Subject:
|
Re: Web interface search results
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Tue, 24 Aug 1999 22:31:01 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
JSPROAT@IO.COMavoidspam
|
Viewed:
|
2514 times
|
| |
|
|
Todd Lehman wrote:
> In lugnet.admin.general, "Robert Munafo" <munafo@gcctechNO.SPAMcom> writes:
> > In lugnet.admin.general, Jeremy Sproat writes:
> > > [...] 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?
> > 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.
> A syntax vis-à-vis URLs isn't yet defined, but how does this sound?--
> [snippage of URL syntax]
> I'd favor seconds and standard epoch time, with a transparent query
> generator page. That is, say the advanced search page is at /news/search/,
> and you specify "about 4 months ago."
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.
http://www.lugnet.com/news/traffic/custom.cgi?hours=6
Shows what's happened in the past 6 hours. How about something like
http://www.lugnet.com/?q=jeremy+sproat&qtmonths=6&qsdays=7
to ask for the results to prefer articles submitted a month ago, with s
spread of 7 days? Hmmm... There would be lost flexibility then, as you can
only ask for integral values of one time metric. Arg. I'll have to
surrender to the intellectual superiority of my browser. :-P
> (I wouldn't want to litter the URL line with
> all of the possible options present on the actual human-interface form
> because it's important to keep the URLs short and to separate (abstract) the
> query interface layers.)
I don't think it matters, really. With the URL for something more or less
static (like an article), this is true, but we're talking about search
queries here. With regards to time, searches are very volatile stuff.
> So when you click the Go button on the advanced search page, it would do
> that via HTTP POST (not GET), and that script would interpret the query, and
> rewrite it into a URL which gets spit out via a Location: header to enact
> the actual query.
I like this idea. It'd let you totally separate the query interface from
the actual engine, allowing for gobs of changes to either end, needing
probably minimal changes to the glue-layer CGI.
Cheers,
- jsproat
--
Jeremy H. Sproat <jsproat@io.com>
http://www.io.com/~jsproat
Darth Maul Lives
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Web interface search results
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Web interface search results
|
| (...) 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)
|
16 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
