Re: Advanced Search sort-by-date options - available from the regular search syntax?
I've added support for the following two control strings on basic queries: sort:newest sort:oldest Here is an example search on the [email protected] list using "help sort:newest": http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=gossip%40jab.org&q=help+sort:newest To answer your question about date formats, we are using the Python dateutil module to parse the date string: http://labix.org/python-dateutil It handles parsing almost any date format. We are using the default parameters, which means the precedence on an ambigious month / day / year order is this: http://labix.org/python-dateutil#head-b95ce2094d189a89f80f5ae52a05b4ab7b41af47 MM-DD-YY DD-MM-YY YY-MM-DD You followed up directly with me with a couple more good points. 1) When doing a basic search with a special field like "from:jeff" and then clicking to the Advanced Search should move those special fields to the appropriate form elements. I will work on this. 2) Sorting by Date Oldest instead of only Date Newest. I added this support on those special commands I mentioned at the start of this email. It's not in the Advanced Search UI yet because we don't have the translation strings for all the languages for this... Jeff On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 8:46 PM, Jeff Marshall wrote: > Hi Esther, thanks for the suggestions. > > > > I really like the sort by date option that comes up from the Advanced > page search, but I'm curious whether there's any way to implement this as a > switch or option keyword from the regular search query. > > We should be able to add a special keyword to the regular search query to > do the sort-by-date. I'll try to work on this over the weekend. > > > > if the box is left empty, but the button has been changed from the > default "1 day" setting, is it possible for the program to search within the > specified date range, assuming that the date argument is "today"? > > Interesting idea. I'm not sure this would be intuitive to people, but > perhaps there is a way to add support for something like that and make it > obvious to people what the date search will do in that case. > > > > For date syntax, does the format (8/14/03) always default to > month/day/year, or is there a way for people to use day/month/year as a > preference? > > I'll have to double-check the date parsing code to let you know. > > > Jeff > > > > On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Esther wrote: > >> Hi Jeff, >> >> I really like the sort by date option that comes up from the Advanced page >> search, but I'm curious whether there's any way to implement this as a >> switch or option keyword from the regular search query. (From a read >> through of the Lucene document linked in the FAQ, this doesn't seem to be an >> option; they only note that results of range searches are sorted according >> to lexicography.)I find it most efficient to type a simple query, >> usually without detailed Boolean arguments or, in general, date ranges. >> Then, depending on the search results, I may modify my search syntax if I >> need to refine the search, but I usually do this by adding arguments to by >> search query rather than using the link to refine my search. Consequently, I >> only came across the Advanced Search page option a couple of weeks ago. The >> feature that I'd most like to use as an add-on to the regular search string >> is the sort by date (rather than relevance) option. Is that possible? It >> looks as though the Advanced Search page is running a Python program. >> >> Another few questions regarding the date range: if the box is left empty, >> but the button has been changed from the default "1 day" setting, is it >> possible for the program to search within the specified date range, assuming >> that the date argument is "today"? For date syntax, does the format >> (8/14/03) always default to month/day/year, or is there a way for people to >> use day/month/year as a preference? (This question is being asked because >> some International list members may prefer to use that syntax, and I was >> wondering whether there a way that the program can check this from their >> regional settings; 18 Jul 2006 seems to be interpreted correctly, as well.) >> >> Thanks very much for all your work on these archives. I've been using >> them since 2005, and have been pleasantly surprised by all the features that >> keep getting added. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Esther >> >> >> >> >> -- >> To unsubscribe, send mail to [email protected]. >> > >
Re: Advanced Search sort-by-date options - available from the regular search syntax?
Hi Esther, thanks for the suggestions. > I really like the sort by date option that comes up from the Advanced page search, but I'm curious whether there's any way to implement this as a switch or option keyword from the regular search query. We should be able to add a special keyword to the regular search query to do the sort-by-date. I'll try to work on this over the weekend. > if the box is left empty, but the button has been changed from the default "1 day" setting, is it possible for the program to search within the specified date range, assuming that the date argument is "today"? Interesting idea. I'm not sure this would be intuitive to people, but perhaps there is a way to add support for something like that and make it obvious to people what the date search will do in that case. > For date syntax, does the format (8/14/03) always default to month/day/year, or is there a way for people to use day/month/year as a preference? I'll have to double-check the date parsing code to let you know. Jeff On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Esther wrote: > Hi Jeff, > > I really like the sort by date option that comes up from the Advanced page > search, but I'm curious whether there's any way to implement this as a > switch or option keyword from the regular search query. (From a read > through of the Lucene document linked in the FAQ, this doesn't seem to be an > option; they only note that results of range searches are sorted according > to lexicography.)I find it most efficient to type a simple query, > usually without detailed Boolean arguments or, in general, date ranges. > Then, depending on the search results, I may modify my search syntax if I > need to refine the search, but I usually do this by adding arguments to by > search query rather than using the link to refine my search. Consequently, I > only came across the Advanced Search page option a couple of weeks ago. The > feature that I'd most like to use as an add-on to the regular search string > is the sort by date (rather than relevance) option. Is that possible? It > looks as though the Advanced Search page is running a Python program. > > Another few questions regarding the date range: if the box is left empty, > but the button has been changed from the default "1 day" setting, is it > possible for the program to search within the specified date range, assuming > that the date argument is "today"? For date syntax, does the format > (8/14/03) always default to month/day/year, or is there a way for people to > use day/month/year as a preference? (This question is being asked because > some International list members may prefer to use that syntax, and I was > wondering whether there a way that the program can check this from their > regional settings; 18 Jul 2006 seems to be interpreted correctly, as well.) > > Thanks very much for all your work on these archives. I've been using them > since 2005, and have been pleasantly surprised by all the features that keep > getting added. > > Cheers, > > Esther > > > > > -- > To unsubscribe, send mail to [email protected]. >
Advanced Search sort-by-date options - available from the regular search syntax?
Hi Jeff, I really like the sort by date option that comes up from the Advanced page search, but I'm curious whether there's any way to implement this as a switch or option keyword from the regular search query. (From a read through of the Lucene document linked in the FAQ, this doesn't seem to be an option; they only note that results of range searches are sorted according to lexicography.)I find it most efficient to type a simple query, usually without detailed Boolean arguments or, in general, date ranges. Then, depending on the search results, I may modify my search syntax if I need to refine the search, but I usually do this by adding arguments to by search query rather than using the link to refine my search. Consequently, I only came across the Advanced Search page option a couple of weeks ago. The feature that I'd most like to use as an add-on to the regular search string is the sort by date (rather than relevance) option. Is that possible? It looks as though the Advanced Search page is running a Python program. Another few questions regarding the date range: if the box is left empty, but the button has been changed from the default "1 day" setting, is it possible for the program to search within the specified date range, assuming that the date argument is "today"? For date syntax, does the format (8/14/03) always default to month/day/year, or is there a way for people to use day/month/year as a preference? (This question is being asked because some International list members may prefer to use that syntax, and I was wondering whether there a way that the program can check this from their regional settings; 18 Jul 2006 seems to be interpreted correctly, as well.) Thanks very much for all your work on these archives. I've been using them since 2005, and have been pleasantly surprised by all the features that keep getting added. Cheers, Esther -- To unsubscribe, send mail to [email protected].
Re: Search syntax...
> I've made two fixes to the search engine: > - prevented duplicates from appearing in the results > - case-insensitivity on our special field names in searches (date, > from, > subject, message) > > That tidies things up nicely. > > Jeff I'll say, Jeff! Yep, the dupes are gone. Interestingly, I've been doing lots of searches all evening and didn't notice when the change took place! If I capitalize 'From:' for an author search, I see on the results page that the system has "corrected" my search syntax to 'from:' rather than turning up 0 results. Thanks! Mike D. [Mike Devour, Citizen, Patriot, Libertarian] [[email protected]] [Speaking only for myself... ] -- To unsubscribe, send mail to [email protected].
Re: Search syntax...
I've made two fixes to the search engine: - prevented duplicates from appearing in the results - case-insensitivity on our special field names in searches (date, from, subject, message) That tidies things up nicely. Jeff On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 10:57 PM, M. G. Devour wrote: > Jeff, > > Thanks for the overview. I'm going to be working on a new web site for > my group, so I may attempt something like that. > > Mike D. > > > An "advanced search" form would basically have a bunch of fields like > > "subject" and "date" and "from" then string them together into a query > > syntax described below. Then redirect that query to the standard search > > URL. Implementation would most likely be in PHP. Hard part isn't the > > programming, it is designing an elegant suer friendly form that matches > > the query syntax. Actually that isn't so hard either. Hard part is > > making time to get it done. > > > > > -- > To unsubscribe, send mail to [email protected]. >
Re: Search syntax...
Jeff, Thanks for the overview. I'm going to be working on a new web site for my group, so I may attempt something like that. Mike D. > An "advanced search" form would basically have a bunch of fields like > "subject" and "date" and "from" then string them together into a query > syntax described below. Then redirect that query to the standard search > URL. Implementation would most likely be in PHP. Hard part isn't the > programming, it is designing an elegant suer friendly form that matches > the query syntax. Actually that isn't so hard either. Hard part is > making time to get it done. -- To unsubscribe, send mail to [email protected].
Re: Search syntax...
An "advanced search" form would basically have a bunch of fields like "subject" and "date" and "from" then string them together into a query syntax described below. Then redirect that query to the standard search URL. Implementation would most likely be in PHP. Hard part isn't the programming, it is designing an elegant suer friendly form that matches the query syntax. Actually that isn't so hard either. Hard part is making time to get it done. http://www.mail-archive.com/faq.html#search .
Re: Search syntax...
Yes, looks like there is a problem where we are displaying double search results. We'll look at it this week and fix that right up. MHonArc is all written in Perl. Lucene is built on Java, but we use it via a Python wrapper. The Mail Archive's wrapping layers and sorting code is written mostly in shell, with some PHP and Python sprinkled about. Thanks On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 6:47 PM, M. G. Devour wrote: > > Hi Mike. That's a very good point about the case sensitivity on the > > "from" and "date" directives. I'll see what I can do to fix that. > > Thank you, Jeff. I figure that while it's all fresh for me, the things > I stumble on have the best chance of helping future users. Once I'm > used to it all I'll have a harder time seeing possible improvements. > > I've noticed that in almost every search I do, each message turns up > twice, either right next to each other or separated by one or two other > results. For instance, a search I made that had 70 results represented > 36 unique pages, once I'd been through them all in detail. I couldn't > see a reason for the duplication. Any thoughts as to why? > > More results is better than less, most likely, and the nice contrast > between visited and unvisited page links speeds review, but it's an > interesting effect. > > > It's great to hear you are enjoying the search engine. We use Lucene > > for the per-list search indexes; it's certainly a high quality > > open-source engine. > > Yes, it's a pretty piece of code. Having it not choke on really short > terms is basically unique in what I've seen. I remember reading that > the index file might be a third the size of the database? If so, it's a > worthy investment. I think we're reaping the benefit of really cheap > storage and a text-only format... > > I forget... what language(s) are Mhonarc and Lucene implemented in? > Your sorting code? If I do any coding or tweaking, it'd be nice to be > able to offer it up for use by others. Some kind of search form has to > be do-able, if it's not already out there. > > Thank you, again. Excellent work. > > Mike D. > > [Mike Devour, Citizen, Patriot, Libertarian] > [[email protected]] > [Speaking only for myself... ] > > > > -- > To unsubscribe, send mail to [email protected]. >
Re: Search syntax...
> Hi Mike. That's a very good point about the case sensitivity on the > "from" and "date" directives. I'll see what I can do to fix that. Thank you, Jeff. I figure that while it's all fresh for me, the things I stumble on have the best chance of helping future users. Once I'm used to it all I'll have a harder time seeing possible improvements. I've noticed that in almost every search I do, each message turns up twice, either right next to each other or separated by one or two other results. For instance, a search I made that had 70 results represented 36 unique pages, once I'd been through them all in detail. I couldn't see a reason for the duplication. Any thoughts as to why? More results is better than less, most likely, and the nice contrast between visited and unvisited page links speeds review, but it's an interesting effect. > It's great to hear you are enjoying the search engine. We use Lucene > for the per-list search indexes; it's certainly a high quality > open-source engine. Yes, it's a pretty piece of code. Having it not choke on really short terms is basically unique in what I've seen. I remember reading that the index file might be a third the size of the database? If so, it's a worthy investment. I think we're reaping the benefit of really cheap storage and a text-only format... I forget... what language(s) are Mhonarc and Lucene implemented in? Your sorting code? If I do any coding or tweaking, it'd be nice to be able to offer it up for use by others. Some kind of search form has to be do-able, if it's not already out there. Thank you, again. Excellent work. Mike D. [Mike Devour, Citizen, Patriot, Libertarian] [[email protected]] [Speaking only for myself... ] -- To unsubscribe, send mail to [email protected].
Re: Search syntax...
Hi Mike. That's a very good point about the case sensitivity on the "from" and "date" directives. I'll see what I can do to fix that. It's great to hear you are enjoying the search engine. We use Lucene for the per-list search indexes; it's certainly a high quality open-source engine. Jeff On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 6:56 AM, M. G. Devour wrote: > Well, I've been playing with my shiny new archive! Great stuff! > > I stumbled on a less than intuitive detail of the search syntax... > > First I tried: > > "From: M. G. Devour" > > ...and got messages in which I was quoted by others. Okay, not what I > thought I was going to get, but makes sense when you read the > instructions. > > Then I moved the quotation mark and tried: > > From:"M. G. Devour" > > ...which gave zero results. Huh? > > Finally, I tried the *correct* syntax: > > from:"M. G. Devour" > > ...which turns up all of my posts, as intended. > > Same thing is true of date: searches. I'm curious why the from: and > date: directives bother to be case sensitive? It tripped me up there > for a bit! > > Otherwise, I've gotta say, wow, this is a powerful search facility! > > It is just so great to be able to use arbitrarily short search terms. > There are so many acronyms and legitimate items in our group's jargon > that are only 2 or 3 letters long, that the 3 letter minimum of most > forum software as well as the archive that we used to have, is really > crippling sometimes. > > Have people managed to design nice front-ends for this, similar to > Google's advanced search form? Something like that would be extremely > useful on our web site. > > Thanks, guys. This is turning out very nicely. > > Be well! > > Mike D. > > > > > > -- > To unsubscribe, send mail to [email protected]. >
Search syntax...
Well, I've been playing with my shiny new archive! Great stuff! I stumbled on a less than intuitive detail of the search syntax... First I tried: "From: M. G. Devour" ...and got messages in which I was quoted by others. Okay, not what I thought I was going to get, but makes sense when you read the instructions. Then I moved the quotation mark and tried: From:"M. G. Devour" ...which gave zero results. Huh? Finally, I tried the *correct* syntax: from:"M. G. Devour" ...which turns up all of my posts, as intended. Same thing is true of date: searches. I'm curious why the from: and date: directives bother to be case sensitive? It tripped me up there for a bit! Otherwise, I've gotta say, wow, this is a powerful search facility! It is just so great to be able to use arbitrarily short search terms. There are so many acronyms and legitimate items in our group's jargon that are only 2 or 3 letters long, that the 3 letter minimum of most forum software as well as the archive that we used to have, is really crippling sometimes. Have people managed to design nice front-ends for this, similar to Google's advanced search form? Something like that would be extremely useful on our web site. Thanks, guys. This is turning out very nicely. Be well! Mike D. -- To unsubscribe, send mail to [email protected].
