|
Originally Posted by magiciansampras
(Post 9234505)
Not for OMNI.
However, that is not the case in the other forums, correct? |
Originally Posted by Cheap Elite
(Post 9234521)
Yes, I'm well aware of that, as noted above.
However, that is not the case in the other forums, correct? |
Originally Posted by magiciansampras
(Post 9234525)
To be honest with you, I've always found the Google search to be a bit hit or miss.
Example: If you are looking for information on a Hilton in Waikiki, in the serach box type "hilton hhonors Waikiki". Need information on the Doubletree Philadelphia, "hilton hhonors Philadelphia". Granted the Hilton forum is one of the best organized forums as all properties are listed by their Hilton name, making searching that much easier. However, because some people abbreviate in thread titles [which drives me nuts, :td::td: since you can't always find that information later LIKE NOW :mad::mad::mad:], you have a greater chance of missing some information (in an initial search) and causing you to refine your search. Can't all hotel forum be set up like the Hilton Forum....hint..hint.;) It would make searching for information that much easier, especially in a situation such as this.@:-)@:-)@:-) Big shout out to the Hilton Mods, et al for cleaning up the Hilton Forum.^^^ |
FlyinHawaiian - well said.
Originally Posted by Cheap Elite
(Post 9234568)
Can't all hotel forum be set up like the Hilton Forum....hint..hint.;) It would make searching for information that much easier, especially in a situation such as this.@:-)@:-)@:-) Big shout out to the Hilton Mods, et al for cleaning up the Hilton Forum.^^^
|
Originally Posted by FlyinHawaiian
(Post 9234418)
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.
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. |
Originally Posted by FlyinHawaiian
(Post 9234418)
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.
|
Originally Posted by holtju2
(Post 9234701)
I am sure that the IB is happy when the page views and posts are down because of the failed implementation.
Originally Posted by magiciansampras
(Post 9234736)
When a corporation (IB) fails to deliver to its customers (us), you don't think that complaining is in order?
|
Originally Posted by FlyinHawaiian
(Post 9234812)
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 :) )
|
Originally Posted by lin821
(Post 9233882)
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. ;)
Originally Posted by lin821
(Post 9233882)
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. 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. |
Originally Posted by FlyinHawaiian
(Post 9234812)
>>>>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 :) )
|
Originally Posted by ed1
(Post 9234926)
Yep, we're on the same page. ...
I think the two problems probably stem from the same source, whatever that might be....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... 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. |
Originally Posted by ed1
(Post 9233704)
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.
|
Originally Posted by lin821
(Post 9235140)
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 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.
|
Originally Posted by holtju2
(Post 9234701)
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.
Kevin |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 6:43 pm. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.