Thanks for all this. I'm truly embarrassed by my post count and it represents a lot of waffle over the years. I'm also embarrassed, indeed frightened to say that my once infallible memory for stuff I'd read or written is becoming increasingly fallible. Regular readers must have noticed that instead of scrupulously referring back to earlier stuff, I now use phrases like "somewhere on here..." I've always tried to search on earlier topics: there's a plea at the top of the forum from me for people to search before posting and I do try to practice what I preach. BUT, as has been pointed out, the games threads really do muck it all up, not least because once something has been written, it's repeated in countless re-posts until it drops off in due course. (I say "countless" - if there's somebody out there who has counted, please spare us.)
Putting them together in one dump was a welcome move. I didn't initially know an easy way to search all the other sections, but, although I'm still in the dark about the ⌘ modifier, I now know enough to be able to highlight "everything but." The bit about "too good to lose" being below the games was an obvious mistake on my part, which you explained: it hadn't occurred to me that searching there duplicated a search on the rest of the forum. I had been hoping you would simply move the games right down to the bottom but I can now see it makes no difference. Whether having the "too good to lose section" serves any purpose, which I presume is what you were getting at with your own query about searching, I've found it does help quickly to find things you know are there. My own "instructing a lawyer" thread is an example for me. I'd not shed tears if you scrapped it.
So, thanks again for introducing something which has made things easier for me.
Turning to the idea of excluding threads in the games section from all searches, the obvious benefits to anybody not interested in them is that they would not appear in the menu searches (if that's the correct term) for things like "View unread posts." Those results have always shown the thread title and now they show the name of the board as well so it's easy to ignore them. The fact that the results at the bottom of the forum proclaiming the number of posts don't differentiate is irrelevant.
Anything about use of this forum : NOT about cycling