 | | Re: Web interface search results —Todd Lehman
|
| | | This is an append to a thread started about 8 months ago... (...) OK, Jeremy! What I did recently as a background task was rebuilt the news search database from scracth, this time including article timestamps and increased emphasis on the poster's (...) (25 years ago, 24-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Web interface search results —Jeremy Sproat
|
| | | | (...) Todd, you are a lean, mean, re-coding machine! :-, I like the date indexing, but I haven't been able to figure out how to use it; e.g., what is the syntax to, say, modify the query to prefer articles from about four months ago? (...) That'd be (...) (25 years ago, 24-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Web interface search results —Robert Munafo
|
| | | | (...) It appears that for now we just have the recent (default) target time and 1-week sigma values. If there is a syntax for overriding these, Todd hasn't chosen to tell us about it. I would guess that it isn't yet ready for general use. - Robert (...) (25 years ago, 24-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Web interface search results —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | (...) A syntax vis-à-vis URLs isn't yet defined, but how does this sound?-- There's currently q= for the query string: (URL) qn= for subsequent pages of results: (URL) there are still 25 possibilities in the q*= namespace. How about qt= for the (...) (25 years ago, 24-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Web interface search results —Jeremy Sproat
|
| | | | | (...) Sure, sounds okay. I'm a little nervous about handling raw seconds; the big numbers make my puny earthling brain hurt. :-, How about using the same syntax used in the traffic report page; e.g. (URL) what's happened in the past 6 hours. How (...) (25 years ago, 24-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Web interface search results —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | (...) Apart from the URLs getting longer and more clutterred with parameters and being harder to share via cut & paste into messages, it would probably also mean two separate URL interpretation mechanisms (more code bloat, even if it's broken into a (...) (25 years ago, 25-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Web interface search results —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | Do we REALLY need the precision that seconds bring us? :-) I'd vote for days or at least hours. Even for a non human readable API like this one, go with data that's understandable to humans and let the machines keep the books straight. (25 years ago, 24-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Web interface search results —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | (...) "Admiral, if we go by the book, like Lietennant Saavik, hours would seem like days."[1] (...) Days are certainly human-readable and intuitive and okie-fine for relative times expressed counting backward from "now," but what about absolute (...) (25 years ago, 25-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Web interface search results —Jeremy Sproat
|
| | | | | | (...) Just the sound that was made as I released the bow string and the arrow dug itself into the concrete wall behind the target... Cheers, - jsproat (25 years ago, 25-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Web interface search results —Tony Priestman
|
| | | | | In article <37c311a6.412616938@...gnet.com>, Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> writes (...) <snip> (...) <snip> (...) Man, you *really* need to cut down on the coffee ;-) (25 years ago, 24-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Web interface search results —Robert Munafo
|
| | | | (...) How about a non-GEEK mnemonic? Oh, sorry, I forgot who I'm talking with (-: (...) for the server to talk to itself via HTTP EQUIV reload directives -- whew!] - Robert (25 years ago, 25-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Web interface search results —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | (...) LOL! Yes! :) It shouldda said non-g[r]eek or non-gr?eek then, eh? :-) (...) Oh, not via the <META HTTP-EQUIV=...> directive, but via the 'Location:' header right in the HTTP response. You can see an example of this in action (sans a complex (...) (25 years ago, 25-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | |
