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



  • All about Show or Tell - Grepplers or Indexers

    @GettinSadda said:

    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!

    Hi, Just thought I would pile it with a little message here. I guess I can say anything I want about Swamp here because He will never see it. But all I have to say at this moment is - Your search uses an INDEX and what is worse you have to build the index for it because your code is not clever enought 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.

     I have done no merging of my main 8 or 10 files. I just append notes and any emails I want to keep FOREVER. What is the definition of INDEX? I don't think it is the same as merge/append/combine. Please don't mislead this group with your statements. They are ClueLess enough

    Returning the name of the file that the matches are in, is a pityful attempt at Search. And you Jokers call that results .

    Grepplers SHOW you the match in context. Indexers TELL you what file the match was found in.

    Example: I want to see all the phone numbers in my notes from Whitecourt. I search for "778-" in single line matches only and see a page full at a time. The important context is the final 4 digits and the name beside it. Can your search do that. I didn't think so. And No I won't demo that one. Too many Kooks here may start phoning my People.

    Show me the Money == Show me the Context



  • @SpectateSwamp said:

    And No I won't demo that one. Too many Kooks here may start phoning my People.
     

    Why not? I don't think I am alone when I say I signed all the email addresses you showed in one of your videos up for every spam list I know of... Might as well demo the phone numbers too...



  • @SpectateSwamp said:

    What is the definition of INDEX?
     

    "An index is any data structure which improves the performance of lookup."

    You application DOES use an index- the merged search.txt file. It's just an inefficient (human-readable) index. 



  • @SpectateSwamp said:

    I have done no merging of my main 8 or 10 files. I just append notes and any emails I want to keep FOREVER.
     

     

    Which is fine for you, but your vaunted Common Man doesn't do that; he creates new note files from time to time, and he leaves his emails in their original form.  To get from there to a point where SSDS would be of any use to him, he would have to (1) install it, (2) figure out how to merge his files, (3) figure out a laundry list of cryptic search commands, and (4) change his habits going forward.

     

    On the other hand, to get from there to a point where GDS or WDS or Copernic would be of any use to him, he would have to (1) install it, (2) go do something else while the computer builds the index for him, (3) figure out a very simple "enter your search terms and click a button / hit the Enter key" interface, and (4) not change his habits at all.

     @SpectateSwamp said:

    What is the definition of INDEX? I don't think it is the same as merge/append/combine.

     

    The comments about SSDS having an index are specifically referring to the lines referring to your MP3 and MPG files, along the lines of

     

    music random_moose Random Moose
    xxx.mci:random_moose.mp3

    video city_council_6_of_1 City Council 6 Jan 09
    xxx.mci:city_council_090106.mpg

    or whatever the syntax is.

     

    Index (search engine)

     @SpectateSwamp said:

    Returning the name of the file that the matches are in, is a pityful attempt at Search. And you Jokers call that results .

    Grepplers SHOW you the match in context. Indexers TELL you what file the match was found in.

     

    You mean like this?

     



  • @SpectateSwamp said:

    I have done no merging of my main 8 or 10 files. I just append notes and any emails I want to keep FOREVER. What is the definition of INDEX? I don't think it is the same as merge/append/combine. Please don't mislead this group with your statements. They are ClueLess enough

    In other words, you are merging your (thousands of) notes and emails into your main 8 or 10 files.  (I thought it was 8 or 20?)

    @SpectateSwamp said:

    Example: I want to see all the phone numbers in my notes from Whitecourt. I search for "778-" in single line matches only and see a page full at a time. The important context is the final 4 digits and the name beside it. Can your search do that. I didn't think so. And No I won't demo that one. Too many Kooks here may start phoning my People.

     

    Nobody needs SSDS to do that, you freak.   I already gave you examples of much more powerful and sane tools that can do non-indexed search, listing the results in context:

    • grep (free, runs on many platforms)
    • jEdit (free, runs on any Java-enabled platform)
    • Microsoft Visual Studio (limited version free for non-commercial use)
    • find (comes with Windows)
    • Notepad++ (free)

    I'm sure there are dozens, if not hundreds or thousands, more utilities that can do non-indexed search.  Some of those tools may actually have more than one deluded, deranged user. 

    If you think the people on this forum are kooks, you should go back and watch that video footage of your Yellowhead political campaign back in '93.  Listen to the things you are saying, and watch the way the audience reacts.

     

     



  •  Oh, and the best thing about the other non-indexed search tools?  They don't force you to merge all your data into "8 or 10" huge files.  They are actually capable of searching multiple files and directories without too much effort on the user's part

     NOBODY WANTS TO MERGE ALL THEIR DATA INTO 8 OR 10 FILES, YOU FREAK!   



  • @SpectateSwamp said:

    @GettinSadda said:

    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!

    Hi, Just thought I would pile it with a little message here. I guess I can say anything I want about Swamp here because He will never see it. But all I have to say at this moment is - Your search uses an INDEX and what is worse you have to build the index for it because your code is not clever enought 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.

     I have done no merging of my main 8 or 10 files. I just append notes and any emails I want to keep FOREVER. What is the definition of INDEX? I don't think it is the same as merge/append/combine. Please don't mislead this group with your statements. They are ClueLess enough

     

    To be clear, you have 8 or 10 indices, instead of just 1 index.  Congratulations. 



  • @SpectateSwamp said:

     I have done no merging of my main 8 or 10 files. I just append notes and any emails I want to keep FOREVER. What is the definition of INDEX? I don't think it is the same as merge/append/combine. Please don't mislead this group with your statements. They are ClueLess enough
     

    So I could maintain all my data in 8 or 10 files rather than my current usable structure - yay for progress. If I want to keep my e-mails FOREVER then I just choose to not delete them from my system - remembering not to delete things isn't that difficult. More importantly my e-mail client will later allow me to see threaded lists so I can track the conversations properly as well.

    In the context of searching an Index is generally defines as a structure to improve the performance of searching data.

    @SpectateSwamp said:

    Returning the name of the file that the matches are in, is a pityful attempt at Search. And you Jokers call that results .

    Grepplers SHOW you the match in context. Indexers TELL you what file the match was found in.

    This seems to be the main thing you are failing to grasp - a Desktop Search tool is designed to find files containing words, phrases etc. when you do not know which file(s) they are contained in. Tools like grep were originally designed to locate a term inside a file when the file was known. See the difference between searching for a file  and searching inside a file? If not the difference is one searches inside a file when you know the file to search, the other looks for files based on a search term. Do you grasp this yet?

    Most desktop search tools do not just return a file name - they may offer previews or at the very least allow you to open the file directly from the results. @SpectateSwamp said:

    Example: I want to see all the phone numbers in my notes from Whitecourt. I search for "778-" in single line matches only and see a page full at a time. The important context is the final 4 digits and the name beside it. Can your search do that. I didn't think so. And No I won't demo that one. Too many Kooks here may start phoning my People.

     

    WDS cannot do this but that isn't what it was designed to do. Notepad, firefox, visual studio, grep, textpad, IE and god knows how many other text based tools can though - because that is part of their purpose. If I know which file contains the numbers I will not be searching for the file, but searching inside the file. See that for / inside thing again - try to understand.

    @SpectateSwamp said:

    Show me the Money == Show me the Context

    What could be more in context than the file itself? If I open a source file in VS I get the line in place with syntax highlighting and tools to navigate the entire project. If I open an XML file in an xml editor I get xml related functionality,if I open a ppt file in powerpoint I get it with full graphics and editing capabilities - SSDS will not do any of this (or even search a ppt file).

    Just to hammer the point home a bit: Swampie please, please, please try to comprehend the difference between searching for something and searching inside that something - they are two fundamentally different things and SSDS only searches inside of files, it doesn't search for files. 



  • @SpectateSwamp said:

    I have done no merging of my main 8 or 10 files.
     

    One question. Let's say I install SSDS, and I merge my data into 8 or 10 main files. I put these files in some directory somewhere.

    Then, you have to use my PC. You're allowed to use SSDS, of course. You have to find an email address you know I've got.

     

    HOW DO YOU FIND MY FILES??? 



  • @SpectateSwamp said:

    I have done no merging of my main 8 or 10 files. I just append notes and any emails I want to keep FOREVER.

    Merge 

    http://www.answers.com/merge&r=67

    v.tr.

    1. To cause to be absorbed, especially in gradual stages.
    2. To combine or unite: merging two sets of data.

    If you're not "merging" when you "append", WTF are you doing?



  • @SpectateSwamp said:

    I just append notes and any emails I want to keep FOREVER.
     

     You forgot to explain the step where you forward all your received emails to yourself, just to make it easier to copy and paste the sender's email address into plain text.  How long did you say it takes for each email?  7 seconds?

     What a collossal waste of time.  Computers are supposed to be labour-saving devices.  SSDS does nothing but increase the user's workload (to the point of insanity, apparently).



  •  @SpectateSwamp said:

    I have done no merging of my main 8 or 10 files. I just append notes and any emails I want to keep FOREVER.

    Unfortunately the Masses are interested in [b]working[/b] with files, not accumulating data.

    I work with Word documents every day. It would be impossible for me to append all the files that I'm working / have worked with (actually I break up documents that are larger than ~150 Kb because smaller documents are more convenient to work with). That would mean that each day it would take longer and longer to open the document and get started. And sadly I can't convert them to plain text, because formatting matters in this line of work. And when I need to search for something in [b]those[/b] documents (usually with the intent of changing things), I sadly often need the regex powers of the Word Find box (which SSDS probably lacks).

    I guess I could make a plain text copy of everything, but what do you recommend for keeping this in sync with the originals that are edited constantly?

    By the way, mr Seach Expert, could you tell us more about what the condemned indexing actually does behind the scenes (other than taking control over the data)? And do you know any other search algorithms other than linear search?



  • Wow - I am NOT going to merge all of those!

    Yikes!

    I just thought I would check, out of interest, and I have ~75,000 files in my current working directories!

    Most of these are source files, or auto-generated files linked to the source files.

    There are quite a lot because I keep multiple versions of source trees in different permutaions for different customers etc.

    Maybe it would make more sense to fold it all into a massive CVS system (but then searching would be a pain).

    How would SSDS work for this?

    I know how GDS works - great! And I didn't have to merge all those files! 



  • @GettinSadda said:

    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!

     

    Unfortunately he can see it, as a copy/paste copies the alt text. I failed at not thinking about that yesterday either...

         

    02-13-2008 1:05 PM     In reply to
              o GettinSadda
              o
              o Top 150 Contributor
              o Joined on 05-25-2006
              o North-East Scotland
              o Posts 173
             
          Re: SSDS 30 time Slower than Copernic
          Reply Favorites Contact

          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!
              o
              o Report abuse
              o Quick Reply



  • @fist-poster said:

    And when I need to search for something in those documents (usually with the intent of changing things), I sadly often need the regex powers of the Word Find box (which SSDS probably lacks).

    I guess I could make a plain text copy of everything, but what do you recommend for keeping this in sync with the originals that are edited constantly?

    By the way, mr Seach Expert, could you tell us more about what the condemned indexing actually does behind the scenes (other than taking control over the data)? And do you know any other search algorithms other than linear search?

     

    Regular expressions? Search algorithms?

    All the common man needs is a Grade 9 education, a camcorder,  8 or 20 gigantic text files, and a copy of SSDS.  Everything else is just Gee Haw boondoggle.

    You poor sob. 



  • Swampy,

    How can you say this are not results with context?

    Additional: can you demo me how you would find a word with SSDS, and edit this word in the original file after you found it with SSDS?



  • A time to be Inefficient - Grepplers are Inefficient by nature and quit mean

    @rc_pinchey said:

    @SpectateSwamp said:

    What is the definition of INDEX?
     

    "An index is any data structure which improves the performance of lookup."

    You application DOES use an index- the merged search.txt file. It's just an inefficient (human-readable) index. 

    I like that improves the performance bit. But a copy of the file being an index. I don't think so. The dictionary is wrong or should be update, given this new information. My notes.txt are never merged with anything. I use the 'e' option at prompt #2 to enter my notes. No merging there ever. So when I search my notes it is not an index. But if I searched a merge of all my txt files including my notes, then it is an INDEX?? If I threw the originals away. Would the merge.txt still be an index?  Inefficient index. HaH. At 20,000,000 cps who on Gods Green Earth gives a damn about efficiency. Most most text files are small and computers are fast and getting faster. And you worry about inefficient tasks. Wake Up. There are a lot of things the SSDS search does that are Inefficient and Swamp search is still way faster than the Copernics PreView screen. I'm sure Their Preview app is very efficent CODE

     



  • @SpectateSwamp said:

    Most most text files are small
     

    If most text files are small, then why does SSDS force us to merge them all into one huge file just so they can be searched? I already showed you the pseudo-code to make SSDS search through multiple files. It's a trivial change, and would make SSDS less moronic and ever-so-slightly more useful to some of us.

    Start realizing that most people don't ONLY append to files. They go into the guts of multiple files and make changes. They add stuff, they remove stuff, they move stuff around. That's not possible with your "everything has to be a monolithic big file" approach.



  • @SpectateSwamp said:

    Wake Up. There are a lot of things the SSDS search does that are Inefficient and Swamp search is still way faster than the Copernics PreView screen. I'm sure Their Preview app is very efficent CODE

     

     

    Yet Copernic has users and you have none.  Why is that? WAKE UP.   Apparently, nobody wants to use SSDS.  If you make an appealing product, people will use it of their own free will.  If you have to shove your product down everyone's throats, you have a problem.

    Just give up trying to convince the posters here to use SSDS.  You would have better luck running for Prime Minister as a member of the Natural Law Party, and enacting a law that mandates use of SSDS by everyone who owns a PC.



  • @CodeSimian said:

    Yet Copernic has users and you have none. 
     

    Actually he has had at least 10. And they left reviews. And they are hilarious.

    http://www.topshareware.com/reviews/42932-1/spectate-swamp-search.htm



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    Actually he has had at least 10. And they left reviews. And they are hilarious.
     

    Sorry, I should have been more specific: SSDS has no users who weren't compelled to trash their PC with a sledgehammer and swear to use an abacus and stone tablets for the rest of their lives, rather than enduring another second of the awesomeness that is SpectateSwampDesktopSearch.



  • @CodeSimian said:

    @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    Actually he has had at least 10. And they left reviews. And they are hilarious.
     

    Sorry, I should have been more specific: SSDS has no users who weren't compelled to trash their PC with a sledgehammer and swear to use an abacus and stone tablets for the rest of their lives, rather than enduring another second of the awesomeness that is SpectateSwampDesktopSearch.

     

    Thank you for the correction. I feel better now.



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    @CodeSimian said:

    Yet Copernic has users and you have none. 
     

    Actually he has had at least 10. And they left reviews. And they are hilarious.

    http://www.topshareware.com/reviews/42932-1/spectate-swamp-search.htm

     

     

    This is my favourite one:

    Brilliant media player
    This can do it all - video, music and image playback! I just wish it had some sort of search functionality built in. Maybe next version?
    -- Posted by Jon on Tuesday, February 06, 2007

     



  • @CodeSimian said:

    @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    @CodeSimian said:

    Yet Copernic has users and you have none. 
     

    Actually he has had at least 10. And they left reviews. And they are hilarious.

    http://www.topshareware.com/reviews/42932-1/spectate-swamp-search.htm

     

    This is my favourite one:

    Brilliant media player
    This can do it all - video, music and image playback! I just wish it had some sort of search functionality built in. Maybe next version?
    -- Posted by Jon on Tuesday, February 06, 2007

     

     Right, and my favorite part about that is that it doesn't even play media either... I have been here since the first SS post here, and on Channel 9, and I have yet to figure out one useful thing SSDS does, and/or one thing it was DESIGNED to do.



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    [T]hey left reviews. And they are hilarious.

     

     Or how about this one:

    (Emphasis mine)

     

    Search is what this program does

    Hi Jon to search my inmail.txt file (I have them all back to 1996) at prompt #1 enter "inmail.txt" at prompt #2 enter "C" for full context display or "S" for matching lines display at prompt #3 enter "from:/SpectateSwamp" The "/" is the field seperator and can be changed in the control.txt file up to 6 elements can be listed here. and you are off searching you can display a previous match by entering "p" enter "b" to back up one screen and display again enter "a" to continue complete display from the latest match.

    This is probably the best place to replay to search questions for now.

    -- Posted by Spectate Swamp on Wednesday, February 07, 2007

    Spectate, why would Jon care about searching your inmail.txt?  Did it ever occur to you that people want to search their own files (not your files!) and that not everyone "organizes" their files the same way you do?



  • @CodeSimian said:

    Spectate, why would Jon care about searching your inmail.txt? 
     

    No really, if you enter those commands, you will search inmail.txt... located on Spectate's computer! It is magical!



  • SpectateSwamp, Since you aren't understanding the technological definition of "index":

     By definition, an "Index" on a computer is simular to a Table of Contents of a book. it is designed to lookup content quickly based on keywords that are descriptive to that document or a group of documents. For example, in a book, one would look to the index to look for words descriptive to the topic matter they are looking for. Nobody would read the book front to back to look for the content that is at the very end of a book or section, And one would not look through the book for specific content if there is an index available. One would not look for the word "the" in a book, as that is irrelevant to the content matter they are searching for, but instead of doing that, they would look for one or two words UNIQUE To the subject they are looking for.

     Would you search through an entire library of books when there is a catalogue telling you where in the library to go to find your book? Or would you consult the catalogue first, THEN go find your book?

     Computer filesystems aren't much different than libraries, You just have to know how to use it competently, and from my point of view, as per my analogy. you have a few huge binders and are tearing the pages out of the perfectly good books (files) and holepunching them, then putting the pages into the binders in such a way that if either of the binders (the merged files) were to ever become damaged in a fire (file corruption), there would be more loss.

    Now,ending the analogy,

    I do wish you would get your head out of your 1970's ideals, they are suffocating your progress in technology, all you can think about is VAX this, VAX that, VAX the other, Telco systems this,  Cableco that, sure, they exist to this day, but I can guarentee you that Telcos/Cablecos don't use VAX computers for data, as in current database formats, one can sort the customers by date joined, by name (first OR last), and have SELECTIVE results based on if the customer joined less than a year ago, without knowing the precise year. and have visually appealing results. (I doubt anyone who is a CSR (Customer Service Rep) would want to stare at a monochrome/text only screen all day) 

     

    (Radiation tag because you can't stay around this stuff too long) 



  • Indexers don't do Context Or Random Video - Like this.

    @emurphy said:

    On the other hand, to get from there to a point where GDS or WDS or Copernic would be of any use to him, he would have to (1) install it, (2) go do something else while the computer builds the index for him, (3) figure out a very simple "enter your search terms and click a button / hit the Enter key" interface, and (4) not change his habits at all.

    That's why the half day at Swamp Shack with their new camcorder. I'll show it all to them. How poorly the competition does. Their Swamp Search will run right from the DVD they leave the Shack with. They might not even get a computer right away. Just bumb one. I'll show them my backup. My OS reinstall. My camera software load and my internet reload. On Video. There is already enough SSDS video on the net to get The Masses started. Another half day here, would make them extremely comfortable with SSDS and the fact Swamp Search will only get faster and faster.... Then there is video and Video and VIDEO The other indexers don't do video like this. No they don't. The Swampies might want to take the other Ha/f Day video course at the Shack.

     

     



  • @SpectateSwamp said:

    That's why the half day at Swamp Shack with their new camcorder. I'll show it all to them. How poorly the competition does. Their Swamp Search will run right from the DVD they leave the Shack with. They might not even get a computer right away. Just bumb one. I'll show them my backup. My OS reinstall. My camera software load and my internet reload. On Video. There is already enough SSDS video on the net to get The Masses started. Another half day here, would make them extremely comfortable with SSDS and the fact Swamp Search will only get faster and faster.... Then there is video and Video and VIDEO The other indexers don't do video like this. No they don't. The Swampies might want to take the other Ha/f Day video course at the Shack.
     

    So sad that you are so alone...



  • @emurphy said:

    The comments about SSDS having an index are specifically referring to the lines referring to your MP3 and MPG files, along the lines of

     

    music random_moose Random Moose
    xxx.mci:random_moose.mp3

    video city_council_6_of_1 City Council 6 Jan 09
    xxx.mci:city_council_090106.mpg

    or whatever the syntax is.

    I agree with you there and you did real good syntax. The only thing it needs is "photo " somewhere in the first line like this:

    photo video Start=18000 speed=100 freeze=6 wait=15                                                                                                           xxx.c:\search\mpg\demo716_pict08.mpg

    That would start the video at a point 18 seconds in, playing back at 1/10 speed, for 15 seconds of video (2 or 3 mins) and stop at 33 secs into the video, freezing there for 6 seconds. I do a catalog (gf) of all my mpg videos and it has the photo and xxx. and the paths in. A quick rrr (search and replace) at prompt #2 has the other elements in and ready to test. Try it. It is that fast and easy. Anybody with mpg and has followed this thread can do it.



  • @SpectateSwamp said:

    Try it. It is that fast and easy. Anybody with mpg and has followed this thread can do it.
     

    I did try it. I followed your directions. I posted the video of SSDS failing. You ignored it.



  • MasterPlanSoftWare wants VIDEO

    @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    @SpectateSwamp said:

    Try it. It is that fast and easy. Anybody with mpg and has followed this thread can do it.
     

    I did try it. I followed your directions. I posted the video of SSDS failing. You ignored it.

    I'll blame it on poor instructions. That is my next video. Cam Studio Screen re-shoot episode. I'll do the 'gf' option at prompt #2 to auto catalog any mpg anywhere on c or d or f drive. To make you happy. Then a quick rrr to change "photo " to "photo speed=100 wait=7 freeze=6" would have it set to go. Then back into the file and at prompt #2 enter "rand" then "randa" to set it to pick a random file and randa would set it to pick a random start point. ww at prompt #2 kicks it off. You will enjoy your videos. Any demo video can be used against me or you or our subjects. So any enforcement types are ordered to leave this thread.


  • @SpectateSwamp said:

    That's why the half day at Swamp Shack with their new camcorder. I'll show it all to them. How poorly the competition does. Their Swamp Search will run right from the DVD they leave the Shack with. They might not even get a computer right away. Just bumb one. I'll show them my backup. My OS reinstall. My camera software load and my internet reload. On Video. There is already enough SSDS video on the net to get The Masses started. Another half day here, would make them extremely comfortable with SSDS and the fact Swamp Search will only get faster and faster.... Then there is video and Video and VIDEO The other indexers don't do video like this. No they don't. The Swampies might want to take the other Ha/f Day video course at the Shack.

    No offence but a half day to learn how to search a text file seem absurd. Here is a quicker lesson for anyone without the time or desire to visit you.

    1. Open the text file of your choice in notepad.
    2. Hit ctrl+f and then type your search word
    3. Hit enter.

    pretty easy really. If the file is too large for notepad you could also take this as an opportunity to organise your data better, differernt folders for different projects or customers etc.

    Out of interest - what the fuck does 'internet reload' mean and what does it have to do with searching for files? What does searching have to do with re-installing an OS? An indexer isn't meant to play videos either you moron, an index based search is designed to find the files quicker. For the love of god try to grasp the difference between searchin for things and searching inside things as it is a fundamental issue here.



  • Can't Touch this Greppler

    @CodeSimian said:

    I'm sure there are dozens, if not hundreds or thousands, more utilities that can do non-indexed search.  Some of those tools may actually have more than one deluded, deranged user. 

    Do they export to the clipboard or to an extract file. Can you flash in and out seeing your last notes in under 3 seconds. No NO AND NO SSDS does everything any of the Masses would need. In a manner easily understood. Does that scare you?


  • Desktop Find VS Desktop Search

    @spenk said:

    Desktop Search tool is designed to find files containing words, phrases etc. when you do not know which file(s) they are contained in. Tools like grep were originally designed to locate a term inside a file when the file was known.

     Then They should call it Desktop Find not Desktop Search. Search is what the Vax did in the 80's an the greps from even earlier. SSDS is an evolved desktop search, the indexers all came from internet searches. They are not Desktop Search. They are internet searches disguised as DS. With their indexes for kazillions of records / files. Indexing for personal computing is OVERKILL. No doubt about it.


  • @SpectateSwamp said:

    Then They should call it Desktop Find not Desktop Search.
     

    Yes. The world should change it's definitions because you don't agree with them.



  • @SpectateSwamp said:

    Do they export to the clipboard or to an extract file.

    If you mean can a text editor copy text to the clipboard then yes they can. By extract file do you mean save to a file? If so this is a fairly basic thing for a text edit (like notepad).

    @SpectateSwamp said:

    Can you flash in and out seeing your last notes in under 3 seconds
     

    No other person wants to flash in and out (whatever that means) to see last notes. Most of us would generally associate our notes with something other than just a large file i.e. they would be files in a particular directory and relate to other things in that directory.

    @SpectateSwamp said:

    No NO AND NO SSDS does everything any of the Masses would need.

    As long as masses do not want to use anything other than plain text and are happy to keep it all in a couple of big files. Mp3s and video are playable but you have to manually index them before ssds can random. For most people (I'm assuming this is what you mean by the masses) ssds is a pointless and overly complicated application that serves no real purpose. Most of it's functionality is already present in other applications or the os itself.

    @SpectateSwamp said:

    In a manner easily understood.

    rand randa norand noranda ww .tt y how the fuck can you claim they are easy to understand? Even you have got them wrong in your forum posts.

    @SpectateSwamp said:

    Does that scare you?

    You and your SSDS do instill a certain amount of fear, but I would tend towards words like 'disturbing' though.

     



  • @spenk said:

     

    @SpectateSwamp said:

    In a manner easily understood.

    rand randa norand noranda ww .tt y how the fuck can you claim they are easy to understand? Even you have got them wrong in your forum posts.

     

    And more importantly to get the function to work the way he claims, I would have to edit 'control files'. 

    Wonderful.



  • @SpectateSwamp said:

    But a copy of the file being an index. I don't think so.
     

     

    Hokay, once again, you've got two concepts mixed together here:

     

    1. Text files are copy+pasted into one huge text file.  This is not an index.
    2. Non-text files are referenced via "music random_moose.mp3" and so forth.  This is an index.


    and these separate concepts have separate criticisms:

     

    1. The common man does not want to copy+paste text files into one huge text file.
    2. The common man does not want to manually create this index. 

    @SpectateSwamp said:

    Swamp search is still way faster than the Copernics PreView screen.

     

    We suspect that the following is happening:

     

    1. Copernic has to read the file directly from disk (slow).
    2. Under the covers, Windows caches this data in RAM, on the theory that it may be accessed again in the near future.  And this theory turns out to be correct, because:
    3. SSDS then gets to read the data from RAM cache (fast).

     

    This is why you were asked to reboot between trials.  Alternatively, you could search using SSDS first and Copernic second.

     

    The other potential issue (this one is muddled by your horribly unclear explanations of SSDS) is that SSDS seems to remember the results of the last search it ran, including "the first instance of the search word was 12,345 bytes from the start and the last instance was 98,765,432 bytes from the start" (or similar); if you repeat that search, then it jumps directly to the appropriate starting point.  (This is also an index.)  In contrast, Copernic's index records which files contain a given word, but does not record where in those files the word appears; so, when you ask for context, it has to search that one file starting from the top.

     

    Your horribly unclear explanations of SSDS are a major part of the problem, by the way.  If it takes you and your prospective user 10 or 15 attempts to work out the correct sequence of commands, then the prospective user is going to lose interest very quickly.  Stop blaming this on the prospective user, and learn to explain things clearly.  (Well, you won't, but at least try?)

     



  • Sample video & music. Find text - like no other. SSDS

    @rc_pinchey said:

    @SpectateSwamp said:

    I have done no merging of my main 8 or 10 files.
     

    One question. Let's say I install SSDS, and I merge my data into 8 or 10 main files. I put these files in some directory somewhere.

    Then, you have to use my PC. You're allowed to use SSDS, of course. You have to find an email address you know I've got.

     

    HOW DO YOU FIND MY FILES??? 

    I'm in no hurry here am I. First I'd merge your 8 or 10 main files. Because if I'm on contract. I don't want it to happen too fast. After the merge I'd do a "s" search for "To:/@" that would show all email addresses sent to. or I'd search 's' for "From:/@" and they would fill the screen. I'd have to hold the enter key down to get through them all because you got so many. The files that are merged have a break indicator line and that shows up in the form border as you plow through the data. I've done this to get email lists that feed to the clipboard for my media friends..

     

     



  • @SpectateSwamp said:

     Then They should call it Desktop Find not Desktop Search. Search is what the Vax did in the 80's an the greps from even earlier. SSDS is an evolved desktop search, the indexers all came from internet searches. They are not Desktop Search. They are internet searches disguised as DS. With their indexes for kazillions of records / files. Indexing for personal computing is OVERKILL. No doubt about it.

    Searching for files or searching in a file, finding files or finding something in a file; searching and finding mean the same thing in this context. Desktop search however is, as I have repeatedly pointed out, the established term to mean a tool that searches for files.

    So what if the main players in the desktop search area have also done search tools for the internet - this simply proves they have experience in this field. Indexing is not overkill for anyone who has more than a handfull of files and needs to locate a file or files based on contents or metadata - just because you choose to only have a few files doesn't mean everyone else has the same peculiar working practices.



  • @SpectateSwamp said:

    @CodeSimian said:

    I'm sure there are dozens, if not hundreds or thousands, more utilities that can do non-indexed search.  Some of those tools may actually have more than one deluded, deranged user. 

    Do they export to the clipboard or to an extract file.

     

     

    Try the following at a DOS prompt:

     

    FIND "778" C:\SEARCH\NOTES.TXT > C:\SEARCH\778.TXT

     

    Use FIND /I if you want to ignore the difference between upper/lowercase.

     



  • Grepplers use resources - Indexers abuse resources

    @GalacticCowboy said:

    If you're not "merging" when you "append", WTF are you doing?

     So I open a wordpad file and insert some text at the end. Same Thing. An append to an existing file. Everything is an append. Then We definitely need more appending from my perspective. Cut and paste and append this thread. Or would you keep each post seperate?


  • @SpectateSwamp said:

    @CodeSimian said:

    I'm sure there are dozens, if not hundreds or thousands, more utilities that can do non-indexed search.  Some of those tools may actually have more than one deluded, deranged user. 

    Do they export to the clipboard or to an extract file. Can you flash in and out seeing your last notes in under 3 seconds. No NO AND NO SSDS does everything any of the Masses would need. In a manner easily understood. Does that scare you?

     

     Then why aren't the masses using your software?  What are you doing here?  According to you, everyone here is a "nerd" or a "geek".  Why aren't you standing on a street corner, peddling SSDS to the masses?

     Who are you to tell the world how to search?  Nobody tells you not to merge all your data into 8 or 10 files.  Sure, people told it was stupid and pointless, but nobody is trying to force you to use real software, like GDS or grep.



  • @SpectateSwamp said:

    @rc_pinchey said:

    @SpectateSwamp said:

    I have done no merging of my main 8 or 10 files.
     

    One question. Let's say I install SSDS, and I merge my data into 8 or 10 main files. I put these files in some directory somewhere.

    Then, you have to use my PC. You're allowed to use SSDS, of course. You have to find an email address you know I've got.

     

    HOW DO YOU FIND MY FILES??? 

    I'm in no hurry here am I. First I'd merge your 8 or 10 main files.

     

     

    No, no, no!  You have already failed!

     

    Let me state explicitly what RC clearly (to everyone except you) implied:

     

    • RC puts the 8 or 10 main files in some directory somewhere.
    • RC does not tell you which directory they are in.
    • You must use SSDS to figure out which directory they are in.

    How do you do that part?

     

    Second, let's assume for the moment that you have somehow figured out which directory they are in.  How do you merge the files?  No fair telling the user to use Windows Explorer or Notepad directly; you must do it all through SSDS.  List each and every command needed.  (And consider using bullet points when you provide that list; it would at least be a first step toward making your horribly unclear instructions readable.)

     



  •  @SpectateSwamp said:

    Indexing for personal computing is OVERKILL. No doubt about it.

    Maybe so, maybe not.  Personally, I think indexing is a personal choice.  Some people like to turn off indexing in Vista/XP, for example, because they feel it degrades performance.  Ironically, this kind of person is usually very technically-savvy (e.g. a "nerd") and it goes without saying that they know where most of there files are.

    For the common man, however, indexing is VERY useful.

    You still have not convinced anybody to use SSDS, whether they like indexing or not.



  • @CodeSimian said:

    @SpectateSwamp said:

    I just append notes and any emails I want to keep FOREVER.
     

     You forgot to explain the step where you forward all your received emails to yourself, just to make it easier to copy and paste the sender's email address into plain text.  How long did you say it takes for each email?  7 seconds?

     What a collossal waste of time.  Computers are supposed to be labour-saving devices.  SSDS does nothing but increase the user's workload (to the point of insanity, apparently).

    Yes it is a waste of time. Every good software product should allow you to export your data to a plain text file. But they don't want to. Why is that? Who's data is it? Why do people put up with this Crap? In no way does SSDS hold your data Ransom like these other apps 


  • @SpectateSwamp said:

    @CodeSimian said:

    @SpectateSwamp said:

    I just append notes and any emails I want to keep FOREVER.
     

     You forgot to explain the step where you forward all your received emails to yourself, just to make it easier to copy and paste the sender's email address into plain text.  How long did you say it takes for each email?  7 seconds?

     What a collossal waste of time.  Computers are supposed to be labour-saving devices.  SSDS does nothing but increase the user's workload (to the point of insanity, apparently).

    Yes it is a waste of time. Every good software product should allow you to export your data to a plain text file. But they don't want to. Why is that? Who's data is it? Why do people put up with this Crap? In no way does SSDS hold your data Ransom like these other apps 
     

    You moron, SSDS doesn't allow you to keep all your data in plain text, it forces you to.

    Do you understand the difference between a FEATURE and a REQUIREMENT

    For example, Microsoft Windows requires you to own an Intel-based PC.  That means you have to go out and buy a PC before you can run Windows.  Owning a PC is a requirement of Windows, not a feature.

    When you buy a car, having a valid driver's license is a requirement of being able to drive it.  You don't go out and buy a car, then say: "Wow, now I'm allowed to drive!"  First, you have to get a driver's license, THEN you can buy a car and drive it.

    If SSDS does EVERYTHING, it should be able to export emails to plain text from common mail clients.  For example, Thunderbird already uses a structured text format (Unix mbox).  You should be able to read the spec online and figure out how to extract emails from Thunderbird.

    Yes, proprietary data formats are a real issue. No, exporting all your data to unstructured plain text and using SSDS to search it is not the answer.

    You never answered my question before - once all your mail is in inmail.txt, can you re-import it into Outlook Express (or any other mail client)?  No, because you have thrown away VALUABLE INFORMATION when you copied and pasted to text.

    Just like when you copy and paste this forum thread, you lose information about images, formatting, etc. 



  • Grepplers could do Word searches

    @fist-poster said:

    And when I need to search for something in those documents (usually with the intent of changing things),

    Geez having to change documents. I hope they were not sent out incorrectly. What you are talking about is more of a business application than the masses. But SSDS can help there. Now if you were bright or had a bright friend that could write a simple program that would get 1 line of text from "word" and write it out to a plain text file. then on the next line write the xxx.(then path to the file here) then write another line then 'xxx.(path to file) again and again until that file is done then onto the next word file. It won't take long and when you search for keywords. the file path will be in the clipboard. And you can take your Swamp search with you anywhere without interfering with somebody elses computer operations. No indexer firing up. Just the greatest GREPPLER around.


  • @fist-poster said:

    By the way, mr Seach Expert, could you tell us more about what the condemned indexing actually does behind the scenes (other than taking control over the data)? And do you know any other search algorithms other than linear search?

    Nope don't know nothing about the indexers and that was by intent. Once a greppler always a greppler. Linear Search speeds are just amazing

Log in to reply