PISTONHEADS SEARCH ENGINE
Discussion
The results are ordered by relevancy, based on how we have tuned the queries to provide that relevancy... only one of those factors is date, but you can then change the sort option to date (which will then make active the ascending or descending lists).
If you can post the thread that you were expecting then we can see where it appears in the results and why it doesn't come up...
If you can post the thread that you were expecting then we can see where it appears in the results and why it doesn't come up...
I just tried;
TVR S steering column UJ
I then had to change from 'relevance' to date (how can the computer choose relevance? It wasnt prioritising the items most closely related to the search criteria). The second column then has the default of earliest first and has to be changed to the surely more relevant latest first. What I finished with was pretty useless I am afraid.
I then tried
Steering column UJ
That turned up God knows how many choices of vehicles so I had to uncheck all except TVR, then within TVR I had to uncheck all then recheck S type. Then change relevance (which didnt seem relevant), then change order, of the first two posts that came up neither was to do with TVR's at all let alone S types.
I have some information for a member but so far I have failed to find a way to post it without starting a new thread.
TVR S steering column UJ
I then had to change from 'relevance' to date (how can the computer choose relevance? It wasnt prioritising the items most closely related to the search criteria). The second column then has the default of earliest first and has to be changed to the surely more relevant latest first. What I finished with was pretty useless I am afraid.
I then tried
Steering column UJ
That turned up God knows how many choices of vehicles so I had to uncheck all except TVR, then within TVR I had to uncheck all then recheck S type. Then change relevance (which didnt seem relevant), then change order, of the first two posts that came up neither was to do with TVR's at all let alone S types.
I have some information for a member but so far I have failed to find a way to post it without starting a new thread.
Sorry Pete. I tried again, this time for TVR S Front Indicator Lens, which is a pretty popular subject
First deselect all TVR, then select S type, (but I missed out deselecting gassing station again!)
There was no obvious pattern between the search subject and the search result relevance. For example the first 3 were between 7 and 12 years old, every bit of advice they contained was now irrelevant. The fourth only had a very marginal relationship to the subject.
I then changes the criteria to update time, that of course gave me the earliest and least relevant information.
Then change to descending order.
That now gave me just 7 choices, some of which didnt even have the same subject in the thread title.
The most recent thread, which has built up information over some years, wasnt there at all.
The thread I was looking for was:
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
which was last updated on 23rd June.
This is the most relevant thread on this subject for TVR S owners.
Pete, See if you can find it on the search angine and let me know how you did it please.
First deselect all TVR, then select S type, (but I missed out deselecting gassing station again!)
There was no obvious pattern between the search subject and the search result relevance. For example the first 3 were between 7 and 12 years old, every bit of advice they contained was now irrelevant. The fourth only had a very marginal relationship to the subject.
I then changes the criteria to update time, that of course gave me the earliest and least relevant information.
Then change to descending order.
That now gave me just 7 choices, some of which didnt even have the same subject in the thread title.
The most recent thread, which has built up information over some years, wasnt there at all.
The thread I was looking for was:
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
which was last updated on 23rd June.
This is the most relevant thread on this subject for TVR S owners.
Pete, See if you can find it on the search angine and let me know how you did it please.
Edited by greymrj on Friday 3rd July 19:39
The new search is rubbish! I just tried searching "TVR S1 exhaust manifold" and it brings up a whole load of completely unrelated topics, even references to French cars which have nothing at all to do with the S1.
I'm not too good with IT but I got along fine with the old google search method.
Can we have it reinstated please?
I am using a windows mobile phone, don't have a computer.
I'm not too good with IT but I got along fine with the old google search method.
Can we have it reinstated please?
I am using a windows mobile phone, don't have a computer.
Sorry but it just doesnt seem to make sense to me. Another query came up today (Sunday) and I needed to check on past information. The subject was simple TVR S Brake Servo. So I put the whole of this in search. I then had to go through all the other non S type model results and deselect them, again I forgot to exclude general gassing which left a few unnecessary entries. I then looked at the 'relevance' list. I am sorry to say not one of the initial list displayed was of current relevance. I also noticed that some did not even have Brake Servo in the title suggesting the search is not by content of the title. If so it is bound to pick up lots of reference where brake servo is mentioned but is not the 'subject' of the post. But that in turn suggests the search is rating such references as of high 'relevance'?
So I then changed the option to 'date'.That is already a lot of choices to have gone through, far more than needed on Google for example.
The default date list is then the wrong way round, suggesting that earlier dates are seen as more relevant that later ones. So click again to get latest posts.
Remarkably the list failed to show the very post that I was seeking to respond to, which wasn't a good start. There were other posts in the list which didnt have the subject in the title, several I checked on where of only the most marginal relevance. I did eventually find the post I wanted but it was very time consuming.
So, my impressions
The search criteria do not allow direct search by forum. So if you know approx where the post will be you have to deselect all the other options. Surely that is effectively the reverse of what you would expect a search engine to do. Google gets better the more precise the subject entered in the search. It is almost as if the new PH search ignores any detail put in buy the searcher.
The search then selects by 'relevance', but by what criteria? Who has decided what it should see as 'relevant' because at this stage I can see almost no logic in the choices it is making. Clearly the choice is not being made on 'subject' of the post but on something else. Google searched by subject titles. So if I asked for TVR S Brake Servo, it would provide me with the matching results accordingly, plus those which included that subject in their title.
Relevance is a very subjective thing. What 'you' see as relevant will not be the same for me. Therefore 'relevance' is almost by definition a poor search criteria because the searcher will not be looking by the same crieria of 'relevance'.
If that option is changed to date, and I would have thought that looking for the last posting on a subject had some inexcapable logic to it, the search then lists on what I would have thought was entirely the wrong way round. Surely I am far more likely to want to look at the lastest happening or advice than those when the subject was first mentioned on PH? When Google found several 'matching' listing it did so by latest date
order.
As a matter of interest I also did a Google by exactly the same subject, top of the Google list was the most relevant (in terms of up to date content and in the extent of information provided) and most up to date thread. I admit that it isnt always that easy but I was impressed! Like it or not, Google is good!
I would comment that the Google listing criteria does use the start date of the thread, rather than the date of the last entry. Which is one of the reasons I have urged members of 'my' forum to add new info to an existing thread rather than start new ones, or if a new one is relevant, to add a link to the old thread. I have been anxious to try to get continuity in the development of information of a subject, and to avoid 'reinventing the wheel'!
So I then changed the option to 'date'.That is already a lot of choices to have gone through, far more than needed on Google for example.
The default date list is then the wrong way round, suggesting that earlier dates are seen as more relevant that later ones. So click again to get latest posts.
Remarkably the list failed to show the very post that I was seeking to respond to, which wasn't a good start. There were other posts in the list which didnt have the subject in the title, several I checked on where of only the most marginal relevance. I did eventually find the post I wanted but it was very time consuming.
So, my impressions
The search criteria do not allow direct search by forum. So if you know approx where the post will be you have to deselect all the other options. Surely that is effectively the reverse of what you would expect a search engine to do. Google gets better the more precise the subject entered in the search. It is almost as if the new PH search ignores any detail put in buy the searcher.
The search then selects by 'relevance', but by what criteria? Who has decided what it should see as 'relevant' because at this stage I can see almost no logic in the choices it is making. Clearly the choice is not being made on 'subject' of the post but on something else. Google searched by subject titles. So if I asked for TVR S Brake Servo, it would provide me with the matching results accordingly, plus those which included that subject in their title.
Relevance is a very subjective thing. What 'you' see as relevant will not be the same for me. Therefore 'relevance' is almost by definition a poor search criteria because the searcher will not be looking by the same crieria of 'relevance'.
If that option is changed to date, and I would have thought that looking for the last posting on a subject had some inexcapable logic to it, the search then lists on what I would have thought was entirely the wrong way round. Surely I am far more likely to want to look at the lastest happening or advice than those when the subject was first mentioned on PH? When Google found several 'matching' listing it did so by latest date
order.
As a matter of interest I also did a Google by exactly the same subject, top of the Google list was the most relevant (in terms of up to date content and in the extent of information provided) and most up to date thread. I admit that it isnt always that easy but I was impressed! Like it or not, Google is good!
I would comment that the Google listing criteria does use the start date of the thread, rather than the date of the last entry. Which is one of the reasons I have urged members of 'my' forum to add new info to an existing thread rather than start new ones, or if a new one is relevant, to add a link to the old thread. I have been anxious to try to get continuity in the development of information of a subject, and to avoid 'reinventing the wheel'!
My first attempt to find whatever it is you're looking for: brake servo.
If that's of use I'll detail what I did...
ETA:
And my second because I forgot the speech marks - duh!
click2
If that's of use I'll detail what I did...
ETA:
And my second because I forgot the speech marks - duh!
click2
Edited by LordGrover on Monday 6th July 08:27
Thanks for trying LordGrover. It has rather illustrated some points. The search is being done by phrase within post not by title of post. So it is picking up a whole load of stuff of marginal relevance. The important ones were within the list you produced but I would have still had to check through 7 to find it.Fortunately there was a link in one of the first posts listed to the important stuff.
I would have expected the default position would be to find the posts which are specifically about the subject, rather than those which merely mention the subject.
For example the second listing is a description of a complete rebuild, over time. It is likely to mention pretty well every part of the car and only has passing ref to 'brake servo'. On the current PH search criteria it would appear that this post would appear virtually every time? Again I not that clearly the search is not by the content of the subject title but by any ref at all to the subject words. How on earth does it try to get some order of 'relevance' from that?
I wonder how many steps you went through to get there?
Mention of the use of speech marks is interesting, I have not noticed specific advice to do so and that does sound like yet another 'hoop' to have to go through in order to search for something which is really quite simple.
I would have expected the default position would be to find the posts which are specifically about the subject, rather than those which merely mention the subject.
For example the second listing is a description of a complete rebuild, over time. It is likely to mention pretty well every part of the car and only has passing ref to 'brake servo'. On the current PH search criteria it would appear that this post would appear virtually every time? Again I not that clearly the search is not by the content of the subject title but by any ref at all to the subject words. How on earth does it try to get some order of 'relevance' from that?
I wonder how many steps you went through to get there?
Mention of the use of speech marks is interesting, I have not noticed specific advice to do so and that does sound like yet another 'hoop' to have to go through in order to search for something which is really quite simple.
greymrj said:
I would have expected the default position would be to find the posts which are specifically about the subject, rather than those which merely mention the subject.
For example the second listing is a description of a complete rebuild, over time. It is likely to mention pretty well every part of the car and only has passing ref to 'brake servo'. On the current PH search criteria it would appear that this post would appear virtually every time? Again I not that clearly the search is not by the content of the subject title but by any ref at all to the subject words. How on earth does it try to get some order of 'relevance' from that?
You have to remember that perhaps not every thread creator is as diligent as you might be in ensuring the subject of the thread is described adequately in the title they create. For example the second listing is a description of a complete rebuild, over time. It is likely to mention pretty well every part of the car and only has passing ref to 'brake servo'. On the current PH search criteria it would appear that this post would appear virtually every time? Again I not that clearly the search is not by the content of the subject title but by any ref at all to the subject words. How on earth does it try to get some order of 'relevance' from that?
Hence why I can see it is useful to be able to search the content of threads as well.
greymrj said:
Thanks for trying LordGrover. It has rather illustrated some points. The search is being done by phrase within post not by title of post. So it is picking up a whole load of stuff of marginal relevance. The important ones were within the list you produced but I would have still had to check through 7 to find it.Fortunately there was a link in one of the first posts listed to the important stuff.
I would have expected the default position would be to find the posts which are specifically about the subject, rather than those which merely mention the subject.
For example the second listing is a description of a complete rebuild, over time. It is likely to mention pretty well every part of the car and only has passing ref to 'brake servo'. On the current PH search criteria it would appear that this post would appear virtually every time? Again I not that clearly the search is not by the content of the subject title but by any ref at all to the subject words. How on earth does it try to get some order of 'relevance' from that?
I wonder how many steps you went through to get there?
Mention of the use of speech marks is interesting, I have not noticed specific advice to do so and that does sound like yet another 'hoop' to have to go through in order to search for something which is really quite simple.
It is quite simple, though we've become spoilt by google's magical searches. I would have expected the default position would be to find the posts which are specifically about the subject, rather than those which merely mention the subject.
For example the second listing is a description of a complete rebuild, over time. It is likely to mention pretty well every part of the car and only has passing ref to 'brake servo'. On the current PH search criteria it would appear that this post would appear virtually every time? Again I not that clearly the search is not by the content of the subject title but by any ref at all to the subject words. How on earth does it try to get some order of 'relevance' from that?
I wonder how many steps you went through to get there?
Mention of the use of speech marks is interesting, I have not noticed specific advice to do so and that does sound like yet another 'hoop' to have to go through in order to search for something which is really quite simple.
To show how quick and simple (once you know) it is.
On the search screen surround with speech marks the specific term you're searching for, in this case "brake servo".
Then on the results expand the TVR section and hover to the right of S Series and Only appears (not on mobile) click that to deselect everything else.
Then change Sort and Order as needed.
I do agree with you Jeremy but if you adopt that logic then the PH search might as well be for 'brake servo' across the whole of PH, it might well turn up interesting stuff but finding the relevant bits would be a nightmare. I would have expected search by subject as the default, with a search expansion beyond that if the searcher then wanted to look wider.
So, do I get given the peak of the pyramid to start with, and work down. Or do I get buried by the entire pyramid to work up? Or do i get put somewhere in between!
Google tries (albeit within the varied approaches used by those who put the information on the internet in the first place) to start me off at the peak of the pyramid.
So, do I get given the peak of the pyramid to start with, and work down. Or do I get buried by the entire pyramid to work up? Or do i get put somewhere in between!
Google tries (albeit within the varied approaches used by those who put the information on the internet in the first place) to start me off at the peak of the pyramid.
Perhaps some clear instructions would help! Or do we have to learn by experiment?
Presumably someone set out the objectives of the PH search before it was designed. And then the methodology to be used and then criteria? Some form of logic would have been used? If we understood some of that it might help because it looks increasingly perverse to me. That may be quite unfair but it is my perception having tried to use it.
Incidentally, why didnt we just adapt to suit Google?
Presumably someone set out the objectives of the PH search before it was designed. And then the methodology to be used and then criteria? Some form of logic would have been used? If we understood some of that it might help because it looks increasingly perverse to me. That may be quite unfair but it is my perception having tried to use it.
Incidentally, why didnt we just adapt to suit Google?
With respect LordGrover, how many select/deselect did you go through to get that list?
Have you then checked the relevance of the items on the list you have displayed?
Now do me the favour of doing the same search by Google and see what you come up with.
Which provided the most relevant information to someone who wanted to find out information about TVR S Brake Servos? (which, after all, was the subject of the search!).
You have tested the PH system and demonstrated that it doesnt work as it stands. Q.E.D.?
Have you then checked the relevance of the items on the list you have displayed?
Now do me the favour of doing the same search by Google and see what you come up with.
Which provided the most relevant information to someone who wanted to find out information about TVR S Brake Servos? (which, after all, was the subject of the search!).
You have tested the PH system and demonstrated that it doesnt work as it stands. Q.E.D.?
greymrj said:
With respect LordGrover, how many select/deselect did you go through to get that list?
Have you then checked the relevance of the items on the list you have displayed?
Now do me the favour of doing the same search by Google and see what you come up with.
Which provided the most relevant information to someone who wanted to find out information about TVR S Brake Servos? (which, after all, was the subject of the search!).
You have tested the PH system and demonstrated that it doesnt work as it stands. Q.E.D.?
One. Did you not read my post?Have you then checked the relevance of the items on the list you have displayed?
Now do me the favour of doing the same search by Google and see what you come up with.
Which provided the most relevant information to someone who wanted to find out information about TVR S Brake Servos? (which, after all, was the subject of the search!).
You have tested the PH system and demonstrated that it doesnt work as it stands. Q.E.D.?
Do I take it the operations are as follows
1. add speech marks to title
2. manually deselect all except S type by one operation (I have yet to try that) (the search format cannot do that by putting TVR S in the search criteria?
3 change 'relevance'* to date
4. change date to latest first.
4 operations?
All of which should surely be redundant if the search engine searched by title and put the most recent and relevant first?
If I use a search on my Windows I do not expect to have to use the subject wording in a non standard format, or to have to deselect options.
Nor do I expect to do that with Google.
Perhaps we just have radically different objectives and expectations?
1. add speech marks to title
2. manually deselect all except S type by one operation (I have yet to try that) (the search format cannot do that by putting TVR S in the search criteria?
3 change 'relevance'* to date
4. change date to latest first.
4 operations?
All of which should surely be redundant if the search engine searched by title and put the most recent and relevant first?
If I use a search on my Windows I do not expect to have to use the subject wording in a non standard format, or to have to deselect options.
Nor do I expect to do that with Google.
Perhaps we just have radically different objectives and expectations?
2. There's no 'deselect' as such - If you hover just to the right of the forum required, in the case S Series you can select only which effectively does all the deselecting for you.
3 & 4. I agree the default sort is not ideal, but two clicks to change it is no great hardship - maybe a couple of seconds?
You can still use google, as Pete said.
Just add
3 & 4. I agree the default sort is not ideal, but two clicks to change it is no great hardship - maybe a couple of seconds?
You can still use google, as Pete said.
Just add
site:www.pistonheads.com/gassingto your search term - that's basically all the interim PH search was doing anyway.
In fairness Jeremy I have tried several and I still find the search to be poor at narrowing down the most 'relevant' stuff.
While I accept that I might just possibly want to find the first post on a subject, is it not far more likely that I would want to find the last? I am back to my 'pyramid' analogy, which we used at work.
Certainly if I want to direct a member to the most relevant information on an issue on which they have requested advice then it will be the last. That is the kind of requests for info I get virtually every day either through PH or (frustratingly sometimes) through Facebook. I want to give them a link to the most up to date advice, otherwise it means a lot more work for me.
Anyway, do we have objectives for this new search arrangements. Perhaps it would help if we knew what they were for a start?
While I accept that I might just possibly want to find the first post on a subject, is it not far more likely that I would want to find the last? I am back to my 'pyramid' analogy, which we used at work.
Certainly if I want to direct a member to the most relevant information on an issue on which they have requested advice then it will be the last. That is the kind of requests for info I get virtually every day either through PH or (frustratingly sometimes) through Facebook. I want to give them a link to the most up to date advice, otherwise it means a lot more work for me.
Anyway, do we have objectives for this new search arrangements. Perhaps it would help if we knew what they were for a start?
Gassing Station | Website Feedback | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff