mogalooging an advanced search
-
- Posts: 30812
- Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm
mogalooging an advanced search
There are several long-running threads which make searching for older stuff difficult. I'm hoping that there may be an obvious way that I've missed of excluding those threads from a search. I've played about with restricting a search by sub-forums but there doesn't seem to be a way of excluding, say, the Tea Shop and searching everything else. I'm too idle to search the separate boards individually.
Re: madiyfing an advanced search
I think this is an excellent idea, though I suspect that the software doesn't work like that.
The only way, I suspect, is to search each individual message board one at a time.
The only way, I suspect, is to search each individual message board one at a time.
Mick F. Cornwall
Re: madiyfing an advanced search
Does the individual board search actually work ??
If it does, the phpbb developers must have fixed sometime in the last seven years. A glimmer of hope after all.
If it does, the phpbb developers must have fixed sometime in the last seven years. A glimmer of hope after all.
Re: madiyfing an advanced search
May not help, but you can use google to search just one site. Something like site:forum.CTC.org.uk any query.
Then you could get clever with the includes, excludes etc.
HTH
Barry
Then you could get clever with the includes, excludes etc.
HTH
Barry
--
Cheers
Barry
Cheers
Barry
-
- Posts: 30812
- Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm
Re: madiyfing an advanced search
Graham wrote:Does the individual board search actually work ??
If it does, the phpbb developers must have fixed sometime in the last seven years. A glimmer of hope after all.
I've not tried it. It looks as though it may be possible to search a group of boards together eg everything above the Tea Shop, but again, I've not tried it.
There was a time when I could usually find what I was looking for with a bit of careful search-term selection combined with an idea of who the author was (often me

I was hoping that some whizz kid would leap in with a patronising post saying that this or that combination of keystrokes would do it easily and why hadn't I consulted my grandchildren.
barrym wrote: ... Then you could get clever with the includes, excludes etc ...
I'm not remotely clever. I'd appreciate a blow-by-blow account of what I should type to search the forum for <search term> avoiding <name of irrelevant thread>
Re: madiyfing an advanced search
thirdcrank wrote:barrym wrote: ... Then you could get clever with the includes, excludes etc ...
I'm not remotely clever. I'd appreciate a blow-by-blow account of what I should type to search the forum for <search term> avoiding <name of irrelevant thread>
Try these in the google search box:
bicycle
Not what you want. Every webpage in the world containing bicycle.
site:forum.CTC.org.uk bicycle
Better, everything containing bicycle but just the forums.
site:forum.CTC.org.uk bicycle "f=15"
Now ever post in the Tea Room containing bicycle.
site:forum.CTC.org.uk bicycle -"f=15"
Finally, in all forums EXCEPT Tea Room.
NB The f=15 can be seen from the URL when browsing. You can combine multiple exclusions too. There's a huge amount of help on this subject. EG http://www.googleguide.com/minus_operator.html
--
Cheers
Barry
Cheers
Barry
-
- Posts: 30812
- Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm
Re: madiyfing an advanced search
Thanks for that.
Something to while away the long evenings, when the clocks go back..............

Re: madiyfing an advanced search
You are both very welcome. Nice to be in a position to help, considering the balance the other way with all the questions I've asked here.
Barry
Barry
--
Cheers
Barry
Cheers
Barry
Re: madiyfing an advanced search
By coincidence this has just popped up.
Gizmag: 10 useful Google Search functions you may not know about. http://www.gizmag.com/google-search-functions/34382/
Last one is essential. Dunno how I've managed without it!
Must have been a quiet time in the labs. Seems to be a chrome PC only function.
Gizmag: 10 useful Google Search functions you may not know about. http://www.gizmag.com/google-search-functions/34382/
Last one is essential. Dunno how I've managed without it!
Must have been a quiet time in the labs. Seems to be a chrome PC only function.
Last edited by Vorpal on 7 Jan 2016, 12:56am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: fix link
Reason: fix link
--
Cheers
Barry
Cheers
Barry
Re: madiyfing an advanced search
Graham wrote:Does the individual board search actually work ??
If it does, the phpbb developers must have fixed sometime in the last seven years. A glimmer of hope after all.
I think it works. It does seem to occasionally search everywhere at random, but most of the time, it just searches the board and any subs.
So a search on the campaigns board will also turn up matches from the h* ghetto.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
-
- Posts: 127
- Joined: 9 Jan 2013, 12:08pm
Re: madiyfing an advanced search
barrym wrote:Last one is essential. Dunno how I've managed without it!
Must have been a quiet time in the labs. Seems to be a chrome PC only function.
So I had to try it - how blinkin' cool is that!

Not sure about your last sentence; unless I've misunderstood, y'all be keen to know it worked on Opera 25.0 for Mac.
I'm going to do it again.

-
- Posts: 30812
- Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm
Re: madiyfing an advanced search
I've been meaning to mention the unintentional spelling error in the thread title: probably a Freudian error because I'd been finding this was making me mad. I meant to write "modifying." 

Re: madiyfing an advanced search
. . . . . Well what I meant was it didn't work on android.
Last edited by Graham on 25 Oct 2014, 8:58am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: compress
Reason: compress
--
Cheers
Barry
Cheers
Barry
Re: madiyfing an advanced search
?? Edit the title of the first post ?? . . . . . . . . is there a problem ?
thirdcrank wrote:I've been meaning to mention the unintentional spelling error in the thread title: probably a Freudian error because I'd been finding this was making me mad. I meant to write "modifying."