Why is search so brain dead these days?

On 6/20/2020 10:30 PM, T wrote:
Hi Yousuf,

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

That is my point. There used to search utilities under DOS that worked
much better than this.

Yousuf Khan

On 6/21/2020 10:25 AM, Sjouke Burry wrote:
My guess: M$ does not want the "Median" user inside its installation info.
So they block and confuse. I think they are succeeding.

I'm not even looking for Microsoft's ****ty files, just stuff in my own
save folders.

Yousuf Khan

In article , Yousuf Khan
wrote:

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

Depends on how much you restricted its search parameters.

nope. it's always going to be slower than something that uses an index.

On 6/21/2020 8:38 AM, philo wrote:
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
with the much improved results using the free version of Agent Ransack.



Ransack : 52 hits in ten minutes

From Explorer, after one hour , four hits...search nowhere near complete

Yousuf Khan wrote:

T wrote:

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

That is my point. There used to search utilities under DOS that
worked much better than this.

You mean running the 'dir' command? You can still do that in a command
shell (cmd.exe). For example, you could run:

dir {parms} %temp%\dirlist.txt & notepad %temp%\dirlist.txt

to see the dir output using Notepad instead of scrolling around inside
the command shell (assuming you allocated enough buffer lines in the
command shell to accomodate all lines of output from the dir command).

If you want something a bit more legible for output, use the 'tree'
command instead of 'dir' to get a tree listing of files, like:

tree {parms} /f %temp%\treelist.txt & notepad %temp%\treelist.txt

Those are just folder/file listers. If you want to find something from
their output, pipe the stdout from the listers into the 'find' command.

Although you think DOS had better search tools, how many users do you
know (outside of those working for software companies) that know how to
use the DOS command line and either all the external commands (programs)
or the internal commands (inside of command.com or cmd.exe)? Then
realize that only a small percentage of those know how to write batch
files or multi-part command lines.

philo wrote:

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



Ransack : 52 hits in ten minutes

From Explorer, after one hour , four hits...search nowhere near complete

I had to use a registry setting on a *clean* 2004 install, to
get the search to Index properly!

Behavior like that has apparently been around since the year 2015.

Paul

Yousuf Khan wrote:

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.

By default, not everything is included under the system drive (normally
the C: drive), like the C:\Windows folder. Although I've included more
subfolders, I don't include everything under the C: drive.

If the files you were looking for were .exe filetypes, is the .exe
filetype included as one of those that Windows Search hunts for (the
Indexing Options - Advanced - Filetypes tab)? Are any locations
listed as exclusions?

When you view the Indexing Options dialog, does it say "Indexing in
progress"? How long does it take when you Rebuild the index database,
or does it hang? I've read where a corrupted file can hang the
indexing, so run "chkdsk c: /r". Did you include temp and download
folders in the target locations? Those could have changing files at the
time of indexing. Unfinished files are, by definition, considered
corrupted and can hang the indexing.

Do you use MS Outlook as your e-mail client? If so, is it configured to
incorporate Windows Search? If you use POP accounts, a PST file could
be corrupt, especially if the message store was allowed to exceed the
maximum size of the .pst file, so you have to run scanpst.exe to repair.
If you don't want to scan your e-mails using Windows Search, and the
regular (inbuilt) search within Outlook is sufficient for you to find
e-mails in its message stores, deselect Outlook as a target in Indexing
Options.

Did you check the state of the Windows Search service? Should be
startup = Automatic and status = Running.

A lot of search links in Windows rely on using the Bing service. Users
have found they can get empty search results until they disable the Bing
integration with Windows Search. I disabled Bing integration soon after
I did a fresh install of Windows 10. I don't remember if I did the
regedit hack or used a tweaker.

HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\Curre ntVersion\Search
Data item: BingSearchEnabled (if not present, create DWORD 32bit)
Data value: 1 = enabled, 0 = disabled.

Windows Search will then only return local search results, and not
attempt to connect out to Microsoft's Bing service.

Windows Search has a troubleshooter (although I've found them to rarely
fix a problem): Settings - Update & Security - Troubleshoot, scroll
down to "Find and fix other problems" section, and select the "search
and indexing" option. For the problem, select "Files don't appear in
search results".

On 2020-06-21 6:27 a.m., 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.

Ummmm... ...no.

'The find utility recursively descends the directory tree for each path
listed, evaluating an expression (composed of the ``primaries'' and
``operands'' listed below) in terms of each file in the tree.'

There is no way a recursive directory search of an entire drive will be
faster than an indexed search.



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?

Hey! This is Microsoft!

Yousuf Khan wrote:

I recall there were various find-like utilities for searching under
DOS that were just as simple, powerful, and fast.

Well, that means you used 3rd party search tools under DOS. Why are you
averse to using 3rd party search tools under Windows? If the built-in
Windows tools don't work for you, use something else. If MS-Paint won't
do everything you want, move to something else (many are free), like
Paint.NET or GIMP. If you find the Win10 UWP Mail and Calendar apps to
be too limp, get a better e-mail and calendaring app (many are free).

Windows Search isn't working for you. Use something else that does work.
Lots of free and robust choices.

On 2020-06-21 5:55 a.m., Mayayana wrote:
"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."



Simple fact:

You've all been complaining about Window's search functionality.

Mac OS has a search that works really, really well.

:-)

On 2020-06-21 6:02 a.m., Mayayana wrote:
"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.



LOL!

On 2020-06-21 7:22 a.m., Yousuf Khan wrote:
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.

Â*Â*Â*Â*Yousuf Khan

No.. ...it does not.

On 2020-06-21 7:42 a.m., philo wrote:
On 6/21/2020 8:38 AM, philo wrote:
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 with the much improved results using the free version of Agent
Ransack.



Ransack : 52 hits in ten minutes

From Explorer, after one hour , four hits...search nowhere near complete

Spotlight: all the hits on the entire drive in 15 seconds.

On Sun, 21 Jun 2020 08:48:31 -0400, Mayayana wrote:

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.

It's in the other thread, but with respect to "indexing", the WSL "locate"
command works instantly to find Windows files, but it too requires an index
(i.e., updatedb).

That "updatedb" index can be scheduled to run nightly, if desired.
o The "locate" command will work on whatever is the current index.

For command-line searches, WSL has the _huge_ advantage of piping to grep,
sed, awk, etc..

See details in this thread for setting up WSL in a handful of commands:
o *Tutorial for setting up Ubuntu as a Windows Subsystem for Linux WSL in Windows 10*
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.comp.freeware/rOT8xBWo9dk

See details in this thread for running searches using non-Windows freewa
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
--
Every post to Usenet archives should help someone now & in the future.

On 6/21/20 11:01 AM, Paul wrote:
philo wrote:

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



Ransack : 52 hits in ten minutes

Â*From Explorer, after one hour , four hits...search nowhere near complete

I had to use a registry setting on a *clean* 2004 install, to
get the search to Index properly!

Behavior like that has apparently been around since the year 2015.

Â*Â* Paul



Sure recall how "search" used to do such a good job of sorting by date too