramon...

that is just DUMB! if it know WHO said something, and kinda what they said, (especially myself) but want to go back and refresh my memory, i'd like to be able to SEARCH that way!

what's with all the freaking restrictions on the common sense way of doing things that come bundled as "features" in this software?!!

edit: and please don't tell me "weeell, if you click, search user, dropdown the included forums list and check off monday through friday, excluding holidays, THEN search..." ... that's bullshiete. the simple search i performed should work on the search line. period. there's no excuse for it not to except developer/designer incompetence.

Report · May 02, 2009

... etc.

Report · May 02, 2009

well then why didn't bob's fluff link come up?

Report · May 02, 2009

dave milbut wrote:
well then why didn't bob's fluff link come up?

My fluff is ALWAYS up. It occupies the space on my head where my longer and darker hair once was.

Report · May 02, 2009

dave milbut wrote:
well then why didn't bob's fluff link come up?

Because you included his name as part of the keywords, but the text of the message does not contain his name.

As I said earlier, the search engine ignores the author of the thread if his name is not in the body of the message. In your case, Bob's name was not in the body of the message.

Report · May 03, 2009

Ramón G Castañeda wrote:
dave milbut wrote:
well then why didn't bob's fluff link come up?
Because you included his name as part of the keywords, but the text of the message does not contain his name.
As I said earlier, the search engine ignores the author of the thread if his name is not in the body of the message. In your case, Bob's name was not in the body of the message.

the point is i shouldn't have to set options and dropdowns and whatnot. or know that it excludes names but not during the leapyear or what not!

i should just be able to do that simple search from the box and get results for it when i hit "search".

Report · May 03, 2009

Dave is right, if his search string was bob peters fluff, there should have been a result on just fluff... unless the string was entered within quotes, in which case the result was perfectly correct.

Dave, what was it... because in the thread you started with quotes so not sure...

However, in this thread:

http://forums.adobe.com/thread/427623?tstart=0

John Ellis gets no result for: "virus scanning forums ellis".

The point is, are you, Dave, and is John using quotes in the search string? If you aren't, which is my feeling, then the search function is totally SNAFU'd.

Cheers,

JJ

PS: Anyway, i feel the search here stinks....

Report · May 03, 2009

no quotes used. just those 3 terms.

Report · May 03, 2009

It does stink....

After posting my message i ran two searches:

1/ bob peters fluff

2/ fluff

The first returned one result - based on a message in this forum:

http://forums.adobe.com/click.jspa?searchID=307155&objectType=2&objectID=1932201

The second returned 110. This is effing ridiculous! These guys should be hung, drawn and quartered... ad infinitum.