i'm guessing you all know this, but at this moment search is completely farked...giving only the following message:

(bolding mine. fwiw, anytime in the past i've been part of a beta test, i was informed first. then i felt like i was part of something special, rather than having something i was already using simply stop working. :()
-------------------------------
Nothing found to match your search request

Reason: Your search terms were not found

Possible Cause: You may have searched for something our search engine has never seen before. Try using a simpler form of the word, for example if you searched for the word "fishes", try revising your search with the simplistic form "fish" instead.

Possible Cause: You may have searched for something that was missed by the indexer. In this case, if you know for certain your search should have found results, notify us and we will rebuild the appropriate portion of the index.

Please try revising your search terms and try again. If you believe your search terms should be returning results, please create a post in the user support forum, detailing exactly what you were searching for and an idea of what you feel it should be returning for results.

Remember, this is a beta test. With your feedback, we can improve this search tool to be the best it can be!

This is being looked into.
Kevin

Thanks. That's on my list to look into, but I've got some other things I need to get done as well this week. Thanks for your patience.
Kevin

See my previous reply to KevinSours, I've now made it clear what that issue is. Hopefully it will be fixed. Meanwhile cheepneezy's answer to jpdx is a work-around for the problem.

Assuming that breaking it totally is part of looking into it...

Yesterday search worked for me. Today I received the following when I input Grosvenor House in the Marriott forum in search.

type Exception report

message

description The server encountered an internal error () that prevented it from fulfilling this request.

exception

org.springframework.web.util.NestedServletExceptio n: Request processing failed; nested exception is java.lang.NullPointerException
org.springframework.web.servlet.FrameworkServlet.p rocessRequest(FrameworkServlet.java:488)
org.springframework.web.servlet.FrameworkServlet.d oPost(FrameworkServlet.java:441)
javax.servlet.http.HttpServlet.service(HttpServlet .java:710)
javax.servlet.http.HttpServlet.service(HttpServlet .java:803)

root cause

java.lang.NullPointerException

note The full stack trace of the root cause is available in the Apache Tomcat/6.0.14 logs.

Maybe this thread should be linked in that message. It might also help to sticky this thread, at least until most of the bugs have been worked out.

In a lot of the forums, users are often critical of users (especially newbies) for not using the search first. Everything you can do to make the search easier to use and more functional will be greatly appreciated by all.

Thanks again for all the updates/explanations, it really does help the situation.

The trouble is the guy who can do this is currently working the problem. I'd really rather not bug him :)
Kevin

This could explain the phantom forum pages and missing post numbers.
 

This could explain the phantom forum pages and missing post numbers. There have been several threads reported with missing pages/posts, the weird thing is with IE the numbering system is interpreted differently than with Firefox. I've explained a few of these as starting at a higher number than post #1, but those using IE have said they saw different numbering. Maybe this discrepancy you found is related to that as well. It's weird that those posts are still showing up in the "My Posts" list. I wonder if they're also showing up on a search for all posts by another user. In either case it sounds like yet another problem for the tech team to resolve.


They were that time, one other search only listed all my posts at 34% relevant! I think a good search FAQ should also be started, this would help a lot.

Hopefully they realize how important communication is, at least now. Most of us realize problems exist, but seeing that acknowledged in itself, is important and most of us are more patient at that point.

That explains why you couldn't find any way to get to the individual posts, especially since you remember how that used to work. By the time I read your post and tried it, either they fixed the problem or it was only a temporary glitch.

Then may I ask why it is being displayed?

Well, now we have the best of both worlds. Search is unusable, and we're getting the timeouts as well. :(

Reminds me a bit of Candide, ou l'Optimisme.

Except that doesn't work for OMNI. :(

That's where having a search FAQ would be a great help.

It is a tool that indicates the relative likelihood that it has what you're looking for. The weird thing, unless you look at it compared to the other relevancy numbers, it doesn't make much sense. I guess they could only display it when that sorting option is used, it can be helpful when compared to the other numbers.

Search server is down - being worked on now
 

Search server is down, they are aware of it and it's being worked on now. (I just got an answer to my PM).

Total Post Count, Not the Numbering on the post (i.e. Post #XX)...
 

ed1, I think you know what I was referring to, the inconsistency in post count total (Under Quick Links/My Posts). Just to make sure we are on the same page. ;)

I do remember folks reporting the numbers associated with certain specific posts being off but that was not what I was talking about. The thing I see probably is part of the "broader" problem you are describing. They might be intertwined and closely related siblings. :p Not sure if this would make any difference, I was/am using Firefox for my FT viewing pleasure.

As for the phantom forum pages, I didn't know much about that. But well before the most recent beta search problems, I already notice the Phantom Thread Page Phenomenon in one particular I've been actively participated in. The "Phantom Thread Page Phenomemon", which has been ongoing there since around 12/10/07 (after the 2nd page on that thread), is forcing this thread to "prematurely" generate a new page link/count which doesn't have enough posts to support the page yet. (Again, hoping you are following me.) For example, when there are only 25 posts or something, Page 3 has already being generated with the link that only takes you to the top of Page 2, when Page 3 shouldn't be produced before post#31. This is a bug that not only confuses readers but bugs OP as well.

What's interesting is there's a magic number for this thread I am referring to as well. The total post count under the subforum overview is always 4 count off (for example, 27 viewable posts but showing 31 posts under the forum summary overview page). When I contacted the mods and Mikel, I was told it was a "rare" glitch in the system and was due to deleted posts in the thread. That doesn't make sense to me since (1) I know for sure there were more than 4 deleted posts in that thread and the deletion didn't happen all at once; (2) I've been observing countless threads that recoup themselves and display accurate thread & post numbering, after certain posts being deleted. I finally gave up reporting that problem after 7 reports within two weeks and seeing no difference. What else can I do? I am just a regular non-techie user instead of a programmer! :rolleyes:

I would think this is certainly a bug. I have no extra time (nor know how) to experiment your scenario but IB folks should definitely take a look at it!

The currently viewable deleted posts (with phantom post links), however, gives me another thought on the "Phantom Thread Page Phenomemon". Please pardon my non-techie logic first. If the deleted posts are still accounted for under Quick Links/My Posts thus viewable to the users, no wonder I am observing "Phantom Thread Page Phenomemon" for that thread! Since they still "count" somewhere in the background and the system, it makes sense (in this funny way) "the thread page generator" would release the next page link prematurely. I suspect others are witness the same problem in other threads as well. I still don't know why the trigger/magic number is 4 for that thread though. I am not sure if this is a search problem either. I only know these are tech problems. :p

I do hope IB hamsters are really reading all of our problem reports and get them fixed.

The problem appears to be corruption in the search index. We're still looking into why that happened, but resetting the index appears to have fixed the problem. Unfortunately, that means that that the index started out empty. The indexer is currently processing, but its going to take a while to fill back up.
Kevin

Kevin, may I ask which problem are you referring to? It's bit confusing since folks are reported more than ONE bug/problem here. Thanks!

That would be the error messages on the search page for most of today instead of actual results.
Kevin

We have now had this garbage search for a week and no improvements, although they were promised in a weeks time.

Can we have the old search back while IB a.k.a. (whatever) tries to fix their beta search?

Speaking soley as a member and not as a volunteer moderator, I am a little disturbed by the lack of civility shown by some on this thread (and other related ones). I share everyone else's frustrations over the lack of a functioning search engine, but I don't see how name-calling and throwing general abuse at those working at fixing the problem is going to help any. If anything, I think it reflects badly on us. I do want to thank those who have posted constructive advice; I've found it to be of great help.

Not for OMNI.

To be honest with you, I've always found the Google search to be a bit hit or miss.

FlyinHawaiian - well said.

You've given the answer already. The Hilton HHonors forum moderators have spent enormous amounts of time reorganising the forum. Now if you are volunteering to help do this in other forums, please let the relevant moderators know. (May have to wait until search is fixed - this kind of updating is rather difficult at the moment.)

Any reputable business would have had the new search working before replacing the old one that had the functionality that I needed. The new search simply doesn't work and have the functionality of the old search and I have not seen any improvements over the past week.

I mainly used the old search to have a look at the discussion that I had participated and whether there had been any recent post. This was the functionality that I used. I am sure that the IB is happy when the page views and posts are down because of the failed implementation.

When a corporation (IB) fails to deliver to its customers (us), you don't think that complaining is in order? You know, some folks actually pay to use FT. I think they have every right to scream and yell as this search implementation has been completely botched from the get-go.

While I probably don't share your strength of conviction, I tend to think they are not.

Not at all. Please add me to the list of those complaining. My personal view is there is something to be said for a well-stated concern versus just loud shouting, chest-thumping, and general gnashing of teeth (and please, I don't mean to cast that at any member in particular :) )

My guess is that since this is an Internet board, there are a lot of IT types around that get particularly irritated at the ineptitude on display. :)

Yep, we're on the same page. I grasped what you were talking about and you correctly grasped that I picked up on the two problems being possibly/probably related. I haven't bothered to check out the post total discrepancy yet, although I have one post that was deleted with a slew of off-topic posts, where I was attempting to turn it back on-topic while replying to the off-topic posts. I was then asked to repost just the on-topic part in a further attempt to get the thread back on-topic.

I think the two problems probably stem from the same source, whatever that might be. I've only done some very basic programming, so most of it is over my head too, but I do think we've discovered something that the development folks can use as a starting point.

To further complicate matters, what one user sees as 8 pages (at 5 posts per page), I see as one, since I have my preferences set to 40 posts per page. This can make links (such as page 2 [which can start with post #6, 11, 21, 31, or 41]), descriptions, troubleshooting problems, etc. very confusing. I also use most recent posts on top, which is weird because I keep reading "...said above" but for me it's actually below. For some reason starting at post #4 or 5 seems to be very common (at least using Firefox) for threads with phantom pages.

I agree completely, many of us are complaining constructively, giving details of the problems. While they may get tired of hearing our complaints, at least we're giving helpful info at the same time, which hopefully will aid in solving the problems.

See, I know we are on the same page! ;) I hope IB folks will find a fix very soon from my/our problem descritpions.

Just to clarify, did you mean 15 posts per page? My findings were all under 15-post-per-page view using Firefox.

I thought the 15-post page-view was the default setting. I guess I have been happy with 15-post-per-page layout and didn't notice (nor recall) you can request it differently. If the phantom forum page problem you are experiencing has anything to do by setting a different parameter, I don't think this IB search engine is good at math at all. :p

Whatever the problems are, they surely have to find the right fix.

I understand the purpose of the tool in theory. I am asking, however, why these particluar scores are being displayed for us to see on this particular bulletin board. If there is some helpful purpose for them, I would like to understand it. On the other hand, if as stated upthread, these scores don't mean much in an absolute sense, I'm still curious why they are being displayed.

No in this case I'm talking about the forum posts per page, which can be set in the options (to display 5, 10, 20, 30, or 40 posts per page), from the My FlyerTalk page. I don't think that has anything to do with the phantom page problem, except that I'm less likey to experience it, because I don't see a second page until the server thinks there are 41 posts. I just find it real confusing when I click on a link that has page two in it from someone who has their settings at 10 posts per page and all I get is a blank forum page. It's also confusing when someone writes "back on page three," but I don't even have a full page of 40 posts yet.

I wish we could set the search results display. To me it's so much easier to have a larger page load than to wait for each individual results page to load when you get to the end of a page.

I tried to search within a thread this morning; but the result was that thread, not individual postings with my search term.

The change was made because the old search makes the board unusable -- see http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=775117. This is not a problem unique to flyertalk, BTW. After VB boards get to a certain size, the internal search starts having problems.
Kevin