Subject: TN, how do you search this discussion board

Date: Sun Feb 10 20:21:01 2019
User: jamesblackburn-lynch
Message:
TN,

You frequently bring up old threads and link to them. You clearly can find them, though you often imply it is some bit of work.

But I can't get anywhere with Denny's search function. I can put in the subject of a topic I can see, hit search and still have the thing say "no results found." I've tried using fewer words, BODY versus SUBJECT, and more. I've tried going to google and typing "site: freecell.net [search term or phrase]" but nothing works.

What is your method?

James

P.S. I've long wondered but right now I'm particularly curious because Tony just "bumped" a topic where a Klepp made a comment that seemed like a non-sequitor when I found it in context. It refers to a "Mr. Lynch" and that made me want to know more

Date: Sun Feb 10 21:37:04 2019
User: TNmountainman
Message:
james, I may respond more fully when I get on computer instead of phone, but briefly, it's a combination of memory of the context, creativity(??) of search terms (which is actually related to the context), and realization of the limitations of Denny's rudimentary search function. Seems like ix(?) asked me that a while back. First of all, and this is key.......it will only work using one word. (Figured it out on my own, via trial and error.) So select carefully, or there will be much trial and error - which will likely be necessary, anyway. And short words (less than 4 letters, and maybe less than 5) don't work. Sadly, nothing numeric works. I've been repeatedly frustrated searching for germane 12x0 threads, for a key example.

Curiously........just yesterday, while searching for something else, I came across a thread from 2005 that you had commented in. I believe that pre-dates me by a year or so. Anyway, I was surprised.

Examples may be helpful, in describing the context factor. A thread discussing GMO stuff, for example, may not (can't check now) show anything using "GMO" in the search box. But I know from memory that "Polidori", "honey", "neonicinoids", "Buzzclick", etc. may well get me in the ballpark, as those terms were relevant (for the purposes of this discussion) in that context. Heck, even "contrails" might be helpful. (Also, for this particular case, 2 or 3 threads got deleted, so maybe this isn't the best example.)

Also, from time to time, Dr. Google can be more helpful. If I *know* I commented on something, or was on a thread discussing something but can't find it, I can google "TNmountainman", "freecell", along with "GMO", or whatever, and may get lucky. That works far less well than it used to years ago, tho, for some reason. Maybe google changed their algorithms at some, hard to imagine tho that may be. Surely Denny pays them adequately. LOL.

Ok.....this is no longer brief.....so see if that helps, and I can give more hints if I think of them. I think a great deal of it truly has to do remembering the discussion at that time.

I've been meaning to add to Denny's "what else?" thread a suggestion to get a better search function, but keep forgetting.

I also didn't get the reason Tony bumped up that thread, but not being on compueter, didn't look at closely.

p.s. - I know what "LOL" means, so I must have a sense of humor, right? LOL.

p.p.s. - since you were here "back in the day" when chat was maybe the wittiest and funniest thing on the whole internet, it's a pity you apparently(?) missed out on that?

p.p.p.s. - After I posted what I did about "tl;dr", I realized that was maybe slightly harsh. Altho, because of the andaronjim business, my (along with others') patience got pushed past the limit - so I guess that created some sort of a pet peeve there for me maybe.

Date: Sun Feb 10 22:39:07 2019
User: jamesblackburn-lynch
Message:
That is very helpful! That four and five letter words don't work at all explains a great deal of my frustration. Why?? Oh well.

I will see what I can find. Thanks.

By the way, I am surprised you were surprised. I've mentioned lately that I've been here FOREVER. I predate almost everyone. I certainly predate the database that includes number of moves per game. But I only played 8x4 (with very few exceptions...I think I actually tried Slurpees long ago) until a few years ago. I got tired of trying to win 5000 games in a row. It just takes so long. For some reason, I got interested in 9x4's and became determined to be #1 All Time in that flavor...since PudongPete and rgk had made doing that in 8x4 unreasonable. Then when I finally succeeded I was looking for something else to do and stumbled on the 12-sum competition.

But none of that is really relevant. As you discovered, I always checked the discussion board. And I never was on the chat. I don't even know what .e means or those other symbols some of you all use...but I know it has something to do with chat because even further back in time I used to be on IRC. And Usenet. I go WAY back.

Oh and I always bleep over LOLs...didn't even notice. My bad.

J

Date: Sun Feb 10 23:14:38 2019
User: redberet
Message:
It could also be that he bookmarks every thread he's posted to.

Date: Sun Feb 10 23:20:03 2019
User: TNmountainman
Message:
james, I may have overstated the failure of short words to work in the search function. I think it depends on how common of a word it is. Seems like less common short words sometimes work, but sometimes don't. I think if a search returns too many 'hits', it just throws up its hands in frustration with being overwhelmed. I've never been able to specifically been able to delineate the exact 'rules' - but really haven’t tried for that goal.

Date: Sun Feb 10 23:27:51 2019
User: TNmountainman
Message:
As to redberet's comment (which wasn't there when I began my post) - no, not at all. Don't bookmark any of it. Never have even thought of that. The mere idea seems incredibly cumbersome and inefficient.

Date: Sun Feb 10 23:42:31 2019
User: jamesblackburn-lynch
Message:
Isn't redberet just firenze under another name? LOL.

So...I've been playing with my new knowledge. Found some old stuff of interest. (Like I tried out Slurpees in 2014 because it was mentioned in a MOTF. Thought it was longer ago,than that.) But mostly I'm just still impressed with how crappy this search function is.

I put in "HopDiriDiriDattiriDittiriDom" just to see what would come up. Quite a few. But here's the frustrating thing...half of them were the same! Literally the exact same thread. And I know it cut off arbitarily when it felt it had found enough. No "click for more reasults" or the like.

Search engines must be hard to write...but how does freecell.net hide stuff from google?

I know Denny is somewhere laughing at me.

James

Date: Mon Feb 11 00:08:42 2019
User: TNmountainman
Message:
When someone (joey???) asked him many years ago about it, he just sort of (metaphorically) shrugged, and said something like "yeah, I guess that's just a bare-bones one", or something along those lines. I have always wondered if he wrote it, or if it was some sort of off-the-shelf thing he had access to.
The duplication thing you kinda get used to. It does seem like it would be easy to narrow those down, and I've often wondered if *that* is a manifestation of multiple occurrences within a thread. Seems like I may have figured out at some point it wasn't, but don't quote me on that.

Date: Mon Feb 11 00:14:45 2019
User: TNmountainman
Message:
There really is a TON of interesting stuff in the archives. Ok, TONS. Lot of fun sometimes to just meander in there - altho I don't do that unless I'm already there looking for something.

One further tip: every once in a great while, I can find something very old using the Wayback Machine, but that's pretty rare.

Date: Mon Feb 11 00:34:04 2019
User: joeygray
Message:
Linked is the oldest thread in this format of discussion board. But we had nine years of discussion board before that, in a previous 'tree' format, and that archive would be quite fascinating too if we still had it. For many years jcj had excerpts of that board online on her web page but, so sadly to me, that has been vanished about 4 years now.

Perhaps the wayback machine could help. I've never figured out how to use it though...

Link: Oldest existing thread

Date: Mon Feb 11 00:58:33 2019
User: TNmountainman
Message:
Yes, the Wayback Machine will *sometimes* show fragments of the "tree" board, but usually it won't. Seems like the last few times I tried it, the best I could get from it was a few pages that showed the topics, and *maybe* the tree itself. But seems like the *very* last few times, it's been less successful. Sometimes, you get nuthin'; quite mysterious how it varies.

I believe when I arrived on the scene, the transition had just been made, but that references were somehow being made to old threads, and so I got to see some of the tree. But I'm pretty sure I didn't post at that time.

Date: Mon Feb 11 01:01:02 2019
User: joeygray
Message:
Cool. I just used wayback to grab the posts that jcj saved off long ago, in 2001. They are but a smattering of all the threads on the old discussion boards, being ones she selected as being particularly interesting from 2000-2001. But possibly you could use these to wayback to the old db threads directly, if you can figure out the right addresses for them...

http://home.mindspring.com/~jinnycj/netcellboard/

You can't use this address directly, but wayback's got it.

Date: Mon Feb 11 01:06:09 2019
User: TNmountainman
Message:
If you decide to go "exploring", one hint is to try several different dates on "the machine". Most give up nothing, but sometimes you gets lucky. Tedious, but occasionally worthwhile. At least that's been my experience looking for freecell stuff.

Date: Mon Feb 11 01:26:18 2019
User: TNmountainman
Message:
One more tiny tidbit, james.........just because Denny's search draws a blank doesn't mean it's not there. More than once I've found something I *knew* had to be there, but wouldn't get found via search. Only for google to then find it. Then, I'd go to that thread, and there it'd be, no apparent reason for it to be missed. I think that's a rare occurrence, tho. To extend that.....I believe there have been several things I know are there, but haven't been able to track down. So it's just conceivable that Denny's search function isn't perfect. But am torn as to whether we should alert him to that possibility.

Also, best as I recall, caps or not don't seem to matter either way.

Date: Mon Feb 11 03:23:25 2019
User: redberet
Message:
I apologize for being facetious in my original post. but then after reading a bit more I couldn't help but think about Tudor Turtle and Mr. Wizards Wayback Machine. As my teacher once told me, those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. I've never really searched past discussions for solutions to present problems. Maybe I should, I just might become a better player.

Date: Mon Feb 11 03:39:03 2019
User: TNmountainman
Message:
No problem. I wasn't offended. I guess it actually could be a semi-plausible explanation, if I bookmarked hundreds of threads. But the cost/benefit of such an approach seems extraordinarily negative.

And if you truly do wish to become a better player, then yes, there is much valid advice here, including very recently.

Date: Mon Feb 11 12:23:50 2019
User: TNmountainman
Message:
Good work, joey. Just quickly found this very pertinent message from 2000, apparently aimed at firenze well into the future (as well as...…….)...……………………
------------------------------------

Posted by California Department of Corporations on June 22, 2000 at 10:26:28:

To All Users of Freecell Discussion Forum:

In a settlement with Victor Idrovo, the State of California successfully demonstrated the illegality of posting messages under false identities with the intent of personal gain and/or disruption of internet communications. Please read the summary using the link below for background.

With this precedent in hand, we have begun scouring popular message boards and responding to complaints. A quick reading of the postings at this site clearly demonstrate a brazen disregard for personal privacy laws, slander, and denigration.

We have located one of the most heinous offenders using Freecell Discussion Forum. The offender has agreed to post a retraction in lieu of criminal charges in the next 24 hours. Users of this site are strongly encouraged to avoid this kind of reckless behavior in the future.

Marc Crandall, Lead Counsel
Internet Compliance and Enforcement
and
William Kenefick
Acting Commissioner of Corporations

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Followed the next day by...…………]
---------------------

My Fellow NetCELLmates:

It is with a heavy heart and sluggish fingers that I scribe this confession. About 4 days ago, the California Department of Corporations sent a message to one of my many e-mail accounts that I keep under a bogus name (deny@freecell.com, in this case). They told me that "the game is up" and they were aware of my "insidious scheme to disrupt the normal flow of information on the internet." As with Victor Idrovo, I could either confess my sins and seek forgiveness, or bear the brunt of their fierce retribution.

So here it is, the list of all the names that I have used that aren't really me:

The Living:
George W.
GWalkerB (but not George W. Bush)
Rush L
George Pee (Bush)
Ron Paul
Ron Paul's "real" mom
Willie Horton
Heloise
Rosie Ruiz
Eric Lindross
The Hermaphrodite (whose name I can't remember)

Dead Folks:
Epicurus
Jacques C.
Sigmund (I was the original, there's a new imposter now)

Pending:
R. McGinn

Fabricated Personalities
Lumber Jack
Wally
Snavely Fijordnvarts
Ima Compleat Loser
Mr. Statistics

Special Category:
Mephistopheles (we already have reached an agreement)

There are probably more, I just can't remember them all. I posted messages under these assumed names in an attempt to insult somebody, always intentionally but always in fun. If anyone took deep offense, sorry. I was just intending to help us take a different look at ourselves and those around us.

Hopefully, the California Department of Corporations folks are bored by now and have stopped reading. It's a good bet, because what kind of mental cripple thinks that sending a message to a bogus email address constitutes any kind of threat? Anyway, if you're still following this, click the link below for my final salute.

Sincerely repentent,
Herbert Walker

P.S. I guess I need to add some more names to the list: Herbert Walker.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

[And it goes on...….and on...…..]

Date: Mon Feb 11 13:29:53 2019
User: BuzzClik
Message:
Why does that sound familiar?

Date: Mon Feb 11 14:34:02 2019
User: TNmountainman
Message:
Purgatory can sometimes be a lengthy process?

Date: Mon Feb 11 18:22:42 2019
User: Angel_of_Light
Message:
Mr. TN, perhaps we should have a little talk.

Date: Mon Feb 11 18:55:06 2019
User: redberet
Message:
I remember that case. I'm or one of me are still waiting for our part of the settlement