PISTONHEADS SEARCH ENGINE
Discussion
OK, has anybody out there cracked how to use the new search engine! It has defied any logic I have tried to use. I cannot get posts I know to be there and I cannot get any sort of sensible date order. I tried putting in 'TVR S steering rack', see what you get! Before this new search engine, when there wasnt a PH search engine, I could go to google and have a good chance of finding what I want. That doesnt work now! I tried using the same search. See what you get!
Is it me?
Is it me?
Sorry, but I have tried again on another topic and it produced a whole load of irrelevant posts and a google search didnt get it either. I am currently finding it virtually impossible to create the continuity of information from old threads that 'my' forum were seeking to achieve. I have to say, looking at the posts that did come up, I cannot understand how any search engine would have come up with some of them as the titles were not even related.
I have just made another effort to search using the advice given above. It did not allow me to arrange by date and all the ones I found that were at all relevant I know to have been superseded. I am worried therefore that anybody using the search engine as it stands would actually be directed to the wrong information!
Certainly. I recently searched for TVR S Steering Rack on which there has been some recent discussion. I couldnt find that at all. I eventually went to my profile list of posts and found it by tracing a previous contribution of mine.
I did notice that when I tried the PH search the 'ascenting' sort was not 'live'.
I did another search on TVR S Exhaust clips, to follow up a request I had while out with the Derbyshire group last weekend, but nothing relevant or recent came up.
It wasnt that easy finding things via Google but it did select using 'S' and it did identify threads by age reasonably well.
I did notice that when I tried the PH search the 'ascenting' sort was not 'live'.
I did another search on TVR S Exhaust clips, to follow up a request I had while out with the Derbyshire group last weekend, but nothing relevant or recent came up.
It wasnt that easy finding things via Google but it did select using 'S' and it did identify threads by age reasonably well.
LordGrover said:
Does this not contain the target: click?
It does appear to. It appears to produce a very well ordered listing. But how did you get that and how do we make clear to others how to do that? I am reasonably computer literate and certainly better than many on 'my' forum, and I haven't been able to achieve that, at least not yet!Incidentally I did note that the right hand column choice option on your listing was 'live'. It hasnt been so far when I have tried, I wonder why?
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
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'!
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.
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.?
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?
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?
Ok LordGrover, tried again. Put in 'TVR S brake servo', as written.
Search revealed lots of other marques. Went to TVR (which I shouldnt have had to do as it was in the search title) and opened. Went to S and hovered and got the option 'only', clicked on this and it gave me TVR S plus all the other marques. It did NOT restrict selection to S only. I didnt go further.
I am using windows 7 on a good modern laptop and browzing using Mozilla (up to date)
Search revealed lots of other marques. Went to TVR (which I shouldnt have had to do as it was in the search title) and opened. Went to S and hovered and got the option 'only', clicked on this and it gave me TVR S plus all the other marques. It did NOT restrict selection to S only. I didnt go further.
I am using windows 7 on a good modern laptop and browzing using Mozilla (up to date)
OK Pete, I think it is over to you. You have had some pretty hard feedback on the system so far. Onlyt fair to give you the opportunity to digest what has come back and consider the implications.
I have got to say it doesnt look like 'tweeking' to me. There seem to be some pretty fundamental issues to look at.
Maybe you should share the objectives of the project with us to see how relevant they are first?
My use is very regular but it is almost entirely related to gaining the latest technical information on repair and restoration, adding to that information from research I have done, and directing less experienced members to the best PH source of the advice they have sought. All that is almost entirely related to one model of one marque.
I have got to say it doesnt look like 'tweeking' to me. There seem to be some pretty fundamental issues to look at.
Maybe you should share the objectives of the project with us to see how relevant they are first?
My use is very regular but it is almost entirely related to gaining the latest technical information on repair and restoration, adding to that information from research I have done, and directing less experienced members to the best PH source of the advice they have sought. All that is almost entirely related to one model of one marque.
LordGrover said:
1. There is no need to include TVR S in the search box - it may even skew the results.
?
I am going to leave this to the webmaster for a bit. There is now plenty of evidence that the search function doesnt meet the users needs as it stands. However, before I do so can I ask you to look again at the above statement you made. With respect, I suggest you think hard about that statement and what it means in the context of the objectives of a search function! I will leave that with you.?
I hear you. Lets give you time? Immediate thoughts:
Personally I almost always find date to be of very high importance so I would certainly want to see it have a higher weighting. Certainly I would have expected the last column to be in reverse order. i.e. latest as the default position, with the ability to search earlier if required.
One big potential advantage over google is the potential ability to locate the last post on a subject whereas Google find the date by the start of the last thread on the subject.
Is it possible to give some differecne in weighting to threads which have the search subject in the title, over those which have it in the content. i.e to prioritise threads which are ABOUT the subject well over those which merely mention the subject. That differentiation did not seem to happen and most of the 'most relevant' items the search found were actually of low relevance to that search subject.
I was very worried by LordGrovers comment that by being more specific in the search subject it could skew the results, I have to say that amazed me. If I put in TVR S as part of the subject then I expect the search to be limited to posts relevant to TVR S!
I would certainly expect the first selection in the current format to 'tick' only what I asked for, if that was in my search subject. To have to uncheck the bits I do not want seems a poor approach. If you want to search across the whole of PH for someone mentioning 'servo' then by all means expand your search, but I would have thought the rest of us wanted the tip of the pyramid, or at least to start from there.
Personally I almost always find date to be of very high importance so I would certainly want to see it have a higher weighting. Certainly I would have expected the last column to be in reverse order. i.e. latest as the default position, with the ability to search earlier if required.
One big potential advantage over google is the potential ability to locate the last post on a subject whereas Google find the date by the start of the last thread on the subject.
Is it possible to give some differecne in weighting to threads which have the search subject in the title, over those which have it in the content. i.e to prioritise threads which are ABOUT the subject well over those which merely mention the subject. That differentiation did not seem to happen and most of the 'most relevant' items the search found were actually of low relevance to that search subject.
I was very worried by LordGrovers comment that by being more specific in the search subject it could skew the results, I have to say that amazed me. If I put in TVR S as part of the subject then I expect the search to be limited to posts relevant to TVR S!
I would certainly expect the first selection in the current format to 'tick' only what I asked for, if that was in my search subject. To have to uncheck the bits I do not want seems a poor approach. If you want to search across the whole of PH for someone mentioning 'servo' then by all means expand your search, but I would have thought the rest of us wanted the tip of the pyramid, or at least to start from there.
I take your point about 'S' being potentially generic, although it does still appear as a separate model in your first field. We S guys wouldn't like to be missed!
At the end of the day the proof will be in the pudding. As it stands it is of little value to me for the purposes in which I search on PH. I appreciate that this doesnt mean it is of little value to others. You may have noted another thread on the TVR S forum on which I asked other members to test the search facility. Several prominent members did, and the consensus rather supports my view.
Include S as a model!
I am not sure what LordGrover was on about but allow the searcher to be more rather than less specific in their search subject.
Make it so you select anything you want other than the subject model, rather than deselect.
Think hard about the weight given to 'date' and see what proportion of searches are answered best by latest information. I still remain to be convinced about defining 'relevance' as it is a qualitative rather than quantitive matter.
Give threads ABOUT a subject more 'relevance' than posts which merely mention the subject wording.
Initially filter to give priority to most up to date posts, with option to reverse this.
How long do I leave it before testing again!
At the end of the day the proof will be in the pudding. As it stands it is of little value to me for the purposes in which I search on PH. I appreciate that this doesnt mean it is of little value to others. You may have noted another thread on the TVR S forum on which I asked other members to test the search facility. Several prominent members did, and the consensus rather supports my view.
Include S as a model!
I am not sure what LordGrover was on about but allow the searcher to be more rather than less specific in their search subject.
Make it so you select anything you want other than the subject model, rather than deselect.
Think hard about the weight given to 'date' and see what proportion of searches are answered best by latest information. I still remain to be convinced about defining 'relevance' as it is a qualitative rather than quantitive matter.
Give threads ABOUT a subject more 'relevance' than posts which merely mention the subject wording.
Initially filter to give priority to most up to date posts, with option to reverse this.
How long do I leave it before testing again!
Gassing Station | Website Feedback | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff