Why is search so brain dead these days?

Paul wrote:
Yousuf Khan wrote:
I'm referring mainly to Windows search, but this applies to a lot of
other search algorithms all over the place and on the Internet too. In
the olden days, search was very efficient and somewhat intuitive. For
example, let's say you try to do a search for "virtual" and expect you
might find something like VirtualBox, VirtualPC, whatever. But for
some reason, the current Windows search cannot find these. If you do a
search for the full name, then it may find them (hit and miss). In the
old days, these searches would find all instances where the string
would occur, even as part of a substring. It was very easy to do
searches, and you could even do multiple words to narrow down the
searches. What has gone wrong with search algorithms now?

Yousuf Khan

OK, on Windows 10, try this.

In the Settings wheel, is a button for Enhanced Search.
That will turn on C: .

Below it, is some exclusion folders that were automatically
placed there by Windows. You can remove most all of those,
except one. And that's the folder that contains Windows.edb
(because if you index that, the Indexer will never go to sleep).

https://www.howtogeek.com/424526/how...0s-start-menu/


Here is a picture of the Win10-2004 x64 one I just set up for test.

https://i.postimg.cc/CK0fWTbL/enhanced-search.gif

HTH,
Paul

Just a footnote.

The test was done on Win10-2004 x64.
I already have results and... not good.

1) Search time is *too long*.
Something is wrong with search.
The entire C: is supposed to be indexed now,
and... I'm getting the damn green bar treatment.
This means some part of the disk is not indexed,
forcing a brute force action of some sort.

2) The controls are broken.

If you request an Index Rebuild, the damn exceptions
settings are erased and replaced by the Windows default
values. Which is *not* what you want, when you requested
a rebuild to get *your* settings to take hold.

For some value of "don't they test this ****e?".

Those High School interns just aren't working out.

Send in the Grade Schoolers and some crayons.

Paul

"Yousuf Khan" wrote

| I'm referring mainly to Windows search, but this applies to a lot of
| other search algorithms all over the place and on the Internet too.

Like others, I haven't used Windows search since '98.
I use Agent Ransack. As you say, Windows simply
doesn't find things. and it's slow. And it's always
been limited about looking inside files. When I need to
find a system file in the OS CABs I want to be able
to look in the CABs. AR can do that. Windows doesn't.

For online search, I agree. Duckduckgo seems to be
getting much worse. I don't know why. And it does wacky
things like, when I search for "orange blossom honey" it
will say, "Returning results for flower blossom honey. Did
you really mean to search for 'orange'" Of course I did,
for crissakes!
Google, meanwhile, wants to show me images related to
the search; stores; maps; ads; anything that will keep
me on Google instead of going to a webpage that actually
relates to my search.

The priorities are badly skewed toward commercial. If
I search for "TV" I get a long list of Best Buy ads. If I
search for a person I almost always get the wikipedia link
at the top. If I search for a small business I get Yelp instead
of their own website.

In article , Mayayana
wrote:

Anything can quickly look up stored
data in a database, but the trouble is that such a
program has to run regularly to update its record.

not true. the spotlight index is updated on the fly when files are
added, deleted or modified, without needing a periodic background
update.

On 6/20/2020 7:04 PM, pyotr filipivich wrote:
"David E. Ross" on Sat, 20 Jun 2020 16:11:05
-0700 typed in alt.windows7.general the following:
On 6/20/2020 4:06 PM, Rene Lamontagne wrote:
On 2020-06-20 5:54 p.m., Yousuf Khan wrote:
I'm referring mainly to Windows search, but this applies to a lot of
other search algorithms all over the place and on the Internet too. In
the olden days, search was very efficient and somewhat intuitive. For
example, let's say you try to do a search for "virtual" and expect you
might find something like VirtualBox, VirtualPC, whatever. But for some
reason, the current Windows search cannot find these. If you do a search
for the full name, then it may find them (hit and miss). In the old
days, these searches would find all instances where the string would
occur, even as part of a substring. It was very easy to do searches, and
you could even do multiple words to narrow down the searches. What has
gone wrong with search algorithms now?

Â*Â*Â*Â*Yousuf Khan

I really can't help you here because I never use Windows search.
I use "Search Everything" and "Agent Ransack" exclusively. sorry

Rene


Me too. They are both great.

Does it work on Amazon?


They work on Amazon only if that is the name of your computer. They are
search tools for searching your local system, not for searching the
Internet.

Everything at http://www.voidtools.com/ is for searching for objects
(folders, files, etc). It is quite fast.

Agent Ransack at http://www.mythicsoft.com/agentransack/ is for
searching for character strings within files. Given what it does, it
can be slow.

--
David E. Ross
http://www.rossde.com/

Who would you trust to provide accurate information about
COVID-19? Doctors who have studied viruses and treated
patients for years? Or a TV actor who tweets "cofefe"?

nospam wrote:
In article , Mayayana
wrote:

Anything can quickly look up stored
data in a database, but the trouble is that such a
program has to run regularly to update its record.

not true. the spotlight index is updated on the fly when files are
added, deleted or modified, without needing a periodic background
update.

Everything.exe is hooked to the NTFS journal on Windows.
It updates in real time too.

Windows Search and its indexer are also hooked to the NTFS journal.

Agent Ransack (a brute force [free] program), doesn't
hook the journal. It doesn't keep indexes, either filename only
indexes (Everything.exe) or filename+content indexes (Windows Search).

Since FAT32 has no journal, there's nothing to hook on there, and
you're on your own (manual updates...).

Paul

On 2020-06-20 15:54, Yousuf Khan wrote:
I'm referring mainly to Windows search, but this applies to a lot of
other search algorithms all over the place and on the Internet too. In
the olden days, search was very efficient and somewhat intuitive. For
example, let's say you try to do a search for "virtual" and expect you
might find something like VirtualBox, VirtualPC, whatever. But for some
reason, the current Windows search cannot find these. If you do a search
for the full name, then it may find them (hit and miss). In the old
days, these searches would find all instances where the string would
occur, even as part of a substring. It was very easy to do searches, and
you could even do multiple words to narrow down the searches. What has
gone wrong with search algorithms now?

Â*Â*Â*Â*Yousuf Khan

Hi Yousuf,

What do you mean "these days"? Windows search has
always stunk. And it is gettig worse.

Use SuperFinder XT instead:

http://fsl.sytes.net/ssearchxt.html

Beware of junkware!

-T

In article , Mayayana
wrote:


The priorities are badly skewed toward commercial.

no, they're skewed to what is the likely intent of the search.

If I search for "TV" I get a long list of Best Buy ads.

because most people who search for 'tv' are most likely interested in
buying one, so the results will include places to buy one, including
best buy and other stores, at or near the top of the list.

If I
search for a person I almost always get the wikipedia link
at the top.

because most people who search for a person are interested in their
bio, and if they're well known enough to be on wikipedia, then that's
what will be ranked at or near the top, or more accurately, on the
side.

If I search for a small business I get Yelp instead
of their own website.

not all businesses have their own website. if they do, then it will
almost certainly be at the top.

if not, then obviously, something else will, which could be yelp and
various other sites where there may be relevant information.

On 2020-06-20 7:06 p.m., Mayayana wrote:
"Alan Baker" wrote

| Here's what gets indexed by Spotlight:
|
| Everything.

But can Spotlight find it all on Windows? I use
Agent Ransack. It finds text in files, file name
segments, etc, at an amazing speed, and I don't
need indexing. Anything can quickly look up stored
data in a database, but the trouble is that such a
program has to run regularly to update its record.
That's not necessary with Agent Ransack. And best
of all, AR can find the files on Windows. I don't
have any files on a Mac.



Ah, but the database is updated continuously.

Every file creation, every modification triggers the system to re-index
the file in question.

:-)

On 2020-06-20 7:24 p.m., Paul wrote:
nospam wrote:
In article , Mayayana
wrote:

Â*Â* Anything can quickly look up stored
data in a database, but the trouble is that such a
program has to run regularly to update its record.

not true. the spotlight index is updated on the fly when files are
added, deleted or modified, without needing a periodic background
update.

Everything.exe is hooked to the NTFS journal on Windows.
It updates in real time too.

So they copied Spotlight!

Good for them!


Windows Search and its indexer are also hooked to the NTFS journal.

Agent Ransack (a brute force [free] program), doesn't
hook the journal. It doesn't keep indexes, either filename only
indexes (Everything.exe) or filename+content indexes (Windows Search).

Since FAT32 has no journal, there's nothing to hook on there, and
you're on your own (manual updates...).

Â*Â* Paul

Alan Baker wrote:

VanguardLH wrote:

Alan Baker , an obvious Linux/Mac
proselytizer posting in the wrong newsgroup, wrote:

Yousuf Khan wrote:

I'm referring mainly to Windows search, ...

I suggest you try out a modern Mac and its Spotlight facility.

That is not a solution. Does nothing to address the problem. Go
inhabit your Mac newsgroups and stop bothering those using a different
OS than your choice.

When you do something about your trolls infecting Mac newsgroups, I'll
stop posting here.

Not an excuse (except by a inane child) to prosyletize your choice of OS
in the wrong newsgroup. No one here is responsible for the trolls in
the other newsgroups you inhabit. Trolls are everywhere, and one of
self-professed ones here has the initials A.B.

Even your choice of NNTP client (Thunderbird) has filters. Learn to use
them to generate the view YOU want of Usenet. It is no one's
responsibility to define your filters for your NNTP client. Define your
own view for what *you* want to see.

No one visiting here has any control over the NNTP servers. If you want
moderated newsgroups, find those that end with ".moderated". Of course,
you won't be a moderator, so you still won't get the view of Usenet that
you want.

Using your own suggestion, setup your own NNTP server, make it publicly
accessible, learn how to do streamed peering to other NNTP servers (that
are part of Usenet and not to private NNTP servers that won't peer with
you, anyway), and then moderate it however you want. No one but you
will use it. In fact, you could use Hamster as a local NNTP server to
leech from whatever Usenet provider you want (EternalSeptember, in your
case) to which you connect your NNTP client. Hamster has lots of
filtering features.

Of course, defining filters or setting up your own leeching and filtered
NNTP server requires work. However, you still won't give up presenting
yourself here as a Mac troll.

Until then, I'll educate you about how much better it could be for you.

Nope. You'll just keep prosyletizing a choice that is not applicable.

Gee, my ashtrays are filled up. Recommendation: get a new car. Uh
huh.

And there are times when that IS a valid recommendation.

I figured that'd be the logic you'd employ considering the "solution"
you proferred here.

(To others, yeah, I know, "Don't feed the trolls." This one got 2
feedings from me. I do know how to use filters.)

Alan Baker wrote:

Mayayana wrote:

But can Spotlight find it all on Windows? I use Agent Ransack. It
finds text in files, file name segments, etc, at an amazing speed,
and I don't need indexing. Anything can quickly look up stored data
in a database, but the trouble is that such a program has to run
regularly to update its record. That's not necessary with Agent
Ransack. And best of all, AR can find the files on Windows. I don't
have any files on a Mac.

Ah, but the database is updated continuously.

Ah, you also have a reading comprehension defect, too.

pyotr filipivich wrote:

"David E. Ross" :

Rene Lamontagne wrote:

I use "Search Everything" and "Agent Ransack" exclusively.

Me too. They are both great.

Does it work on Amazon?

Windows Search, voidtools [Search] Everything and File Locator (aka
Agent Ransack) are to perform *local* searches. Unless you work at
Amazon or whomever they contract for web design, and you have access to
their web server's files, none of their files are local to you.

For Google searches, use the "site:" operator in an online search, like:

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22w...e%3Aamazon.com

For some info on how to search using Google, see:

https://ahrefs.com/blog/google-advan...rch-operators/
https://www.spyfu.com/blog/google-search-operators/

I didn't see similar functionality at DuckDuckGo.com, but I committed to
only a short scan of their web page links. Startpage submits anonymous
searches to Google, and even provides anonymized hyperlinks in the
search results to avoid a site tracking you (but not for sponsored ads
shown at Startpage). Adding the site: operator worked to get results
through Startpage from Google that were only on the amazon.com site
(again, other than the sponsored ads in the search results).

On 2020-06-20 8:01 p.m., VanguardLH wrote:
Alan Baker wrote:

Mayayana wrote:

But can Spotlight find it all on Windows? I use Agent Ransack. It
finds text in files, file name segments, etc, at an amazing speed,
and I don't need indexing. Anything can quickly look up stored data
in a database, but the trouble is that such a program has to run
regularly to update its record. That's not necessary with Agent
Ransack. And best of all, AR can find the files on Windows. I don't
have any files on a Mac.

Ah, but the database is updated continuously.

Ah, you also have a reading comprehension defect, too.


In what particular?

Alan Baker wrote:
On 2020-06-20 8:01 p.m., VanguardLH wrote:
Alan Baker wrote:

Mayayana wrote:

But can Spotlight find it all on Windows? I use Agent Ransack. It
finds text in files, file name segments, etc, at an amazing speed,
and I don't need indexing. Anything can quickly look up stored data
in a database, but the trouble is that such a program has to run
regularly to update its record. That's not necessary with Agent
Ransack. And best of all, AR can find the files on Windows. I don't
have any files on a Mac.

Ah, but the database is updated continuously.

Ah, you also have a reading comprehension defect, too.


In what particular?

Well, anything that "indexes", generally hooks the NTFS journal.

The MythicSoftware tools, there are two of them. Agent Ransack
is free and brute force (it's intended as a teaser, to
get you to buy the other one). File Locator Pro is their for-sale product,
and as far as I know, it indexes. And because it indexes, it's
going to hook the journal (this doesn't seem that hard to do,
seeing as many have succeeded at it).

Everything.exe was the one with a lot of hopes riding on it.
Initially, it could index C: in about 2 seconds (having
never seen C: before). It could do this, because it read the $MFT
directly. They're not the first, nor the last, to try that.
[Agent Ransack doesn't read the $MFT, not that I can see.
It uses FindNextFile (brute force).]

However, after a few releases, Everything.exe got the usual complaints
about "why can't we see the file size in the listing?". That
is a more expensive option, requiring a directory level scan.
And it still does that today, so the time to index all of C:
rises from 2 seconds to maybe 20 seconds. Just so you can
have file sizes. Once the initial index is generated,
individual journal events like file-adds or file-deletes,
cause the index to be updated accordingly by the Everything
service.

I haven't tried out too many of these things, and those
are some of the popular ones here. There are still people
trying to write them, for some reason.

Paul

On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 19:56:21 -0400, Paul wrote:

Windows search is prefaced on "search indexer" with "brute force scan"
as a secondary option. Vista was the best, in that the search had
a "try harder" tick box, which institionalized the notion of the
brute force filename search. Later versions are kinda lame by
comparison.

For the OP, and all with the same question, please see also:
o *Windows file name & content search freeware*
*that works better than the native Windows search tools*
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.comp.freeware/V3etp1R3kpk
--
The web searchable archive for Usenet is a wonderful way to find solutions.