Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks httptech
laziness, impatience, and hubris
 
PerlMonks  

Suggestion: Super Search Enhancement

by Limbic~Region (Chancellor)
on Mar 16, 2007 at 17:49 UTC ( #605184=monkdiscuss: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??

All,
It would be incredibly useful to me if there were an option in Super Search to list the root thread only (once) even if the match happened in one or more of the replies. This would roughly be synonymous to:
grep -l search_string *.txt
In other words, I do not care where in a thread my search string appears or how many times as long as I know the thread. This is because I end up opening the thread up in its own tab and read all the replies anyway.

In any case, if this is low hanging fruit and a devil has some round tuits lying around I would be most appreciative.

Cheers - L~R

Comment on Suggestion: Super Search Enhancement
Download Code
Re: Suggestion: Super Search Enhancement
by Argel (Prior) on Mar 16, 2007 at 18:50 UTC
    ++ I do the same thing so would find this useful (possibly very useful as super search can return too much clutter).

    Update: Possibly provide a link to the root node and in parenthesis indicate the number of matches under that node.

Re: Suggestion: Super Search Enhancement
by rodion (Chaplain) on Mar 16, 2007 at 22:59 UTC
    I'm also one who usually goes to the node listed in super-search, only to click on the root node from there, so I can see the context. For me, having a "Show Root Node" option in super-search would be very handy.
      Seconded.
Re: Suggestion: Super Search Enhancement
by brusimm (Pilgrim) on Mar 20, 2007 at 14:42 UTC
      brusimm,
      No, it doesn't help but thanks for trying.

      The capability to handle your request already exists in Super Search. By matching a specific author (yourself) and excluding replies - you are able to search all root nodes authored by yourself.

      The feature I am asking for is to be able to search all nodes, including replies, but to have the results only include one entry per thread (the root node).

      Cheers - L~R

Re: Suggestion: Super Search Enhancement
by MaxKlokan (Monk) on Mar 23, 2007 at 13:41 UTC
    There is a radio button "Don't include replies" further down the Super Search page.

    Update: Sorry, I misunderstood your request. Please disregard my answer.

    Max
Re: Suggestion: Super Search Enhancement
by lostsoul (Sexton) on May 23, 2007 at 11:19 UTC
    You can use google for that. If you want for example to search in "Seekers of Perl Wisdom" you can try this:
    site:www.perlmonks.org "has asked for the wisdom of the Perl Monks" se +arch_term
    or if you use the firefox needlesearch plugin or similar: you can use this url:
    http://www.google.com/search?hl=de&q=site%3Awww.perlmonks.org+%22has+a +sked+for+the+wisdom+of+the+Perl+Monks%22+needlesearch&btn&meta=
    It's _a lot_ faster too. And you can view the results in Goolge's cache too - taking a litte load off perlmonks. :)
      lostsoul,
      I will admit my google fu is weak so I would appreciate a step by step walk through of how to do what I actually asked for in this thread. I ask, because your suggestion does not seem to meet my expectations.

      For instance, let's say I want a list of all threads that contain Data::Dump::Streamer. With Super Search, I can get a list of all nodes containing that search term but that is not what I want. I just want the root node listed regardless of how many times the search term appears in the thread or where. With http://www.google.com, I only find 4 threads which is wrong.

      Please show me what I am doing wrong.

      Cheers - L~R

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: monkdiscuss [id://605184]
Front-paged by tye
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others avoiding work at the Monastery: (14)
As of 2014-04-18 19:28 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    April first is:







    Results (471 votes), past polls