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



  • @GalacticCowboy said:

    Google provided all of the instances of "388205283" in the entire thread, with links directly to the original posts and with complete context, in 0.08 seconds, and I never even had to merge anything anywhere.
     

    <font size="-1"> (0.04 seconds) here</font>



  • @SpectateSwamp said:

    I will post a screen captures of the copernic results and keep updating it as TIME passes. The results will have my x on it. Certifying it official.

    Wow, a green X - that is highly impressive.  You realize that only illiterate people who are unable to spell their own names sign things with an "X", right?

    @SpectateSwamp said:

    Enough questions. Where are the Search Giants? How come they haven't shown up here yet. Do I have to do their testing and demos. Why is that preview screen so terribly slow? Does anybody here try anything or just sit and babble. The last search Giants were Old Greppler himself and the Vax/Dec search program developers. Maybe one or two of them would put in a comment or two here. If they dare.

    Because NOBODY CARES.  Nobody takes you seriously.  All you are good for is annoying people and providing a few good laughs (at your expense).  Just like your little political "campaign" at Yellowhead.  I hope you realize they were laughing at you, not with you.



  • @GalacticCowboy said:

    Verify my results here
     

    Unfortunately, by posting a hyperlink whose text is different from its target, you have defeated SpectateSwamp's "archival" method.

    Once he copies and pastes your post into his gigantic plain text file, the target of the link (i.e. important CONTEXT) will be lost.  Same with any inline images anyone posts. 



  • @CodeSimian said:

    @GalacticCowboy said:

    Verify my results here
     

    Unfortunately, by posting a hyperlink whose text is different from its target, you have defeated SpectateSwamp's "archival" method.

    Once he copies and pastes your post into his gigantic plain text file, the target of the link (i.e. important CONTEXT) will be lost.  Same with any inline images anyone posts. 

    You make it sound like that's a bad thing...



  • @GalacticCowboy said:

    @CodeSimian said:

    @GalacticCowboy said:

    Verify my results here
     

    Unfortunately, by posting a hyperlink whose text is different from its target, you have defeated SpectateSwamp's "archival" method.

    Once he copies and pastes your post into his gigantic plain text file, the target of the link (i.e. important CONTEXT) will be lost.  Same with any inline images anyone posts. 

    You make it sound like that's a bad thing...

     

    Yeah, from now on, we should just post using text converted to images.  SpectateSwamp will be forced to use his camcorder to "video in" the rest of the thread.  Try searching THAT with SSDS!





  • 852763


  • Google Stats questioned

    @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    @GalacticCowboy said:

    Google provided all of the instances of "388205283" in the entire thread, with links directly to the original posts and with complete context, in 0.08 seconds, and I never even had to merge anything anywhere.
     

    <FONT size=-1>(0.04 seconds) here</FONT>

    So the Copernic take down is done. Back to Google. I just don't trust you that GDS is that quick. 


  • @SpectateSwamp said:

    So the Copernic take down is done.
     

    Indeed it is. And you lost.

    @SpectateSwamp said:

    Back to Google. I just don't trust you that GDS is that quick. 

    And yet... no one cares that you don't believe it.

     



  • @SpectateSwamp said:

    So the Copernic take down is done. Back to Google. I just don't trust you that GDS is that quick. 

    As has been pointed out to you multiple times, you are trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist.  If I want to find a web page that talks about elephants, why should I copy/paste all of Wikipedia into a text file so I can search it with SSDS?

    Much of software engineering involves driving nails with a screwdriver.  You, my friend, are trying to drive nails with your forehead.



  • @SpectateSwamp said:

    Back to Google. I just don't trust you that GDS is that quick. 
     

     

    We're not talking about GDS, we're talking about Google.  I know, it's not a desktop search, but guess what?  You're not searching the desktop in this case, you're searching a web site, so you use a web search to search it.  Try it for yourself:

     

    1. Look at this thread's URL and notice that its ID number is 7593
    2. Go to http://www.google.com/
    3. Type the following into the search field:  388205283 7593 site:thedailywtf.com
    4. Click the "Search" button



  • @SpectateSwamp said:

    So the Copernic take down is done. Back to Google. I just don't trust you that GDS is that quick. 
     

    Nobody cares what you think, and one suspect video which had ssds pre-configured does not make you a winner, and you have the cheek to doubt other people....



  • @SpectateSwamp said:

    So the Copernic take down is done.
     

    No, it isn't. You are lying to us. You are a liar. Stop lying.

     

    I've TOLD you how you can PROVE the search speed. Repeatedly.

    You MUST reboot your machine before each search!!!

     

    And once again, if you already know where your data is (which you have to, to use SSDS), then YOU ARE NOT PERFORMING A DESKTOP SEARCH



  • Google is worse than Copernic

    @spenk said:

    Nobody cares what you think, and one suspect video which had ssds pre-configured does not make you a winner, and you have the cheek to doubt other people....

     

    I used google checking for:  "long documents" "google" limit

    Seems quite a few people don't like the 10,000 word limit per file. That is the worst of all the Desktop Search Engines. The search others have been using must have been Google Net search. I suppose GDS could find the results if you made 1500+ seperate itsy bitsy files. What a poor solution. It was MPS that gave me the link stating such. He must be lying. The whole net is lying about google. The truth is google desktop search is crap.

     

     



  • @SpectateSwamp said:

    The whole net is lying about google. The truth is google desktop search is crap.

     

    Okay, let's pretend for a minute that anyone here cares.  WHAT DO YOU EXPECT US TO DO ABOUT IT?  You have accomplished nothing here but making a fool out of yourself and pissing people off.

    If you want to do something productive, you should:

    • Upload your program to a "shareware" site.  Oh wait, you did that and nobody uses your program
    • Submit your project to SourceForge.  Oops, they rejected it.
    • Start several blogs about your views on video and search.  Shoot, you did that too, and NOBODY reads your blogs.
    • Spam random forums, social networking sites (Digg), "expert article" sites and university wikis with comments on your views about desktop search.  Oh, you tried that and everyone ignored you.

    Looks like all your attempts to promote SSDS have failed.  Your product is a failure and so are you.  There is no vast anti-SSDS conspiracy - nobody knows who you are.

    Tell me Spectate: how many users does SSDS have?  Besides yours truly, of course. 



  •  Okay, your antics are annoying, SpectateSwamp, I'm going to make this post short as I can:

    You claim your data format is "open" in fact it is NOT. It requires people to convert THEIR data to YOUR format before they can use YOUR Desktop Search application.

    Just because one can run a string/text search on a file DOES NOT make it an "open format". Technically, YOU created a PROPRETARY format that NOBODY wants to use because people already have their data in formats THEY want.

    I would like to ask you a question, SpectateSwamp:
    If you were forced to umerge all of your text files, just because someone shoved an application in your face and performed no tests to your satisfaction, would you switch? Or would you continue to use SSDS?

     

    (Everyone else: Appologies for the absurd bold/uppercase text, I just thought I needed to make certain words clear)



  • @DigitalXeron said:

    You claim your data format is "open" in fact it is NOT. It requires people to convert THEIR data to YOUR format before they can use YOUR Desktop Search application.

     

    I think it's stretching a bit far to call something a "format", when the "spec" for creating it reads like:

    - ALT-TAB to DailyWTF forum thread in browser click anywhere press CTRL-C ALT-TAB to SSDS press Z repeat 30 times enter enter enter click click Gee Haw boondoggle

     SpectateSwamp's "format" is more like completely unstructured plain text (except maybe for his ridiculous video catalog).

    His "format" is "open" in the same way that the town dumpster is "secure" (because nobody wants what's in it).



  • @SpectateSwamp said:

    Seems quite a few people don't like the 10,000 word limit per file. That is the worst of all the Desktop Search Engines. The search others have been using must have been Google Net search. I suppose GDS could find the results if you made 1500+ seperate itsy bitsy files. What a poor solution. It was MPS that gave me the link stating such. He must be lying. The whole net is lying about google. The truth is google desktop search is crap.
     

    More people are happily using GDS than SSDS I suspect, even given it's 10,000 word limit. For people who find that restrictive there are alternatives. Regardless of your opinion SSDS is not a desktop search tool, it cannot search for files but only within a file. For every normal person who maintains separate files, in varying formats based their own requirements searching for files is the purpose of a desktop search.

    The only person I have ever heard of who only has a handful of large plain text files is you - and as such the only person SSDS is suitable for is you. If you stopped claiming it was a desktop search tools and honestly told people what it did without the pretence of challenging other search tools etc. people might just appreciate the tool for what it is.

    Other than that you are being stubborn, confused (and confusing) and basically ignorant as to the purpose of a search tool. Your videos are laughable at best, and when they are in focus they prove none of your claims due to the lack of any rigourous benchmarking procedures. If you want to be taken seriously behave seriously, do reproducable benchmarks, accept some of the challenges people have laid out for you and when people ask for a step by step guide on how to do things - provide one.



  • @Kilrah said:

     



  • @rc_pinchey said:

    Seriously though, these numbers are NOT valid. As I've said many many times, the numbers will only mean ANYTHING if you:

     

    1. Reboot your machine.

    2. Start timing.

    3. Search for the text using Copernic.

    4. Stop timing.

    5. Write down the time.

    6. Reboot your machine again.

    7. Start timing.

    8. Search for the text using SSDS.

    9. Stop timing.

    10. Write down the time.

    11. Compare the two times.

    Why do you keep ignoring this, Swamp? It's not a particularly hard test to run. And I think you have to be the one to run it, as I certainly don't understand the cryptic commands I would need to use to get SSDS to search a file.



  • @aleph said:

    Why do you keep ignoring this, Swamp? It's not a particularly hard test to run. And I think you have to be the one to run it, as I certainly don't understand the cryptic commands I would need to use to get SSDS to search a file.
     

    Amazingly, he posted step by step directions on how to display random videos, and I followed them and it resulted in nothing. So I have to conclude HE doesn't even know how to use SSDS. 



  • @CodeSimian said:

    Yeah, from now on, we should just post using text converted to images.  SpectateSwamp will be forced to use his camcorder to "video in" the rest of the thread.
     

    You mean somethimg like this?

    text video



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    Amazingly, he posted step by step directions on how to display random videos, and I followed them and it resulted in nothing. So I have to conclude HE doesn't even know how to use SSDS. 

     

    Yeah, but according to Swamp, when SSDS does something completely unexpected, it's a feature, not a bug. 



  • SSDS no Limits

     

     

    Lots of people have ran into these indexing limits. This fellow did some serious checking.

    He found that Google Yahoo and Microsoft all have limits. What about Exalead



  • @SpectateSwamp said:

    Lots of people have ran into these indexing limits. This fellow did some serious checking.

    He found that Google Yahoo and Microsoft all have limits. What about Exalead

     

    You should definitely go market SSDS to him then. I am sure he won't laugh at you.... for long.



  • @SpectateSwamp said:

    Lots of people have ran into these indexing limits. This fellow did some serious checking.

    He found that Google Yahoo and Microsoft all have limits. What about Exalead

     

    Well, that is certainly serious news.  What does that guy have to say about SSDS?

    Oh, that's right...NOTHING.

    If the moral of the story isn't clear: pointing out real or perceived flaws in the "competition" does NOTHING to make SSDS more appealing to anyone.  Just like calling all your political opponents "corrupt" doesn't make you more likely to win the election.



  • @SpectateSwamp said:

    Lots of people have ran into these indexing limits. This fellow did some serious checking.

    He found that Google Yahoo and Microsoft all have limits. What about Exalead

    Those results are for Internet search engines, NOT Desktop search. SSDS most certainly does not search the net.

    Again, why aren't you answering my question from a few posts up?



  • @CodeSimian said:

    @SpectateSwamp said:

    Lots of people have ran into these indexing limits. This fellow did some serious checking.

    He found that Google Yahoo and Microsoft all have limits. What about Exalead

     

    Well, that is certainly serious news.  What does that guy have to say about SSDS?

     

    Oh, that's right...NOTHING 

     

    "Man I sure wish someone would fix the problem with all other desktop search software by creating something that performs none of the functionality of any of them and completely misses the whole point of desktop searching!"



  •  @SpectateSwamp said:

    Lots of people have ran into these indexing limits. This fellow did some serious checking.

    He found that Google Yahoo and Microsoft all have limits. What about Exalead

     

    Can SSDS search a file larger than 4 GB?  How about a file larger than 2 TB?  Get back to us when you're finished running those tests. 



  • Indexing LIMITS - Desktop Searches dirtly (little) secret

    @CodeSimian said:

    Can SSDS search a file larger than 4 GB?  How about a file larger than 2 TB?  Get back to us when you're finished running those tests. 

    And I should probably reload my OS between each test? Google had some flimsy excuse for the 100,000 limit. It doesn't cut it on the desktop. Indexers all have limits and they carried them over to Desktop Search. This is Desktop Searches dirty little secret. Nobody mentioned it, until I ran into the barrier. How come?


  • @SpectateSwamp said:

     Nobody mentioned it, until I ran into the barrier. How come?

     

    Yes they did. I posted the link to it. And you have quoted it before.

    Did you want them to come around to your trailer park and tell you in person not to be a complete retard and merge all your files into a giant text file? 



  • Indexing LIMITS - Desktop Searches dirtly (little) secret

    @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    @SpectateSwamp said:

     Nobody mentioned it, until I ran into the barrier. How come?

     

    Yes they did. I posted the link to it. And you have quoted it before.

    No you didn't. I thanked you for confirming my file size claims. Everybody remained silent. I used SSDS to search this post for "goog/supp/desktop" and found your initial mention of the link.


  • @SpectateSwamp said:

    No you didn't. I thanked you for confirming my file size claims. Everybody remained silent. I used SSDS to search this post for "goog/supp/desktop" and found your initial mention of the link.
     

    THAT DOESN"T EVEN MAKE SENSE YOU RETARD.



  • @SpectateSwamp said:

    And I should probably reload my OS between each test? Google had some flimsy excuse for the 100,000 limit. It doesn't cut it on the desktop. Indexers all have limits and they carried them over to Desktop Search. This is Desktop Searches dirty little secret. Nobody mentioned it, until I ran into the barrier. How come?

    Nobody has an interest in searching for specific words at the bottom of 100,000+ word text files.  They search for, you know, useful things.

    Like the titles of documents.  Or the subjects.  Which are usually at the beginning.

    Also, the search limits for Meta Tracker are user-configurable.  After tinkering with the settings a bit, I was able to get it to index down to the bottom of a ~765 MB file.



  • @SpectateSwamp said:

    @CodeSimian said:

    Can SSDS search a file larger than 4 GB?  How about a file larger than 2 TB?  Get back to us when you're finished running those tests. 

    And I should probably reload my OS between each test? Google had some flimsy excuse for the 100,000 limit. It doesn't cut it on the desktop. Indexers all have limits and they carried them over to Desktop Search. This is Desktop Searches dirty little secret. Nobody mentioned it, until I ran into the barrier. How come?

     

    No just a reboot - standard practice when doing this kind of benchmark.



  • @aleph said:

    @rc_pinchey said:

    Seriously though, these numbers are NOT valid. As I've said many many times, the numbers will only mean ANYTHING if you:

     

    1. Reboot your machine.

    2. Start timing.

    3. Search for the text using Copernic.

    4. Stop timing.

    5. Write down the time.

    6. Reboot your machine again.

    7. Start timing.

    8. Search for the text using SSDS.

    9. Stop timing.

    10. Write down the time.

    11. Compare the two times.

    Why do you keep ignoring this, Swamp? It's not a particularly hard test to run. And I think you have to be the one to run it, as I certainly don't understand the cryptic commands I would need to use to get SSDS to search a file.

    Come on Swamp, at least respond to us! This really isn't difficult...



  • @rc_pinchey said:

    @aleph said:

    @rc_pinchey said:

    <original snipped>

    Why do you keep ignoring this, Swamp? It's not a particularly hard test to run. And I think you have to be the one to run it, as I certainly don't understand the cryptic commands I would need to use to get SSDS to search a file.

    Come on Swamp, at least respond to us! This really isn't difficult...

    But this is how he works - makes random claims and then when challenged chooses to ignore the questions or criticism he gets.

    If you look back over this thread you will see

    • His request for a challenge which when MPS suggested the linux source he made an excuse about size and never attempted it. http://forums.thedailywtf.com/forums/p/7593/146401.aspx#146401
    • When I suggested using the subversion source (under 6M) so size wasn't an issue he has flat out refused to acknowledge it. http://forums.thedailywtf.com/forums/p/7593/145235.aspx#145235
    • Claims unlimited file size blah blah blah but when presented with evidence to the contrary there is no response http://forums.thedailywtf.com/forums/p/7593/144805.aspx#144805
    • When people provide video evidence that their way is better he never responds http://forums.thedailywtf.com/forums/p/7593/146534.aspx#146534 
    • Any time people ask for step by step instructions on how to perform a given task there is never an appropriate response http://forums.thedailywtf.com/forums/p/7593/145334.aspx#145334
    Refusing to answer challenges or tricky questions in SOP for Swampie, I think we are supposed to be mesmerised by blurred videos and eventually relinquish any freewill we have unto him. Then our lives become misery.


  • @spenk said:

    @rc_pinchey said:

    @aleph said:

    @rc_pinchey said:

    <original snipped>

    Why do you keep ignoring this, Swamp? It's not a particularly hard test to run. And I think you have to be the one to run it, as I certainly don't understand the cryptic commands I would need to use to get SSDS to search a file.

    Come on Swamp, at least respond to us! This really isn't difficult...

    But this is how he works - makes random claims and then when challenged chooses to ignore the questions or criticism he gets.

    If you look back over this thread you will see

    • His request for a challenge which when MPS suggested the linux source he made an excuse about size and never attempted it. http://forums.thedailywtf.com/forums/p/7593/146401.aspx#146401
    • When I suggested using the subversion source (under 6M) so size wasn't an issue he has flat out refused to acknowledge it. http://forums.thedailywtf.com/forums/p/7593/145235.aspx#145235
    • Claims unlimited file size blah blah blah but when presented with evidence to the contrary there is no response http://forums.thedailywtf.com/forums/p/7593/144805.aspx#144805
    • When people provide video evidence that their way is better he never responds http://forums.thedailywtf.com/forums/p/7593/146534.aspx#146534 
    • Any time people ask for step by step instructions on how to perform a given task there is never an appropriate response http://forums.thedailywtf.com/forums/p/7593/145334.aspx#145334

    Refusing to answer challenges or tricky questions in SOP for Swampie, I think we are supposed to be mesmerised by blurred videos and eventually relinquish any freewill we have unto him. Then our lives become misery.

     

    Promptly with the advent of new technology comes those who with to push it to its limits both in terms of what the hardware is capable of in theoretical terms and what the user is deemed capable of misunderstanding. This raises a dilemma in that neither the new technology, whether hardware as a platform for incoming ideas or as software as a manifestation of conscious notation, and notwithstanding common user idiosyncracies, is or ought to be by its very definition of nature, dichotomical in a literal sense. This preceeds the notion of hardware as an ethnocentric divide to the contemporary programming paradigm of the programmer or programmers as the manipulators of digits upon the computer hardware itself, both inspired and bounded by the constraints of the technologies and confined loosely to the designers' ideological mindset by the manifestation of such device spaces. However it is not neccessary for day to day users to be involved with this decision choice in any more than a very visceral unwieldly level.

    Device phrases are yielded in common culture as much as humankind has ever worn the finite space of thought notation throughout history, both as a neo modernist search for morphing value sources and a post apocalyptic trinity of the fundamentals of programming and its roots in manufactured tool use as an extension of the body in mindspace. However only the more diverse and anticipatory cultured user devices tend toward being considered worthy of humankind's emotional acceptance beyond an object that is purposefully interacted with in a corporeal sense. Within this compound process notation is only a minimal concern for advanced users of schematic programming normalities, and other more transitive personifications of idea space are for the most part ignored in their entirety.

    This is not to imply that what would be considered a null technology is by neccessity enabling in the sense of granting the listener or viewer from a programmer's predefined perspective to cognize on behalf of the mechanistic architecture underlying the application design, but rather that the viewer itself is pre-coded in anticipation of the designers choice of perspective. This implies a smaller aperture into which software can manifest the percieved appearance of the underlying hardware in a smooth transition from mechanistic idea recognition to layered emotionalizing of the expected paradigm. One would obviously understand that at first cognition this would appear to the viewer as an anomaly to which no rational system of digitisation can be inferred, but on inspection of the belief metaphor within the myriad nuances of design can be expanded threefold - one queue cumbersome and two to martyr, swinging between both the pre design and post implementation legs of software analysis and design.



  • TL, DNR. Seriously man, WTF?



  • Open source? No, W4R3Z!!11!!

    Sooooo... I was googling for other web hits on Spectate Swamp, and lo and behold...

    "Free Spectate Swamp Search download crack: Downloadable Spectate Swamp Search software keygens.:" ... "Free Cracks, Utilities & Patches For Spectate Swamp Search"

    I'm shocked! Shocked! An open source program that needs serial numbers? Nay, something sinister anyway...

    I'm not linking to the site; As the wise apparently say, "warezteering is sin", and secondly, the site is just pushing for what appears to be an obvious bait malware "plugin" "to prevent leechers". Google it, if you dare.

    Abused by the malignants! Truly, Spectate Swamp Search is gaining wind under its wings!



  • @WWWWolf said:

    "Free Spectate Swamp Search download crack: Downloadable Spectate Swamp Search software keygens.:" ... "Free Cracks, Utilities & Patches For Spectate Swamp Search"
    It wasn't always open source, it used to require validation codes, which the code was found an made mockery of.



  • @Lingerance said:

    @WWWWolf said:
    "Free Spectate Swamp Search download crack: Downloadable Spectate Swamp Search software keygens.:" ... "Free Cracks, Utilities & Patches For Spectate Swamp Search"
    It wasn't always open source, it used to require validation codes, which the code was found an made mockery of.
     

    Right, and also found in the source: 

    Private Sub text2_Chg()
    'Private Sub text2_Change 'february 01 2001
    'savior version 1.0
    'all unpaid copies carry a curse
    ' be warned

     



  • So, I finally got Meta Tracker to index that 800 MB file I made and I got to thinking... how much faster could I search this file with SSDS?  I'm on Linux, so I tested with grep instead.  The results were truly amazing.  grep can search my entire home directory at least a thousandth times faster than Meta Tracker!  I have seen the light.  I will now use SSDS/grep whenever I need to search my entire home directory for files containing individual words.

    I have created a video chronicling my incredible discovery.  I didn't realize how brutal Youtube's scaling is, so the console text is blurry and almost impossible to read, even when fullscreen.  I thought about redoing the video, but decided that it wouldn't be an SSDS video if it were anything other than completely unwatchable.  For those with busy schedules, it's six minutes of me babbling in a vaguely SpectateSwamp-esque style while I wait for grep to finish.

    God help me. 



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    Private Sub text2_Chg()
    'Private Sub text2_Change 'february 01 2001
    I think my favorite part of that is him renaming a sanely named function to gibberish, chg wtf does that mean? Also Firefox's spell check (Aspell iirc) treats chg as a real word, but wtf as a misspelling.



  • Re: SSDS 30 time Faster than Copernic

    I really liked your video StolenSwamp. However, you don't have all the (text) files in your home directory in one large text file, there's no random video playback, no large, scrolling font and no background subprocesses so how can you call this a fair comparison? The Greppler may be awesome but SSDS is the future of awesome.

     Nice camera work, but it was too clear. No shaky shaky. And the writing was legible. Perhaps you need to spend some time at the SwampShack?



  • @stolen_username said:

    I have created a video chronicling my incredible discovery. 
     

    Thanks, made me laugh :) 



  • @stolen_username said:

    The results were truly amazing.  grep can search my entire home directory at least a thousandth times faster than Meta Tracker!  I have seen the light.  I will now use SSDS/grep whenever I need to search my entire home directory for files containing individual words.

    I have created a video chronicling my incredible discovery.

     

    I nominate you for the "Best Post of the Thread" award. 



  • @rc_pinchey said:

    I nominate you [stolen_username] for the "Best Post of the Thread" award. 

    Seconded!



  • @rc_pinchey said:

    I nominate you for the "Best Post of the Thread" award.

    I heartily concur. Excellent.



  • Re: SSDS 30 time Slower than Copernic

    Hi, Just thought I would pile in with a little message here. I guess I can say anything I want about swamp here because he will never see it, he can definitely never search it!   But all I have to say at the moment is: Swamp - your search uses an INDEX, and what is worse you have to build the index for it because your code is not clever enough to build the index itself. Oh, and that context you keep going on about - it does not show context from the original file, it just shows part of the index!

    Hover mouse over image to read post - or whatever else your browser requires to see alt text!


Log in to reply