Why is search so brain dead these days?

Paul wrote:
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

The fix on this page still works. My symptoms are not
a match for this, but the workaround happens to help.
This web page has been around since the latter half of 2015.

https://www.askvg.com/fix-we-are-get...in-windows-10/

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows Search
SetupCompletedSuccessfully DWORD 1 === change this to 0, to reset it

By using SetupCompletedSuccessfully DWORD 0,
it generates the index once again, but the result
seems better than clicking the "Rebuild" button.

It will trash your settings, but if you jiggle it
just right, it will finish. On a clean install
with the June Cumulative installed, it indexed
165,000 files.

Now, when I do a search, in under a second it says
"file not found". When I search for "filename:shell32.dll",
there are a ton of those in various places, so it does
locate the places I asked it to index. I have most of
C: enabled, including C:\Windows folder.

Paul

On 6/20/2020 7:06 PM, Rene Lamontagne wrote:
I use "Search Everything" andÂ* "Agent Ransack" exclusively. sorry

Well, I use Agent Ransack too, and it's also been known to miss a few
things.

Yousuf Khan

Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 6/20/2020 7:06 PM, Rene Lamontagne wrote:
I use "Search Everything" and "Agent Ransack" exclusively. sorry

Well, I use Agent Ransack too, and it's also been known to miss a few
things.

Yousuf Khan

Did it miss things because of a permissions problem ?

For fun, you could try the following.

1) Make a Macrium backup of C:
2) Mount the .mrimg file, ticking the box that removes
file permissions (specifically intended to give you access
to more of the volume, for fetching out the file you wanted
from the backup). Let's say you make this drive M:
3) Now, use Agent Ransack. Do a search against C:, miss the file.
Do a search against M: . Do you see the file now ?

Paul

On 2020-06-20 9:19 p.m., Paul wrote:
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.

Except for other OSes that don't use NTFS.

Mac OS uses a hook into the file system calls to trigger the metadata
server that file needs to be re-indexed. What's more, developers can add
specific importers for the files their software creates so that
Spotlight can index them seamlessly

And it all happens continuously

Next.


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.

Still not seeing how I failed of reading comprehension.

Yes: if you hook up a Windows formatted disk to a Mac, you can get
spotlight to index it and it will perform its usual continuous indexing
process.

On 2020-06-20 9:21 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
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


And almost as well as what you get as standard with Mac OS.

:-)

"Paul" wrote

| 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...).
|
I disable indexing. I don't see any reason
to enable so much excess disk activity. As I
said, Agent Ransack doesn't use an index and
it's still almost instant. But I also don't use it
constantly. With most things I know where they
are. For someone who has no idea where things
are stored, indexing may be useful.

"VanguardLH" wrote

\ 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.

He's an AppleSeed. Their knowledge consists of
marketing nuggets from Lord Jobs and disciple-in-chief
Timmy Cook. They'll always have a comeback because
Apple marketing has trained them in how to believe that
Macs are better than anything else in the world. I
wouldn't be surprised if Advanced AppleSeed Training
includes a specific list of answers for Windows doubters,
just like any good cult has:

Q: "But I can use any one of 4 free programs on Windows
to do XYZ. What about Macs?"

A1: "The Apple version only costs $70 and it's much better."

A2 (inspired by Linux fanatics): "If you can't do it on a Mac
then you don't need it."

"VanguardLH" wrote

| 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.

This is actually another symptom of AppleSeed
indoctrination. Since they're a cult they assume
Windows users are a cult. They also see the hardware
as part of the product. That's why so many of them
refer to "Wintel". Macs are maybe 8% of the market,
but most Mac users see it as a clash of the titans.
Their monolithic device provider, Apple, vs the opposing,
monolithic device provider, Wintel. So, while we mostly
don't think about Macs, because there's simply no
reason to, they're constantly thinking about Wintel,
their imagined competitor. So Alan thinks the plural
"you" is attacking the AppleSeed home base.

On 6/20/2020 7:56 PM, 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.

The thing is that single Unix "find" command was so much faster and more
powerful than all of these current search programs. They can't even
search through something with the benefit of an index nearly as fast or
as accurately as find without an index.

I recall there were various find-like utilities for searching under DOS
that were just as simple, powerful, and fast. Now it's all messed up. I
even saw an episode of Linus Tech Tips which they were complaining about
how stupid the Windows search is. Search should be simple, what did they
need to go modifying it for?

Yousuf Khan

On 6/20/2020 9:15 PM, VanguardLH 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.

Perhaps you did not configure Windows Search to include the C:\Program
Files and C:\Program Files (x86) folders (and their subfolders), or add
whatever folders contain the "virtual"-named files you expect to find.

No, everything is included.

Yousuf Khan

In article , Yousuf Khan
wrote:

The thing is that single Unix "find" command was so much faster and more
powerful than all of these current search programs. They can't even
search through something with the benefit of an index nearly as fast or
as accurately as find without an index.

unix find is not fast, especially compared to something with an index.

On 6/20/2020 6:06 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*Â*Yousuf Khan

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

Rene



Thanks for the info.
As one who recently did a search that found close to nothing, I am happy
withe the much improved results using the free version of Agent Ransack.

On 6/21/2020 9:28 AM, nospam wrote:
unix find is not fast, especially compared to something with an index.

Depends on how much you restricted its search parameters.

Yousuf Khan

On 6/20/2020 10:11 PM, Paul wrote:
The test was done on Win10-2004 x64.
I already have results and... not good.

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

2) The controls are broken.

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

Â*Â* 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.

Â*Â* Paul

Yup, this is my point all along, something that should be damn near
no-brain, has been turned into brain-dead.

Yousuf Khan

On 21.06.20 15:27, Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 6/20/2020 7:56 PM, 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.

The thing is that single Unix "find" command was so much faster and more
powerful than all of these current search programs. They can't even
search through something with the benefit of an index nearly as fast or
as accurately as find without an index.

I recall there were various find-like utilities for searching under DOS
that were just as simple, powerful, and fast. Now it's all messed up. I
even saw an episode of Linus Tech Tips which they were complaining about
how stupid the Windows search is. Search should be simple, what did they
need to go modifying it for?

Yousuf Khan

My guess: M$ does not want the "Median" user inside its installation info.
So they block and confuse. I think they are succeeding.