Re: Don't Waste Time on Fedora Mailing List Archive Searches - Search Engine Broken

[Mark Weaver <mdw1982@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

David Curry wrote:
> Mark Weaver wrote:
>
> > David Curry wrote:
> >
> > > Matt Florido wrote:
> > >
> > > > David Curry wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Subject thread says it all.
> > > > > The basis for my assertion is many experiences trying to find 
> > > > > information in fedora archives.  Today, I made notes of steps in 
> > > > > trying to find information in   fedora-config-list archives and 
> > > > > conducting quite a few searches for messages dealing with pup.  I 
> > > > > asked for searches on all sections, on keywords, on title, and on 
> > > > > body.  I asked for searches of the entire archive and for searches 
> > > > > on a couple of individual months.  In every case the result was the 
> > > > > same - 0 hits.  I searched on pup + yum and again 0 hits on pup 
> > > > > with a few hits on yum.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [...]
> > > >
> > > > > The Red Hat archive search engine is broken, broken, broken.
> > > > I've experienced something similar, but it's not broken.  Try the 
> > > > extended search or just entering your search query again after it 
> > > > returns the initial 0 found.
> > > >
> > > > Works for me.
> > > >
> > > > I found ~2000 hits for fedora-config-list.
> > > Thanks for the feedback, Matt.  With extended search I got 25 hits, 
> > > all of which were not relevant to yum or updating packages.  One was 
> > > a reference to experiences "as a young pup", eniac, altair, etc., 
> > > several pointed to messages concerning a book entitled "Practical 
> > > Unix Programming" and the rest contained references to "pup up the 
> > > volume".  Entering the search query again after an initial return of 
> > > 0 found, returned 0 -- again, and again, and again.
> > >
> > > If Fedora archive searches work for you (sometimes) and for Rahul, 
> > > but not for me then they are not completely broken -- just random, 
> > > blatantly unreliable events.
> >
> >
> >
> > but doesn't the mere fact that you had to go through specific "extra" 
> > steps to work around the primary search function mean that it is 
> > indeed broken on some level? broken == doesn't work according to 
> > initial design.
> No quarrel here, Mark!  Even the specific "extra" steps were total time 
> wasters for me. Referring anyone directly to the list archive instead of 
> to the archive through an alternative search engine (or engines) such as 
> Google is likely a disservice.

heh! obviously they're not using Swish-e, or if they are its definitely 
not indexing the archives correctly.

--
Mark
-----------------------------------------------------------
Paid for by Penguins against modern appliances(R)
Linux User Since 1996
Powered by Mandrake Linux 8.2 & RH Fedora Core 3
ICQ# 27816299