SMF Development > Feature Requests

2 character minimum in search

<< < (11/12) > >>


--- Quote from: Kindred on June 29, 2012, 09:19:37 AM ---When one of our forums has resources like Google to catalog the searches and run against "exact match", then go for it...   until then, a single search like that on my forum would likely kill the server. As for matching doesn't to does not...   that would, of course depend upon cataloging and matching EVERY abbreviation/contraction with the non-abbreviation/contraction.

So, which would you rather have
-- a search that tells you "sorry, that won't work"
-- a search which drops characters from your search, without telling you and thus brings up a set of results which may not actually match your intended search.

--- End quote ---
Actually all it requires is to index "doesn't" as "doesnot" - ie replace apostrophes that separate the letters "n" and "t" with the letter "o" ...

And all the possible (correct and incorrect) grammatical variants of any other word?

ah, but CircleDock, n't is NOT the only contraction out there...

What about "we'll" - does that need to be cataloged as "we will" or maybe "we shall". How about "we're" or "you're"?
And then you get into possessives or (mis)uses of the apostrophe

What about British versus American spelling?
Should armor also return armour?

Well Kindred, I wasn't actually talking to SMF search only; but the search logic itself. Because Arantor said that search engines are not clever enough to match "doesn't" to "does not". They can match whole lot of words and phrases you can't even image at once. But of course I agree on what you say, these all are not efficient to implement in a forum search. Nevertheless I can still say that dropping the chars that are needed to be ignored is better; and it won't necessarily return a useless set of results. Because "a brown kitten" will match to "brown kitten" and it still makes sense without "a".

Oh, so you're going to split hairs. None of the search engines supported by SMF do this. Google does not do it reliably either, but what it does do is not match it based on it actually considering them as misspellings and comparing to a known lexicon.


[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version