|
|
 | | Re: 'My recent LUGNET Posts' idea
|
| (...) When I say "a large percentage" above, I mean that roughly, say, 80% are crystal clear match-ups. That leaves, say, 20% which aren't, and should be checked by hand. As there are 5200 registered 'From:' lines and 850 members, we're talking (...) (25 years ago, 22-Jan-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: 'My recent LUGNET Posts' idea
|
| (...) To me, too - cool idea. And I can definitely see usefulness, finding your own posts, finding people's pages without multiple searches, etc. (...) Yeah... After all, how many discrepancies do you forsee/approximate within less than 1000 people? (...) (25 years ago, 22-Jan-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Weird thing I just noticed
|
| (...) This has been a problem ever since the first search function back in 1998, and I'm sorry for all the confusion it has caused when articles labeled "Canceled" show up in search results. In a feverish moment of clarity the other night, I thought (...) (25 years ago, 22-Jan-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: 'My recent LUGNET Posts' idea
|
| (...) Sounds good. (...) Good idea there, but - (...) If only a few need to be matched by hand, then why not take that approach and the rest by hand may not need to be matched? Are you going to take the approach we discussed - assigning EVEYRONE a (...) (25 years ago, 22-Jan-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: 'My recent LUGNET Posts' idea
|
| (...) It would be a preprequisite, yes, since the association table which would map 'From:' lines to member id's (and vice-versa) would make the rest much simpler. Once that's done (and I haven't begun to attack the problem yet but am becoming (...) (25 years ago, 21-Jan-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
|
