On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 22:03:31 +1000, Graeme Cant wrote > >From: "Jason Armistead" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >A similar problem exists for "LS-6" versus "LS 6" and "DG-100" versus "DG > >100" and other numerically identified aircraft types. > > > >I will have a chat with the webmaster and GFA office to see if we can get > >some consistency in the naming of aircraft types. > > ...or perhaps a more intelligent and flexible search engine?
Oh-so-easy to say Graeme, but harder to do in practise for a small organisation like GFA with a limited IT budget. The GFA webmistress has contacted me, and is going to see what can be done. I also CC-ed the GFA airworthiness people so they can try and re-structure the database to be more consistent in recording aircraft types to help the search process along. A far cheaper option than trying to rewrite the search engine fron scratch. Believe me, after writing what should have been a relatively simple engineering drawing number search system, with well-defined rules for forming drawing numbers, (as the front-end of an intranet-accessible database of scanned engineering drawings), it's amazing the number of ways users try to work around the rules, and the number of tweaks that have to be added to try and make it idiot proof for both drawing entry into the system and in the search front-end. Even big search engine companies like Google still return dud results some times. Implementing bullet-proof search techniques are just not as simple as they first seem. Jason _______________________________________________ Aus-soaring mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
