Why is Everybody so clueless on the importance of Desktop Search to the Masses?



  • Woot! Number 400 FTW!



  • So basically, he was trying to create an entire filesystem in single file within a file system.

    Maybe this was what he meant by there being no need for an OS. Even the source code itself is an example of this innovation. It just needed more work.



  • @aythun said:

    So basically, he was trying to create an entire filesystem in single file within a file system.

    Maybe this was what he meant by there being no need for an OS. Even the source code itself is an example of this innovation. It just needed more work.

    I for one, welcome our new VB6 OS masters.



  • @belgariontheking said:

    So let's pick on his icon now!

     



    Until MPS enlarged it, I thought it was George Michael...



  • A Search Showdown is the only way

     

    All my emails are in 2 files. Inmail.txt and outmail.txt. Not much difference if it was 50,000 word documents. They never get printed or sent again. Why not combine them after you have done a Backup of the originals to DVD. Dump the files to text and merge them. You directory with that many files in it, has to be a bit much to look at. And slow.

    The initial reason behind the merge was that the directory lookup was so slow. To just find all the txt files on C drive took a minute or more. So instead. I created a Merge. Any good search needs a merge/append. The start and end of each file is in the combined file. So when search finds a match. I know which file it came from and display it in the form border. The file name is generally useless, unless your are searching source code. 

    Combining files allows me to easily share all my info. Once there is a Mac and Linux version of the search. Then the OS won't matter to me. Right now I'm stuck with Windows.

    When your search has a replace option and can run as a background jobs. How hard is it to create a simple accounting system. Update the info using a background job running the replace option. When you deal with nothing but plain text. It's simple to make fixes with an editor. Having a databases makes it's a whole different matter. The average person on the street can understand most of what I talk about. And probably non from this bunch. This search is for the masses. They will use it and be far ahead of the naysayers when it comes to being in control of their data. Again Me and my Swampies would kick all your butts in a Search Engine Showdown

    The SourceForge.net site takes two or 3 days to approve a project. See some of you there.



  • HE'S BACK!



  • I really don't have anything to add to the conversation, but this is one of the longest threads I've ever seen here. I just wanted to be a part of it.

    {Thankfully, we don't have Slashdot-style mods here! :) }



  • Man, [url=http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&safe=off&client=opera&rls=en&hs=Qsx&resnum=0&q=zack+galifianakis&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi]Zack Galifianakis[/url]'s jokes have gotten really weird.

    (Kudos to Google for deciphering my first attempt at "Galifianakis".)



  • @SpectateSwamp said:

    Any good search needs a merge/append.

    Actually, yours is the *only* 'search' that needs it.  Because you cannot make it handle a bunch of files.

    @SpectateSwamp said:

    The file name is generally useless, unless your are searching source code.

    And what happens when you found the filename?  How do you look up the original filename where the source code is you need to change?

    Google Desktop Search, Windows Desktop Search and others tell me in which files they can find whatever i'm looking for, in many file formats, ánd make it easy for me to open the files in which my lookup is, to edit them right away.  Within one minute, I go from searching a piece of code to modifying the original file.  Any file.

    @SpectateSwamp said:

    Combining files allows me to easily share all my info.

    If you need to share everything.  What happens if you only want to share one email?  One letter you wrote?

    @SpectateSwamp said:

    When your search has a replace option and can run as a background jobs. How hard is it to create a simple accounting system.

    According to what I see, it is very hard for you to even build a simple text string search.

    @SpectateSwamp said:

    Having a databases makes it's a whole different matter. The average person on the street can understand most of what I talk about.

    The difference is, that in proper search applications, the average person does not need to know about indexing, metadata and all that crap.  He or she just types in whatever they are looking for, click a button, and wait a few seconds for results to show up all over their system, on the internet, in their email and everywhere.  And by clicking on one of the results, the average person has direct access to the original file, web site or email.

    @SpectateSwamp said:

    This search is for the masses. They will use it and be far ahead of the naysayers when it comes to being in control of their data.

    My dad's quite computer illiterate.  He says your 'search' is a piece of junk.  He doesn't know anything about programming, and gives a blank stare as I try to explain the  processes any search has.  But he enjoys the fact that he can use a point-and-click interface and just type in the word he's looking for, instead of some dark screen with weird commands.

    @SpectateSwamp said:

    Again Me and my Swampies would kick all your butts in a Search Engine Showdown

    Actually, you didn't accept our challenge.  We defined a test spec, did the test on a few Desktop Search programs, and you responded with "woo look at me looking at random movies out of my Desktop Search!".

    In effect, every time my dad uses a proper search, he is kicking your butt.  My dad.  Probably as old as you are.



  • @SpectateSwamp said:

    To just find all the txt files on C drive took a minute or more.

    That's why proper tools use some background indexing algorithm.

    @SpectateSwamp said:

     

    Once there is a Mac and Linux version of the search. Then the OS won't matter to me. Right now I'm stuck with Windows.

    And you will continue to be, as VB 6 is only available on Windows... Also, your code probably won't be ported to any other language, as a) nobody seems to be interested, b) nobody cares to even try to fully understand your code and c) you would not get a word of what's going on in the new version, if someone actually ported it somewhere...

    @SpectageSwamp said:

     

    When you deal with nothing but plain text. It's simple to make fixes with an editor.

    When you deal with a proper search tool it is not necessary to fix anything. Also, when dealing with plain text files only, there's no need for your application - I can simply use notepad or whatever there is. But that (as mostly everything you keep repeating) has been pointed out before...

    @SpectateSwamp said:

     

    The average person on the street can understand most of what I talk about.

    No. The average person on the street gives a shit for what you talk about! They don't even want to know how a search program works. They just want to know: "Type your search term here, view results there". That's it. How far can someone be from reality? And by the way: My girlfriend is a teacher who doesn't know a thing about computer programming really. If I told her: "Look, this tool here searches your harddisk in the background and remembers terms you might want to search for. If you now type a search term it is very quick in displaying all the files containing the search term and thus makes it very easy to find things." she would understand what I'm saying - but she would not really care. Still she would like the tool as it makes her life easier. So it doesn't matter what you explain, it all depends on how you explain things to people. So the entire "Databases are too hard to explain"-discussion is BS really, as people don't need/want to know about the inner workings of a tool. If I need to tell them how the program works internally, the program is bad - or the person is really interested in programming.

    @SpectateSwamp said:

    Again Me and my Swampies would kick all your butts in a Search Engine Showdown

    I just downloaded Copernic Desktop Search two day ago. I like this program personally, but what I'm going to say will probably apply to most proper Desktop Search applications out there (please note: I want to stretch that I'm not talking about your tool here!).

    • It creates the search index in the background. This took about an hour on my system - how long would it take to create your merged files manually for a full 250GB drive?
    • The index is updated automatically in the background for changed files only - how long ... well, I don't need to ask.
    • Now when I enter a search term it takes about 2 to 5 seconds and I get a list of all search results, sorted by file/object type (email, video, text, music, ...). Clicking an entry in the list shows me the file/object. For text files it even jumps to the first line matching my search term. I wonder how long your search takes?
    Sorry, you failed...

    @SpectateSwamp said:

     

    The SourceForge.net site takes two or 3 days to approve a project. See some of you there.

    *sings* Dream oooon.... 



  • @R.Flowers said:

    I really don't have anything to add to the conversation, but this is one of the longest threads I've ever seen here. I just wanted to be a part of it.

    {Thankfully, we don't have Slashdot-style mods here! :) }

     

    I second that emotion. I've just read through the whole thing, and it feels like a landmark moment in trolling history.

     

    The only explanation I can think of for the existance of this software is that SpectateSwamp is BOTH an incompetent misguided narcissistic programmer AND an obsessive troll, ie, he's completely batshit crazy. Even after reading 9 pages of arguments about this SwampSearch thingy, I've still only got the vaguest of ideas of what it actually does.

     

    ...it selects and runs a random file from somewhere on your machine, right? Whilst scrolling political messages on the screen. Awesome. Bring on the next OMGWTF, this guy's destined for greatness. 



  • @SpectateSwamp said:

    The initial reason behind the merge was that the directory lookup was so slow. To just find all the txt files on C drive took a minute or more. So instead. I created a Merge. Any good search needs a merge/append. The start and end of each file is in the combined file. So when search finds a match. I know which file it came from and display it in the form border. The file name is generally useless, unless your are searching source code. 

    I find this as a very interesting insight into how you program.

    I'm familiar with directory searches in code, done quite a few myself (vb6 as well as C++).  And when there were problems with performance, it was always (ALWAYS) something I did.  Such as appending to a string inside a for loop (so that it got created and copied with every loop).  When I realized those mistakes and made the appropriate changes, performance wasn't an issue.

     But instead of looking at how to make your code better (a basic premise of Open Source) you just decided to duct-tape together some solution to make it work right there.  And I'm using the work 'work' very loosely, as in 'meets the requirements' with no understanding of how good (or in this case, bad) the requirements were. -- General difference between "programming" and "developing" software



  • Removing proprietary formatting for text FREES your data.


     

    Sorry about explaining the Desktop Search so poorly.

     

    I'll do much better. I'm one of few who really uses desktop search. Been doing it since the mid 80's. Way way more notes and searching than anybody I knew or came across in computing. The value of this tool is incredible. So many other options are possible. Even though it does everything I want. My wants are simple. Keep my data safe, available and sharable.

     


    I'll create templates for each and every interesting option.


     



  • @SpectateSwamp said:


     

    Sorry about explaining the Desktop Search so poorly.

     

    I'll do much better. I'm one of few who really uses desktop search. Been doing it since the mid 80's. Way way more notes and searching than anybody I knew or came across in computing. The value of this tool is incredible. So many other options are possible. Even though it does everything I want. My wants are simple. Keep my data safe, available and sharable.

     


    I'll create templates for each and every interesting option.


     

    Here we go again... The troll feeding himself?
     



  • I know most of you guys see him as a troll but I'm just wondering: is it only for the code or for the person?

    When I first saw the code I was like "oh shit wtf is this", but the idea is good (being able to search, that's what google is all about and they do make a lot of money with it).

    Most of them use an index, and it is because searching your hard drive each time is slow, but an index also has its problems: being out-of-date for example.

    So by his idea isn't that stupid (how many games use pak files or something similiar...)

     

    So my conclusion is: good idea, bad implementation.



  • Re: Spectate Swamp is an inbred retard

    @XIU said:

    I know most of you guys see him as a troll but I'm just wondering: is it only for the code or for the person?

    When I first saw the code I was like "oh shit wtf is this", but the idea is good (being able to search, that's what google is all about and they do make a lot of money with it).

    Most of them use an index, and it is because searching your hard drive each time is slow, but an index also has its problems: being out-of-date for example.

    So by his idea isn't that stupid (how many games use pak files or something similiar...)

     

    So my conclusion is: good idea, bad implementation.

    Obviously you haven't read more than a post or two... Or your reading comprehension leaves something to be desired.

    SpectateSwamp is not advocating searching. He is advocating storing all of your data in a huge text file, so that his text file search utility (read: horrible replacement for notepad's find command) can look for the text.

    He is advocating  a complete reversal of all good computing principles, as well as other sound ideas like video editing.

    His idea IS that stupid.



  • -- Delete timeout + Edit fluke = AHHHHH! --



  • The idea is desktop search, the implementation is manually making your index :P



  • @XIU said:

    The idea is desktop search, the implementation is manually making your index :P

    No it really isn't. I invite you reread the entire thread carefully this time.

    'Desktop search' would involve iterating through multiple files on your HD. He is clearly advocating a single text file to search, and multiple 'control' text files that will handle all the options. He is actually stating that everyone else is wrong for using more than one file on their computer.

    I know you want to be a nice guy and defend him, but he is too far gone. Let it go.



  • @XIU said:

    I know most of you guys see him as a troll but I'm just wondering: is it only for the code or for the person?

    When I first saw the code I was like "oh shit wtf is this", but the idea is good (being able to search, that's what google is all about and they do make a lot of money with it).

    Most of them use an index, and it is because searching your hard drive each time is slow, but an index also has its problems: being out-of-date for example.

    So by his idea isn't that stupid (how many games use pak files or something similiar...)

     

    So my conclusion is: good idea, bad implementation.

    Please note the meaning of "troll" as it is used here: A person stating completely stupid, outrageous, offensive etc. stuff just to create a reaction. So there are several things to note:

    I don't know the guy personally. Maybe he is even nice as a person? Don't know, don't care, but from what I can read here he is either a complete idiot (in the sense of "doesn't get what you're saying") or a troll as defined above, as he

    1. Never properly answers any questions directed at him (not even technical questions)
    2. Keeps repeating the same stuff over and over even if you tell him that you're not interested
    3. Claims to have written the greatest search tool ever without any kind of proof (Channel9-people set up a testing scenario for him to run his tool on while they were doing the same with other search tools and he even failed to do that), while he writes the shittiest code I've ever seen since my GW-BASIC days.
    4. ...

    Searching itself is not a bad idea, but the way he does it is just the most fucked up thing somebody could ever come up with. This, combined with the fact that he doesn't listen to people who obviously know things better, combined with the fact that he keeps reiterating his stupid, 30 years behind blabla, combined with the fact that he keeps projecting onto other people the fact he doesn't get any of this and turns it into "you're just too stupid. or ignorant. to get what I'm saying" makes me just say WTF.

    Still I'm eager to see (and contribute to) the point where he's so tied up in his contradictory statements that he'll have to admit that bringing his project to SourceForge was the worst idea ever.

     



  • Spectate Swamp is an inbred retard (NOT)


    Thanks for being open minded XIU

    Indentation and multiple modules don't make a good program. It is the results that count. Everybody is complaining about how bad the code is. I expected as much. But nobody complained it was TOO complex. That is because I made it as simple as I could. Almost anybody will be able to look at the code and find out what it is doing. Activate a print statement here and there to see more details as they happen. This program has changed and evolved lots. That is part of the reason it seems a little disorganized. A change in 2 or 3 place 30 times over can do that.

    Lots of programmers make their code very difficult for others to understand. I strive to keep it simple. That way I can come in and make changes / additions to code done 7 or 8 years before. I have a hard enough time remembering details from yesterday. So I needed it simple.

    I don't advocate taking all files and deleting them after merging them into 1 huge file. It's just that I don't see a need having the originals anywhere but on a DVD Few if any of these reports / memos will ever see the light of day. So why clutter up your directory with them. Plain silly.

    As for me coming in and being a shit disturber. You bet I am. I knew few if any would be doing SEARCH the way I am. So I came to TECHIE forums knowing there would be resistance. In doing so. Some of the respondents summed up what I'm doing better than I could. Ie Spectate Swamp Desktop Search and simple text files make a "Poor Man's DataBase" And a very portable DataBase at that. I like portability. It's right up there with simplicity in importance. I don't put much emphasis on indentation and the number of GoTo's or lack thereof.

    I've answered lots of questions. There are some with 1 or 2 good questions and 8 or 9 that aren't worth mentioning. So I skip them. From now on I'll try answer those that are valid. In return ANSWER My questions too. Ie 50,000 documents and you need them seperate for what? How on Earth can you have read all the data some of you have collected. When a lifetimes reading fits on a DVD. HOW. Why would you keep and archive this information? It only makes your info harder to find. That's all.

     



  • @SpectateSwamp said:

    ANSWER My questions too. Ie 50,000 documents and you need them seperate for what? How on Earth can you have read all the data some of you have collected. When a lifetimes reading fits on a DVD. HOW. Why would you keep and archive this information? It only makes your info harder to find. That's all.

    Because in order to get to "financials_2007.doc" I don't want to have to go through all my pokemon fanfics.  If I forget where my "financials_2007.doc" is, I can use windows' find utility to find it because I remember the FILE NAME, or most of it.  Even if I don't remember the exact filename, I have a decent idea where it could be by going to "My Documents" and scanning (visually) the "budget" or "money" folder.  I do not have to remember any of the content.

    Furthermore, say I want to edit "financials_2008.doc."  You advocate putting it on DVD (an uneditable medium).  Say I get a raise or my insurance rates go up mid-year.  I have to recreate the file from your gargantuan conglomeration of all my files, edit it, then re-import it into the conglomeration.

    Keep in mind it's a lot quicker to search through 50,000 FILE NAMES than the CONTENTS of 50,000 files.  A life's reading fitting on a DVD has nothing to do with that.   



  • @SpectateSwamp said:

    Indentation and multiple modules don't make a good program.

    Maybe not a good program, but good design and maintainability. I'm not saying "The more modules, the better the design", but I do say "Lots of functions, only one module? Bad design".

    @SpectateSwamp said:

    Everybody is complaining about how bad the code is. I expected as much. But nobody complained it was TOO complex.

    That's just because it would be too much unnecessary work trying to understand your code. People who name variables aaa, aaaa, and aaa1 should be shot. Or at least be forced to do a one month "How to name variables" training.

    @SpectateSwamp said:

    Almost anybody will be able to look at the code and find out what it is doing.

    I've tried. I didn't get it. Maybe 18 yrs of experience in multiple programming languages are just not enough to get how <sarcasm>sophisticated that work of art</sarcasm> really is.

    @SpectateSwamp said:

    I don't put much emphasis on indentation and the number of GoTo's or lack thereof.

    Wrong. In more than one post you stated that using GOTOs is just the way to go, GOTO is your friend, use nothing else but GOTO. Oh, you mean you put more emphasis on the quality of the software? Well, part of quality software is quality code. Especially if you feel the need to publish it to Open Source. Period.

    @SpectateSwamp said:

    There are some with 1 or 2 good questions and 8 or 9 that aren't worth mentioning. So I skip them. From now on I'll try answer those that are valid.

    So what are the criteria for a good question? Only questions that show a faint interest in "getting clued into Desktop Search" are valid? Questions about why the design is so bad, why you resist to take any good advice, etc. are invalid?

    @SpectateSwamp said:

    In return ANSWER My questions too.

    Sure. Let me check whether your questions are valid....

    @SpectateSwamp said:

    Ie 50,000 documents and you need them seperate for what?

    Because

    1. merging documents is a stupid idea
    2. some documents can not be merged
    3. you need to send documents to people
    4. etc...

    Maybe they are of different document types. Let me explain the news you seem to have missed. There's video, there's audio, there's plain text, there's pictures, there is even formatted text! You can't merge audio and plain text. You WANT formatted text (i.e. manuals, diploma thesis, etc.) - extracting the plain text all the time is foolish! Have you ever tried merging formatted text and video? I'd like to see that.

    @SpectateSwamp said:

    How on Earth can you have read all the data some of you have collected. When a lifetimes reading fits on a DVD. HOW.

    Well, you know, you don't wake up to suddenly find 50.000 files on your computer. They keep coming in, you know? So, if a new document arrives, you read it/listen to it/watch it/whatever, and then you decide whether you want to keep it or not. That how sane people work. Of course, some of the documents I've created myself, too! Of course I keep them for reference purposes! Of course I don't merge them, because I sometimes need the original document! That's it. You get it? (Is that a valid question?)

    @SpectateSwamp said:

    Why would you keep and archive this information?

    • References purposes
    • Nostalgic reasons
    • Because you don't trash music you bought
    • Because you don't trash the CD archive you've worked on so hard
    • ....

    @SpectateSwamp said:

    It only makes your info harder to find. That's all.

    No, I've never spent time searching for anything. A proper folder structure does magic, you know? I know that some people still haven't realized that you can actually use more than 8 characters for folder and files names, but most people have. So create a proper folder structure and store your documents in the right places with appropriate names and you'll never have a problem. Those who failed to create a proper structure or need to search for file content as well can can choose from the following (incomplete and Windows-only) list: 

    • Google Desktop
    • Copernic Desktop Search
    • Windows Search 
    • Similar software on Windows, MacOS, Linux, whatever you're using

    I bet that I need less time putting my files into the right folders than it takes you to copy the file to your drive, rename it according your weird naming convention and manually update your Desktop Search index text file. I understand your need for your desktop search application: A person that names his video clips clip0001.mpg to clip9999.mpg is sure to lose track of what's on the drive and what's not.

    I guess I'm more in control of my data than you'll ever be...



  • @SpectateSwamp said:

    Indentation and multiple modules don't make a good program. It is the results that count. Everybody is complaining about how bad the code is. I expected as much. But nobody complained it was TOO complex. That is because I made it as simple as I could. Almost anybody will be able to look at the code and find out what it is doing. Activate a print statement here and there to see more details as they happen. This program has changed and evolved lots. That is part of the reason it seems a little disorganized. A change in 2 or 3 place 30 times over can do that.

    Lots of programmers make their code very difficult for others to understand. I strive to keep it simple. That way I can come in and make changes / additions to code done 7 or 8 years before. I have a hard enough time remembering details from yesterday. So I needed it simple.

     Here's the funny thing.  You advocate keeping it simple (which I'm all for) and and at the same time talk about evolution of the program.  If the code was written like people here are suggesting, using modules etc, you wouldn't increase complexity unless you wanted to.  My first project out of college was on a team of developers working with over 1500 C++ source files.  The program has been around for almost 15 years now.  It has a new version released every 4 months with new features (not just bug fixes.)  Yet I could open that code, and see one function that was changed 10, 20 or 30+ times and still be able to read it and know what was going on.

    If you write your code the right way, then the number of places that would need code changes would go down.  For example, if you had some function that assigned a string to a variable, you would only need to change that function and not every place that assigns a string.

     Also, if you apply some kind of coding standards, then you can come back to code written 7 or 8 years ago and still know what it's doing.  I know because I've done that.  I've gone to code that was written by someone else 8 years ago, and understood what they were doing (even though they were no longer with the company.)  It wasn't a matter of me remembering what the code did (because I didn't write it etc.) 

    So the methods and techniques that people are mentioning here are actually designed to help with maintaining code. 

    I don't advocate taking all files and deleting them after merging them into 1 huge file. It's just that I don't see a need having the originals anywhere but on a DVD Few if any of these reports / memos will ever see the light of day. So why clutter up your directory with them. Plain silly.

    As for me coming in and being a shit disturber. You bet I am. I knew few if any would be doing SEARCH the way I am. So I came to TECHIE forums knowing there would be resistance. In doing so. Some of the respondents summed up what I'm doing better than I could. Ie Spectate Swamp Desktop Search and simple text files make a "Poor Man's DataBase" And a very portable DataBase at that. I like portability. It's right up there with simplicity in importance. I don't put much emphasis on indentation and the number of GoTo's or lack thereof.

    I've answered lots of questions. There are some with 1 or 2 good questions and 8 or 9 that aren't worth mentioning. So I skip them. From now on I'll try answer those that are valid. In return ANSWER My questions too. Ie 50,000 documents and you need them seperate for what? How on Earth can you have read all the data some of you have collected. When a lifetimes reading fits on a DVD. HOW. Why would you keep and archive this information? It only makes your info harder to find. That's all.

    I need separate documents because when I open up a specification or design document, I don't want to open up ever design document I've ever read, just to look at a minor point on the project I'm working on.

    Also, "Poor Man's Database" is not a compliment, here's why.  There are several free databases that are available for use.  This provides the following benefits: 1) Free -- even the "poor man" can afford it 2) Delegation -- it allows you to write the code that is important for your application.  I've never written database code, or simulated a database with something else. Why?  Because my customers care about the data I'm providing and don't care how I store it.   So I let somone else figure out how to store it and I take their work and use it. 



  • @SpectateSwamp said:

    Indentation and multiple modules don't make a good program.

    Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that many modern IDE's have a "format code" function which will format your code for you.  Unfortunately for you, SpectateSwamp, it will not make your code better.  For all I know, though, you're writing VB code in notepad.  



  • Re: Spectate Swamp is an inbred retard

    @SpectateSwamp said:


    Indentation and multiple modules don't make a good program. It is the results that count. Everybody is complaining about how bad the code is. I expected as much. But nobody complained it was TOO complex. That is because I made it as simple as I could. Almost anybody will be able to look at the code and find out what it is doing. Activate a print statement here and there to see more details as they happen. This program has changed and evolved lots. That is part of the reason it seems a little disorganized. A change in 2 or 3 place 30 times over can do that.

    Lots of programmers make their code very difficult for others to understand. I strive to keep it simple. That way I can come in and make changes / additions to code done 7 or 8 years before. I have a hard enough time remembering details from yesterday. So I needed it simple.

    This is absolute horseshit.  Avoiding structure, placing random GOTOs, using random line numbers for variable names, to name three things, do not make for simple and easy-to-follow code. You yourself admitted that this was spaghetti code, that only spaghetti code worked in many situations.   How can it be spaghetti code, simple, and easy to follow all at the same time?

    I'm calling you out, that you are completely full of shit, and taking us for a ride here.  Nobody could actually believe the things you post. 



  • Thread. Just. Won't. Die.



  • The ClueLess don't know HorseShit

    @shadowman said:

    @SpectateSwamp said:

    Indentation and multiple modules don't make a good program. It is the results that count. Everybody is complaining about how bad the code is. I expected as much. But nobody complained it was TOO complex. That is because I made it as simple as I could. Almost anybody will be able to look at the code and find out what it is doing. Activate a print statement here and there to see more details as they happen. This program has changed and evolved lots. That is part of the reason it seems a little disorganized. A change in 2 or 3 place 30 times over can do that.

    Lots of programmers make their code very difficult for others to understand. I strive to keep it simple. That way I can come in and make changes / additions to code done 7 or 8 years before. I have a hard enough time remembering details from yesterday. So I needed it simple.

    This is absolute horseshit.  Avoiding structure, placing random GOTOs, using random line numbers for variable names, to name three things, do not make for simple and easy-to-follow code. You yourself admitted that this was spaghetti code, that only spaghetti code worked in many situations.   How can it be spaghetti code, simple, and easy to follow all at the same time?

    I'm calling you out, that you are completely full of shit, and taking us for a ride here.  Nobody could actually believe the things you post. 

    You don't know horseshit. Write a search engine that does half what this one does. If you can. Go ahead show me something worthwhile that you have done that is simplified by your method of coding. Can others extend it? Can others understand it. There isn't too much difficult about this code. Except the line wrap and hi-lite logic and I flowcharted that for you.



  • @SpectateSwamp said:

    You don't know horseshit. Write a search engine that does half what this one does. If you can. Go ahead show me something worthwhile that you have done that is simplified by your method of coding. Can others extend it? Can others understand it. There isn't too much difficult about this code. Except the line wrap and hi-lite logic and I flowcharted that for you.

    GNU Regular Expression Parser


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @rc_pinchey said:

    @R.Flowers said:

    I really don't have anything to add to the conversation, but this is one of the longest threads I've ever seen here. I just wanted to be a part of it.

    {Thankfully, we don't have Slashdot-style mods here! :) }

     

    I second that emotion. I've just read through the whole thing, and it feels like a landmark moment in trolling history.

     

    The only explanation I can think of for the existance of this software is that SpectateSwamp is BOTH an incompetent misguided narcissistic programmer AND an obsessive troll, ie, he's completely batshit crazy. Even after reading 9 pages of arguments about this SwampSearch thingy, I've still only got the vaguest of ideas of what it actually does.

     

    ...it selects and runs a random file from somewhere on your machine, right? Whilst scrolling political messages on the screen. Awesome. Bring on the next OMGWTF, this guy's destined for greatness. 

    I heartily agree.  It reminds of the days when I read a lot of Usenet.  This guy would definitely be in the running for KoTM. 



  • @SpectateSwamp said:


    You don't know horseshit. Write a search engine that does half what this one does. If you can. Go ahead show me something worthwhile that you have done that is simplified by your method of coding. Can others extend it? Can others understand it. There isn't too much difficult about this code. Except the line wrap and hi-lite logic and I flowcharted that for you.

    You my man are quite a piece of work.  You are just unwilling to accept anything that the experts are telling you.  I understand that you want to change the way people think about using their computer, and that your application is the way to a simpler computing experience.  But you need to accept others advice, and quit attempting to ram your views down our throats especially since you have not accepted ours.  Once we see that you have taken even one of our many, Many, MANY suggestions for improving your application we might be willing to listen to you mano a mano, but for now you are just an angry man who is unwilling to accept the reality that what you have created and are preaching is not ready for the masses as you so wish were true.

    Come back when you, my man, are willing to work with us, not against us (turns his back on Spectate Swamp)

    Dr. Phil
     

     



  • @SpectateSwamp said:

    @shadowman said:
    @SpectateSwamp said:

    Indentation and multiple modules don't make a good program. It is the results that count. Everybody is complaining about how bad the code is. I expected as much. But nobody complained it was TOO complex. That is because I made it as simple as I could. Almost anybody will be able to look at the code and find out what it is doing. Activate a print statement here and there to see more details as they happen. This program has changed and evolved lots. That is part of the reason it seems a little disorganized. A change in 2 or 3 place 30 times over can do that.

    Lots of programmers make their code very difficult for others to understand. I strive to keep it simple. That way I can come in and make changes / additions to code done 7 or 8 years before. I have a hard enough time remembering details from yesterday. So I needed it simple.

    This is absolute horseshit.  Avoiding structure, placing random GOTOs, using random line numbers for variable names, to name three things, do not make for simple and easy-to-follow code. You yourself admitted that this was spaghetti code, that only spaghetti code worked in many situations.   How can it be spaghetti code, simple, and easy to follow all at the same time?

    I'm calling you out, that you are completely full of shit, and taking us for a ride here.  Nobody could actually believe the things you post. 

    You don't know horseshit. Write a search engine that does half what this one does. If you can. Go ahead show me something worthwhile that you have done that is simplified by your method of coding. Can others extend it? Can others understand it. There isn't too much difficult about this code. Except the line wrap and hi-lite logic and I flowcharted that for you.

    Apparently YOU don't know horse shit. Your VB application is far from a 'search engine'. Look up the term someday.



  • Something interesting about this thread.  Several days ago it was rated one star.  It moved up to 1 1/2 at some point and now at over 400 posts it at 2 stars.  At this rate, on a linear scale the thread will reach 5 stars at about the 1600 post point.  Lets keep it going! lol



  • @DrPhil said:

    Something interesting about this thread.  Several days ago it was rated one star.  It moved up to 1 1/2 at some point and now at over 400 posts it at 2 stars.  At this rate, on a linear scale the thread will reach 5 stars at about the 1600 post point.  Lets keep it going! lol
    For some reason people rated this lowly on the wtf scale, belgariontheking and myself rated it 5 stars, tdittmar rated it 4 and 8 others rated it 1. More people need to vote high to mark this as a true wtf. Press the right-most star to vote 9from inside the thread) and press any star in the board view to view who rated the thread what.



  • @taylonr said:

    Also, "Poor Man's Database" is not a compliment, here's why.  There are several free databases that are available for use.  This provides the following benefits: 1) Free -- even the "poor man" can afford it 2) Delegation -- it allows you to write the code that is important for your application.  I've never written database code, or simulated a database with something else. Why?  Because my customers care about the data I'm providing and don't care how I store it.   So I let somone else figure out how to store it and I take their work and use it. 


    I have written a database in 1975. The only reason it was done was to speed access to the records. That isn't required anymore. I have worked for some of the larger computer users. A pulp and papermill's plant management system. It would be no problem at all, in searching all their records for a year or more. I did it with the vax search 12 years ago. The PC's are much faster and there was 150 users on the Plant Management system.

    Computer Geeks complain about efficiency. I've spent days changing code; because someone read that this executes .000000001 faster than this other function. How stupid. If it takes minutes worry. If it takes a miniscule part of a second then forget it. I'm not painting a screen here or anything that is extremely repetitive. If you can speed the program up. Go ahead. I'd appreciate it. But it works fine as it is.

    This search is for the masses. If they don't know what is going on in the background. They will never learn how to make use of the tools. This search is simple enough being just text files that I can explain it to them with no problem. Try that with a database.

    My database was: I created an empty file with room for 50% more customer records than the company had. These records had "CCCCCCC" in the account # field to indicate never used and a "DDDDDDD" to indicate deleted. When searching for an account number. A number between 1 and the max records was generated using the account number and a function that determined the record to read. I read the record and if the account numbers didn't match. I'd generate a 2nd location. If there was "C" at that location I'd know that was an invalid number. If "D" was the type. I'd look for another location to read. Maybe finding a match or not. That sped things up a great deal on the PDP 11/70 we were running.

    Anyway sorry for responding so slowly. The only way I could get on the net was to load my TELUS net software each time. When checking the communications, it didn't give up after a few tries. It kept asking for a retry and after a couple or 3 of those. I was in. To send any replies I'd type them in a text file copy and send them to you. Just in case I'd lose it on the send. Which I did a couple times. They are sending me a modem in the mail. Anyway once this problem is resolved I'll be able to upload video. Showing how I use this Search. For accessing data it just kicks butt.

     



  • @Lingerance said:

    @DrPhil said:
    Something interesting about this thread.  Several days ago it was rated one star.  It moved up to 1 1/2 at some point and now at over 400 posts it at 2 stars.  At this rate, on a linear scale the thread will reach 5 stars at about the 1600 post point.  Lets keep it going! lol
    For some reason people rated this lowly on the wtf scale, belgariontheking and myself rated it 5 stars, tdittmar rated it 4 and 8 others rated it 1. More people need to vote high to mark this as a true wtf. Press the right-most star to vote 9from inside the thread) and press any star in the board view to view who rated the thread what.

    IDK I feel it deserves 1 star. I don't think it is as much a WTF as just REALLY INCREDIBLY stupid. Much like the OP.



  • Re: Spectate Swamp is an inbred retard and God hates him

    @SpectateSwamp said:

    @taylonr said:

    Also, "Poor Man's Database" is not a compliment, here's why.  There are several free databases that are available for use.  This provides the following benefits: 1) Free -- even the "poor man" can afford it 2) Delegation -- it allows you to write the code that is important for your application.  I've never written database code, or simulated a database with something else. Why?  Because my customers care about the data I'm providing and don't care how I store it.   So I let somone else figure out how to store it and I take their work and use it. 


    I have written a database in 1975. The only reason it was done was to speed access to the records. That isn't required anymore. I have worked for some of the larger computer users. A pulp and papermill's plant management system. It would be no problem at all, in searching all their records for a year or more. I did it with the vax search 12 years ago. The PC's are much faster and there was 150 users on the Plant Management system.

    Computer Geeks complain about efficiency. I've spent days changing code; because someone read that this executes .000000001 faster than this other function. How stupid. If it takes minutes worry. If it takes a miniscule part of a second then forget it. I'm not painting a screen here or anything that is extremely repetitive. If you can speed the program up. Go ahead. I'd appreciate it. But it works fine as it is.

    This search is for the masses. If they don't know what is going on in the background. They will never learn how to make use of the tools. This search is simple enough being just text files that I can explain it to them with no problem. Try that with a database.

    My database was: I created an empty file with room for 50% more customer records than the company had. These records had "CCCCCCC" in the account # field to indicate never used and a "DDDDDDD" to indicate deleted. When searching for an account number. A number between 1 and the max records was generated using the account number and a function that determined the record to read. I read the record and if the account numbers didn't match. I'd generate a 2nd location. If there was "C" at that location I'd know that was an invalid number. If "D" was the type. I'd look for another location to read. Maybe finding a match or not. That sped things up a great deal on the PDP 11/70 we were running.

    Anyway sorry for responding so slowly. The only way I could get on the net was to load my TELUS net software each time. When checking the communications, it didn't give up after a few tries. It kept asking for a retry and after a couple or 3 of those. I was in. To send any replies I'd type them in a text file copy and send them to you. Just in case I'd lose it on the send. Which I did a couple times. They are sending me a modem in the mail. Anyway once this problem is resolved I'll be able to upload video. Showing how I use this Search. For accessing data it just kicks butt.

    The funny thing is, you are the ONLY person here talking about speed. No one else cares. Speed doesn't make any difference in a program if no one will ever use it. And I can promise no one will ever use your 'search'. The bad code they refer to is a serious problem that you will never understand. You are simply not capable intellectually.

    As far as your 'database', maybe you should keep these kinds of stories to yourself. Everyone here considers you stupider and stupider every time you tell us some other detail of your life you think is interesting.

    We see your programming style, and your computer skills. They are some of the worst we could have ever imagined. Please just leave computers alone, they will appreciate it.

    As for the connection problems... I am not a believer in God. But I am starting to think I could be wrong. A just and fair God who truly loved his children WOULD destroy your internet connection. You know, for the good of humanity...



  • Let the smackdown begin. Score so far: TDWTF denizens: Infinity +1 Swampy: NaN

    @SpectateSwamp said:

    You don't know horseshit. Write a search engine that does half what this one does. If you can. Go ahead show me something worthwhile that you have done that is simplified by your method of coding. Can others extend it? Can others understand it. There isn't too much difficult about this code. Except the line wrap and hi-lite logic and I flowcharted that for you.

    Swampy, please accept this: Your software will never catch on with anyone but you. By design it requires the user to adapt their entire computing experience to its demands. This is not how utility software ever should work. You require users to fundamentally change the basis of modern graphical computing. If you bought a video camera that required you to jam it up your
    left nostril, pound a spike into your head, and walk while standing on
    your head, using your eyelids for locomotion, all BEFORE you could record even a single second of video, would you use that
    camera? SSDS is the exact same thing:

    • Point and click to open a file? Better just type in a number.
    • Multiple document files? Keep it all in a single text file. Who needs timestamps...
    • Why bother editing video? Keep all the useless video and make a note explaining where the short 'good' segment in the middle is. Or better yet, just force everyone to watch the whole thing.
    • Use editing software to extract the good clip and upload a 1st generation copy to Youtube? Sheesh, of course the solution is to video a copy off the computer screen so you get all the joys of screen refresh tearing, reflections, double the compression artifacts, and double the motion blur because you can't even be bothered to follow your own advice and use a tripod.
    • Use variable names that explain their purpose intrinsically? Better use random alphanumeric sequences.
    • Functions to encapsulate commonly used code? Better just slap copies of the code everywhere.
    • Use gotos because they're better? I know of precisely ONE justifiable use of gotos in modern programming languages, and your code does not come anywhere near qualifying for that use.
    • Comments which explain what the code is intended to do? Better document what the code does. "x = 1; ' Set x to 1" is so very extraordinarly useful later on, because not everyone might know what an assignment statement in visual basic looks like.

    Your software doesn't even qualify as 'spaghetti code'. At least spaghetti can be a tasty and healthy meal. Your software is composed of worms and maggots, simmered in septic tank residue.

    Please, explain to use why your labels, such as "line_380921:" are
    better and clearer than "process_text_contents:" or "decrypt_file:"
    might be? What good is a variable named "aaa" or "AAA"? Would not saying "current_scan_position" or "textOffset" be clearer?

    If it wasn't for your requirement of being able to play random videos, there is nothing in SSDS that would no be better implemented as a command line utility. Text is better suited to a text-only medium. You're slapping a very bad graphical interface on a very bad text interface, compounding the usability issues. Complain all your want about the "other" search engines, and how none are as good as SSDS, the fact remains that any user, new to your software, will not able to do anything without extensive training.

    By comparison, anyone with the slightest familiarity with Windows will know what do do with a Vista or Google Desktop search. "Type your search terms here, and click this button". And guess what, without having to spend hours and days and months manually catalogueing their files, the "other" search engines will be able to find their data. Installing any real search engine is a few minutes of download time, a few minutes of install time, and an hour or two of automatic indexing, after which "it just works". By comparison, SSDS is only as useful as the time you put into building your own index. A virgin install of SSDS is utterly useless, and will REMAIN useless until you invest a serious chunk of time in building up its "index". A virgin install of Google Desktop is still useful, as you can search even as the index is being built in the background. 

    Write a search engine? Already done. And it's quite succesful, as well. Here's the guts of it:

     
    SELECT items.id AS id, CONCAT(item_search.path, ' - ', items.name) AS name
    FROM items
    LEFT JOIN item_search ON items.id=item_search.id
    WHERE MATCH (item_search.name, item_search.path, item_search.extra) AGAINST ($qkeyword IN BOOLEAN MODE)

    (for those in the peanut gallery, yes, $qkeyword is properly quoted/escaped to prevent injection attacks, and no, I can't use parametric queries as this is one small part of a large union query which is built dynamically).

    For Swampy, that's an SQL query against a MySQL InnoDB database, using a link flattened MyISAM table with FULLTEXT indexes. The flattened data takes approximately 3 seconds to build and insert into the database, which includes the fulltext indexing on-the-fly during insertion.

    Complicated looking? Maybe.
    Complicated sounding? Maybe.
    Lots of buzzwords? Definitely.
    Beyond your comprehension and abilities? Definitely.
    Ability of users to understand what to do and find what they need? High

    Doesn't matter how complicated or simple a search engine is in the background. The front-end (that's called "the interface", Swampy) hides all of that. An ideal search engine is a single text box to enter search times, and a button to initiate the search. And guess what, that's what my search engine is. Complicated in the background, utterly simple in the foreground.

    And with 3 seconds to build the index, it's fully useful and has the complete data corpus (about 500 megabytes) available. How much could you find with a virgin install of SSDS and 3 seconds of time to work with it?



  • @MarcB said:

    If it wasn't for your requirement of being able to play random videos, there is nothing in SSDS that would no be better implemented as a command line utility.

    mplayer -shuffle *



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    As for the connection problems... I am not a believer in God. But I am starting to think I could be wrong. A just and fair God who truly loved his children WOULD destroy your internet connection. You know, for the good of humanity...

    I believe this thread is approaching critical mass and about to satisfy Godwin's Law.




  • @Quinnum said:

    @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    As for the connection problems... I am not a believer in God. But I am starting to think I could be wrong. A just and fair God who truly loved his children WOULD destroy your internet connection. You know, for the good of humanity...

    I believe this thread is approaching critical mass and about to satisfy Godwin's Law.

    Wait.. are you calling God a nazi?



  • @SpectateSwamp said:

    This search is for the masses. If they don't know what is going on in the background. They will never learn how to make use of the tools. This search is simple enough being just text files that I can explain it to them with no problem. Try that with a database.

     So an average computer user won't use a program that they don't understand how it works under the hood?  Then how in the world in WindowsXp ever catch on?  I'm a full time developer, with 20+ years of working on, building, troubleshooting and coding computers, and I can't honestly say that I understood how most of XP works underneatht the hood.



  • @SpectateSwamp said:

    Computer Geeks complain about efficiency. I've spent days changing code; because someone read that this executes .000000001 faster than this other function. How stupid. If it takes minutes worry. If it takes a miniscule part of a second then forget it. I'm not painting a screen here or anything that is extremely repetitive. If you can speed the program up. Go ahead. I'd appreciate it. But it works fine as it is.

    I agree with you fully that for stuff that isn't done frequently half a second does not really matter - but as you claim that everyone in the world would need to use your 'search' all the time, this tiny amount of time would suddenly start to become significant, wouldn't it? Especially considering the amount of time necessary to manually extend your search 'index'. I'm sure that everybody here could speed up your program. Some of us have even provided tips and code to do so. Question is: Would you be able to speed it up? It's not our task to improve your software!

    @SpectateSwamp said:

    If they don't know what is going on in the background. They will never learn how to make use of the tools. This search is simple enough being just text files that I can explain it to them with no problem. Try that with a database.

    Now this is horseshit! Please explain to me the exact inner workings of the following tools I'm sure you've been using:

    • Microsoft Visual Basic 5
    • Microsoft Windows XP
    • Your camcorder

    You need to explain your text files. I don't even need to explain anything to the user, because - as MarcB noted - they would only see a clean, nice user interface.

    @SpectateSwamp said:

    My database was: I created an empty file with room for 50% more customer records than the company had. These records had "CCCCCCC" in the account # field to indicate never used and a "DDDDDDD" to indicate deleted. When searching for an account number. A number between 1 and the max records was generated using the account number and a function that determined the record to read. I read the record and if the account numbers didn't match. I'd generate a 2nd location. If there was "C" at that location I'd know that was an invalid number. If "D" was the type. I'd look for another location to read. Maybe finding a match or not. That sped things up a great deal on the PDP 11/70 we were running.

    Let me guess: Your database was a big text file and finding a record by ID would mean

    • Read entire text file into memory
    • Scan every line until you find the record ID

    If that's the case it's no wonder that 'there's no use for it anymore'. It was your client's way of telling you that your system sucked...

    @SpectateSwamp said:

    Anyway sorry for responding so slowly. The only way I could get on the net was to load my TELUS net software each time. When checking the communications, it didn't give up after a few tries. It kept asking for a retry and after a couple or 3 of those. I was in. To send any replies I'd type them in a text file copy and send them to you. Just in case I'd lose it on the send. Which I did a couple times. They are sending me a modem in the mail.

    Oh, no problem! That gives us enough time to cure our bleeding eyes...

    @SpectateSwamp said:

    Anyway once this problem is resolved I'll be able to upload video. Showing how I use this Search. For accessing data it just kicks butt.

    How long have you been promising this? For about a week now? Or even longer, considering the Channel9 post? We've not seen any of it. We've been told the same old shit over and over. You've not given us any evidence so far that your program is even capable of starting up properly. Improve it considering all the tips, hints, no-gotos we've provided here and come back when you're done. If this forum exists that long...



  • Psychology

    This entire thread is just so... fascinating... from a psychological perspective. I think this warrants a whole new syndrome: Swamp Syndrome?

    Here are some things to think about:

    1. SpectateSwamp believes that Windows Explorer is the Windows Operating System, in full.

    2. SpectateSwamp thinks a 10,000 line, VB6 implementation of Notepad search is surely within 2-3% of the simplest possible implementation.

    3. One day, in 1975, SpectateSwamp learned how to use a hammer to hammer nails into a wall. Later, he was tasked with painting the wall. He cleverly used the one tool he knew and loved, the ever powerful hammer, for the job. He dipped the hammer in the paint and rubbed it on the wall, and six days later: success! Sure it wasn't the prettiest wall, but it worked. His friend, Montpelier, saw SpectateSwamp proudly admiring his wall, and said, "Swamp! I thought you'd like to know, you could use this paint brush to paint the wall. It's just right for it!" But SpectateSwamp had already proven that all other tools were unnecessary, and he replied, "Silly Montpelier! How do you expect the masses to learn a different tool for each and every job? That's so many tools! So inefficient!" Montpelier shrugged and tried to avoid SpectateSwamp from then on. But SpectateSwamp still shows up uninvited for lunch at Montepelier's on occasion, to spout off all the great uses of his ever powerful Hammer. (Like for mixing pudding, swatting flies, cleaning the litter box, and for scrubbing oneself in the shower.)

    4. SpectateSwamp is not against using meaningful variable names or labels, he's just never been exposed to the concept. Every time he skims a post that mentions the idea, he discards it as some mumb-jumbo probably to do with those "regulated expresses."

    5. SpectateSwamp also uses the hammer to type his code. And it works.



  • @superjer said:

    This entire thread is just so... fascinating... from a psychological perspective. I think this warrants a whole new syndrome: Swamp Syndrome?

    Here are some things to think about:

    1. SpectateSwamp believes that Windows Explorer is the Windows Operating System, in full.

    2. SpectateSwamp thinks a 10,000 line, VB6 implementation of Notepad search is surely within 2-3% of the simplest possible implementation.

    3. One day, in 1975, SpectateSwamp learned how to use a hammer to hammer nails into a wall. Later, he was tasked with painting the wall. He cleverly used the one tool he knew and loved, the ever powerful hammer, for the job. He dipped the hammer in the paint and rubbed it on the wall, and six days later: success! Sure it wasn't the prettiest wall, but it worked. His friend, Montpelier, saw SpectateSwamp proudly admiring his wall, and said, "Swamp! I thought you'd like to know, you could use this paint brush to paint the wall. It's just right for it!" But SpectateSwamp had already proven that all other tools were unnecessary, and he replied, "Silly Montpelier! How do you expect the masses to learn a different tool for each and every job? That's so many tools! So inefficient!" Montpelier shrugged and tried to avoid SpectateSwamp from then on. But SpectateSwamp still shows up uninvited for lunch at Montepelier's on occasion, to spout off all the great uses of his ever powerful Hammer. (Like for mixing pudding, swatting flies, cleaning the litter box, and for scrubbing oneself in the shower.)

    4. SpectateSwamp is not against using meaningful variable names or labels, he's just never been exposed to the concept. Every time he skims a post that mentions the idea, he discards it as some mumb-jumbo probably to do with those "regulated expresses."

    5. SpectateSwamp also uses the hammer to type his code. And it works.

    ROFLMAO! This pretty much sums it up. I love the fable in 3.! It should be part of the "forum hall of fame" if there was such a thing. 



  • Questions

    Swampy, I've got a question. I used to play the Simon the Sorcerer games, and I wondered if you're by any means related to the Swampling? That would explain a lot.

    And another question. Are you a fan of World War II? Because your nickname's initials are SS, which was a German special unit. Besides, you said that you get your search into Screensaver mode by entering "ww" instead of "ss", which might be an inside joke to modern nazis.

    By the way, you should learn an object-oriented language. Look in my signature, it's simple and easy.

    Regards. 



  • Sigh...446 posts, 9 pages. If SpectateSwamp is trolling, he's very good at it.



  • The ClueLess struggle to remain so.

    @m0ffx said:

    Sigh...446 posts, 9 pages. If SpectateSwamp is trolling, he's very good at it.

    I'm loving this thread. Some fun reading.

    The fact is; this search is the only app, I or any non techie needs to make use of computers. Learn it in 1/2 day and leave the Gurus in your technical dust.

    ClueLessNess cure sessions at Spectate Swamp Shack

    Computing without the Techno Babble.



  • Haha, this tread is fantastic, but I've got a nagging feeling "SpectateSwamp" is not ONE person, but at least two or more. His grammar, choice of words and 'level of english' in his replies is not always the same....



  • @Lingerance said:

    @DrPhil said:
    Something interesting about this thread.  Several days ago it was rated one star.  It moved up to 1 1/2 at some point and now at over 400 posts it at 2 stars.  At this rate, on a linear scale the thread will reach 5 stars at about the 1600 post point.  Lets keep it going! lol
    For some reason people rated this lowly on the wtf scale, belgariontheking and myself rated it 5 stars, tdittmar rated it 4 and 8 others rated it 1. More people need to vote high to mark this as a true wtf. Press the right-most star to vote 9from inside the thread) and press any star in the board view to view who rated the thread what.

    I voted it high because it is a good conversation and is entertaining, regardless of whether it's a WTF or anyone learns anything.  There are threads that are highly WTF that I've rated low because the conversation just wasn't entertaining.  In short, I rate the whole thread, rather than just the WTF of the OP. 


Log in to reply