http://www.purebasic.com
https://www.purebasic.fr/english/
No, it doesn't. If I enter "EN_CHANGE" as the search term, it successfully finds (and even highlights in yellow) that exact phrase; and indeed from this thread. I don't see any problem with the search function.Randy Walker wrote:Placing the whole term in double quotes doesn't help because the forum search will cast out the quotes before it proceeds to disect and destroy the desired search term.
It also matches 13526 other postings that don't have that term in them. I must confess I didn't check them all to verify that last statement, I'll leave that up to you if you wish to disagreeMachineCode wrote:No, it doesn't. If I enter "EN_CHANGE" as the search term, it successfully finds (and even highlights in yellow) that exact phrase; and indeed from this thread. I don't see any problem with the search function.Randy Walker wrote:Placing the whole term in double quotes doesn't help because the forum search will cast out the quotes before it proceeds to disect and destroy the desired search term.
. The search reports that it ignored the "EN" part of the search term. Who wants to search through a bunch of search results that don't even include the term you specified?
You didn't search for what I specifically posted: "EN_CHANGE" (with quotes). Try it with that, and you'll get 1 exact match, instead of 13526. Here's some screenshots as proof. Note that even though the "search term used" doesn't show the underscore character, the entire text, including underscore, is highlighted in yellow; which is all that matters.Demivec wrote:It also matches 13526 other postings that don't have that term in them
MachineCode wrote:No, it doesn't. If I enter "EN_CHANGE" as the search term, it successfully finds (and even highlights in yellow) that exact phrase; and indeed from this thread. I don't see any problem with the search function.Randy Walker wrote:Placing the whole term in double quotes doesn't help because the forum search will cast out the quotes before it proceeds to disect and destroy the desired search term.
Sorry MachineCode, and please look again. You are correct in so far as the results being ''1 exact match'' and your screenshots only serve to prove that you are also wrong. There is something wrong with it. There are indeed significantly more than ''1 exact match'', as evidenced by results returned by Google using the method I prescribed above. Here are just a few:MachineCode wrote:Try it with that, and you'll get 1 exact match, instead of 13526. Here's some screenshots as proof.
All your matches are from a totally different URL and forum! Did you even look at the domain names? This forum is "purebasic.fr", not "purebasic.com", so it's no wonder that this forum's search doesn't find them. Google will indeed find old forums when searching, but that doesn't mean my example is wrong.
MachineCode wrote:All your matches are from a totally different URL and forum!
You are a funny one MachineCode, and I think wrong again.Did you?MachineCode wrote:Did you even look at the domain names?
The sample in my original post was: site:forums.purebasic.com (<< see there where it says "purebasic.com")MachineCode wrote:This forum is "purebasic.fr", not "purebasic.com", so it's no wonder that this forum's search doesn't find them. Google will indeed find old forums when searching, but that doesn't mean my example is wrong.
I posted some useful information to anyone looking for answers to their coding problems.MachineCode wrote:This forum is "purebasic.fr"
over and over and over an over ... again and again and again.MachineCode wrote: blaa blaa blaa
Erm, MachineCode... no. They are not different databases, they are the same database. as a matter of fact it is the exact same identical forum. I suggest you do a search with google about subdomains, cookies and url redirection.MachineCode wrote:Sigh. Anyone care to explain to Randy why a search on a "purebasic.fr" forum will not show any results for an old "purebasic.com" forum? He doesn't seem to understand that they're two entirely different and separate databases.
@MachineCode: Thanks for highlighting the quotes for me. Yes, that certainly does narrow down the results. It doesn't cure the inadequacies in the search though. There are still topics that include that term/constant that aren't returned by the result.MachineCode wrote:You didn't search for what I specifically posted: "EN_CHANGE" (with quotes). Try it with that, and you'll get 1 exact match, instead of 13526. Here's some screenshots as proof. Note that even though the "search term used" doesn't show the underscore character, the entire text, including underscore, is highlighted in yellow; which is all that matters.Demivec wrote:It also matches 13526 other postings that don't have that term in them
Thank you Rings. I noticed my post turned into a sticky long before you announced it. Had to wonder if that wasn't MachineCode's incentive for making so much noiseRings wrote:done, and also splitted topic intoRandy Walker wrote:(Should this be a sticky somewhere?)
viewtopic.php?f=17&t=48957
thx
Nothing but useful comments there now 