Please Remove The Freaking Search Timer

[OffHand]

Please remove the timer on searches or decrease it to like 5 seconds. It sucks waiting all the time. I think it's very annoying. Thanks in advance.

/discuss

[meng]

It can be annoying, but one might ask WHY you would need to search more than once every 15 seconds. Be more selective with your searches!

[OffHand]

It can be annoying, but one might ask WHY you would need to search more than once every 15 seconds. Be more selective with your searches!

No thanks. Not an option and not realistic.

[meng]

Well I guess that's the end of the discussion.

[23meg]

It's there for a reason perhaps, to limit server load. Even if you feel very strongly about it, it would be nicer to ask why it's there in the first place, and whether it would be feasible to remove it.

[kEinstein]

Hmm, I don't get your point meng:
Especially new users will not be able to distinguish 'selective' searches from those that are not... In order to give you a few examples of selective searches that result in no/few inappropriate hits try to solve the following issue:
I'm struggling to find information on a scrambled cursor on a dual-head system using fglrx. The cursor is only corrupted on the secondary (external) screen. Although I have been able to solve this issue via the search function, it took me some time to figure out the correct - and selective - keywords. :-?

'fglrx cursor dual' ... no result, penalty: 15 seconds
'fglrx cursor' ... 1 result - inappropriate (not my sort of scrambled cursor, nor does it appear on the secondary screen only), penalty: 15 seconds
'dual cursor' ... 4 results - we are getting there since I posted a link to the solution in one of the threads. Otherwise you'd have to wait another 15 seconds and rephrase your search

[...]

Guess what is the appropriate thread name that aims at this very issue?
'xorg, dualscreen, ati problem: mouse cursor garbage' :confused:

... only searching for 'cursor', 'cursor problem' would lead to the thread - but I tried to be SPECIFIC to limit the amount of results and get reasonable solutions via the bold keywords. :rolleyes:

Someone else is trying to find info on this very issue. His thread is named 'Dual Monitors Strange Cursor on Second Monitor' ... guess WHY he has not been able to find the appropriate thread for a day? I'm going to post a link to the relevant thread.

To sum up: 15 seconds are fine in threads that are covered a houndred dozen times in this forum. But don't propose 15 seconds are fine in a more specific case... ](*,)

[meng]

kEinstein:
I'm not the biggest fan of Google, but did you know that if you searched google for:
dual cursor fglrx ubuntuforums
the second hit gives you the thread you cited as the appropriate one?

Google's server bandwidth is probably ever so slightly bigger than ubuntuforums'.

Yes, I've been hit by the 15-second limit too. Indeed, several times each and every day. I live with it.

[23meg]

I'm not the biggest fan of Google, but Me neither, but there's even better: "site:http://www.ubuntuforums.org foo" will search for foo in the forums.

[PriceChild]

I'm not the authority on this but....

On average we have 4000 registered users. 3/4 of those being guests who are going to be searching A LOT. 15 seconds IMO is a reasonable amount of time to make a search, and review the results. Would you rather a small amount of users annoyed they have to wait 10 seconds when they make a too precise search, or 5000 users moaning that the forums are slow in general?

Things like this, and removing a couple of stats from the main page have to be done to keep things smooth :)

Its something to think about in that 10 seconds you have to waste :)

Pricey

[raul_]

It's really annoying with grammar errors though :rolleyes:

[kEinstein]

Me neither, but there's even better: "site:http://www.ubuntuforums.org foo" will search for foo in the forums.

Thank you for your input! I have been searching a lot via the search bar these days - and felt quite annoyed about the time limit. Indeed, the google 'site:URL foo' is a perfect means to bypass server load... I'm going to customize a search plugin for firefox right now. :D

[23meg]

Good, did you check if there already is one? There is one for the forum's own search here:

http://mycroft.mozdev.org/download.html?name=ubuntu+forums&sherlock=yes&opensearch=yes&submitform=Search

[PriceChild]

Good, did you check if there already is one? There is one for the forum's own search here:

http://mycroft.mozdev.org/download.html?name=ubuntu+forums&sherlock=yes&opensearch=yes&submitform=Searchhehe i've got one for the forums and packages.ubuntu.com :)

[kEinstein]

Yes, I already found this one - but again - it uses the forum's search (15 sec. limit applies). I'm thinking of a search plugin that uses google to search the forum via 'site:URL foo'.

[matthew]

Yes, I already found this one - but again - it uses the forum's search (15 sec. limit applies). I'm thinking of a search plugin that uses google to search the forum via 'site:URL foo'.Please post a link if/when you get it put together. :)

[steven8]

I remember the first time I encountered the 15 second rule. I said what?, waited the interminable 7 seconds, then searched again.

That's 7 seconds of my life I'll never get back.

[Lord Illidan]

I remember the first time I encountered the 15 second rule. I said what?, waited the interminable 7 seconds, then searched again.

That's 7 seconds of my life I'll never get back.

Aye, let's sue. :mrgreen:

[steven8]

Aye, let's sue.

Shame Johnny Cochran's dead. . .

[kEinstein]

Hi there!!
I have found some time to put a little thingy together :D

Search Engine (http://austrian.n3rds.net/uploads/googleubuntu.tar.gz) for Firefox to search Ubuntuforums.org via Google

Q: What does it do?
A: It uses Google to search ubuntuforums.org via implementing a search engine in Firefox. The idea to use 'site:http://ubuntuforums.org foo' to search entries has been initiated by 23meg after a small debate (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=331483) on the 15 sec. time limit when performing searches via the searchbar.

Q: Why should I use it?
A1: You might want to relief ubuntuforums' server load!
A2: You might want to perform searches without the 15 second limit for whatever reason.

Q: Can I have the code?
A: Of course. Feel free to make changes, improvements or whatever.

Q: Can I customize the plugin to perform searches on other sites?
A: Of course!!! Do the trick by substituting the 'www.ubuntuforums.org' to 'whatsoeverURL' in line 18.


The plugin is available here:
Search Engine (http://austrian.n3rds.net/uploads/googleubuntu.tar.gz) for Firefox


As sudo, simply untar the content to the following location...

/usr/share/firefox/searchplugins
... restart Firefox and start using the search engine in the upper right corner (by default)


The archive includes a code 'googleubuntu.src' and a small image 'googleubuntu.gif' to make it look neat.


# Firefox plugin file
#
# Google | Ubuntuforums.org search
# by kEinstein
#
# Last updated: January 5, 2007

<search
name="Google | Ubuntuforums.org"
description="Search Ubuntuforums.org with Google"
action="http://www.google.com/search"
searchForm="http://www.ubuntuforums.org/"
queryEncoding="utf-8"
queryCharset="utf-8"
method="GET"
>

<input name="q" value="site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ubuntuforums.org">
<input name="q" user="">


</search>


I am also going to start a new thread - my first one in this forum - and post the plugin.

Cheers!
Hope you enjoy it!

PS: I have tested it using Firefox 2.0.0.1 - I hope it works for you too!

[Lord Illidan]

KEinstein, can you explain how to install it, pls?

EDIT : Ah, you anticipated me :)

[kEinstein]

Of course, I reedited the post - unfortunately I pressed the 'submit' button instead of the 'preview' button.

[Lord Illidan]

Of course, I reedited the post - unfortunately I pressed the 'submit' button instead of the 'preview' button.

Aye, I thought so. Works great.

[raul_]

Works like a charm, post a HowTo :)

[kEinstein]

Raul, what do you think of exactly? 'How to write my own search engine?'

[raul_]

No, you can find that in the Mozilla Page :) Just a thread like "Plugin to search forums without time limit" or someting like that and attach your file with the installation instructions ;)

[PriceChild]

You may want to change the descriptions to .org instead of .com :)

[kEinstein]

Yeah, I did so a couple of minutes ago... I don't know why it's not published yet - do new threads have to be approved by the moderators? Sorry, my first thread in this forum.

[raul_]

I think the How To's have. Once i posted a How To that took so long to get approved, that when it was, it was like 10 pages behind so nobody saw it :mrgreen: but usually it's fast

[kEinstein]

Oouups. :D Indeed .com instead of .org
Changed it in this thread, as soon as the new thread in the How-To Section is published I'll change it, too.

[PriceChild]

Thread approved :)

Please please change it from .com to .org :)

[ubuntu-geek]

The search timer is in place to help us keep our server loads nice. We will not be making any changes to it.

[po0f]

kEinstein,

Instead of a whole plugin that gets loaded along with all the bloat that is Firefox, why don't you just create a shortcut?

Go to the Google (http://www.google.com/) homepage and enter as your search query "site:ubuntuforums.org FOO". Never mind the results, look at the URL.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Aubuntuforums.org+FOO&btnG=Google+Search
We can shorten this to:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Aubuntuforums.org+FOO
Now, replace FOO with %s, and create a shortcut with this as the address:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Aubuntuforums.org+%s
Give it a keyword, mine is 'guf' (Google UbuntuForums). Now you just have to type in "guf FOO" in the location bar to google search ubuntuforums. :)

[OffHand]

Thanks for that plugin kEinstein. Really useful.

[OffHand]

The search timer is in place to help us keep our server loads nice. We will not be making any changes to it.


Too bad you do not even consider decreasing the search wait times a bit Ubuntu-Geek.
Did you ever try changing it to see what the impact would be?

[matthew]

Too bad you do not even consider decreasing the search wait times a bit Ubuntu-Geek.
Did you ever try changing it to see what the impact would be?It was adjusted many times in the past. The current setting was found to be a good balance between usability and server load.

Too bad you chose the passive-aggressive tone, it makes you seem rude and unfriendly. (Not to mention more than a little self-righteous.)

[Stephen Howard]

I have to agree with the original poster, the search timeout is a pain. Its so 90s.

If there really is a problem with the server, then how about doing something like turning on the timer only when load is high?

Or, better still, if load is high, how about limiting the graphics. For instance, if the server starts to melt, start serving a text only masthead and disable smilies etc.

[Stephen Howard]

oh, you could also stop serving user Avatars - a total waste of space. There are lots of options to consider before you actual start to reduce access to fundamental features like the search facility.

[23meg]

Or, better still, if load is high, how about limiting the graphics. For instance, if the server starts to melt, start serving a text only masthead and disable smilies etc.
oh, you could also stop serving user Avatars - a total waste of space. There are lots of options to consider before you actual start to reduce access to fundamental features like the search facility.The kind of load placed on the server by search queries has little to do with the kind placed by serving images.

To all those disturbed by the timer: how about considering donating to the forums if you feel so strongly about this and are serious about making a difference?

[OffHand]

It was adjusted many times in the past. The current setting was found to be a good balance between usability and server load.

Too bad you chose the passive-aggressive tone, it makes you seem rude and unfriendly. (Not to mention more than a little self-righteous.)

Oh... I used the word 'sucks'. I'm sorry but.... LOL
If you are that easily offended....


Please remove the timer on searches or decrease it to like 5 seconds. It sucks waiting all the time. I think it's very annoying. Thanks in advance.

/discuss

[Stephen Howard]

23Meg said:
The kind of load placed on the server by search queries has little to do with the kind placed by serving images.


I'll take your word for it 23Meg, but it seems to me that every avatar served is taken from a database, and that == load.

As another example, look at the front page - scroll right down to the bottom where no one looks and you'll see that the forum serves up a totally gratuitous list of users - wc showed 462 names. I'd happily trade that database intensive 'feature' (served to everyone on the main page whether they ask for it or not!) in return for dropping the irritating search timeout.

[matthew]

As another example, look at the front page - scroll right down to the bottom where no one looks and you'll see that the forum serves up a totally gratuitous list of users - wc showed 462 names. I'd happily trade that database intensive 'feature' (served to everyone on the main page whether they ask for it or not!) in return for dropping the irritating search timeout.That feature was removed for an extended period of time while optimizations were made. It's a useful feature that many of us were glad to have returned when it was possible.

Look, I understand why you would like the time between searches limit reset, but it is one among many factors that were weighed in the process of making these forums consistently useful and available, even under heavy loads. I'm sorry you disagree with the decision, but it has been made and ubuntu-geek already said it isn't going to be revisited. If you (plural, not merely the poster I quoted above) wish to continue to rant about it you can do so, but it's not reasonable expect any further reply from staff.

[Johan!]

23Meg said:


I'll take your word for it 23Meg, but it seems to me that every avatar served is taken from a database, and that == load.

As another example, look at the front page - scroll right down to the bottom where no one looks and you'll see that the forum serves up a totally gratuitous list of users - wc showed 462 names. I'd happily trade that database intensive 'feature' (served to everyone on the main page whether they ask for it or not!) in return for dropping the irritating search timeout.

Why don't you use poOf's suggestion in this (http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=1974205&postcount=32) post?
It works great and there's no time limit.

[agurk]

Hmm, using Google to search a forum, sounds like bordering on abuse and the symptom of a problem instead of a solution. Is there anything we can do to help here?
I know that Canonical provides the hosting and perhaps this is a reason why not even a fund raising would help (they're their servers, not ours).
If not, I'll shut up, promise. :)

[meng]

Hmm, using Google to search a forum, sounds like bordering on abuse and the symptom of a problem instead of a solution. Is there anything we can do to help here?
Why would it be abuse? Surely you're searching google's cache and not stressing these forums? I hadn't realized Canonical hosted these forums, I thought it was someone else, but in any case I don't see how it's relevant.

[matthew]

Hmm, using Google to search a forum, sounds like bordering on abuse and the symptom of a problem instead of a solution.I totally understand that perspective. Google does offer this functionality to the public at large so it's not abusive nor a violation of their terms in any way. In fact, it may even help us a little bit in the Google rankings. Now, if we were to offload all searches from our servers to Google's, that would likely cause problems. :)


Is there anything we can do to help here?Unfortunately, I don't think so. I appreciate the attitude, though.


I know that Canonical provides the hosting and perhaps this is a reason why not even a fund raising would help (they're their servers, not ours).Bingo. We have physical limitations that we are working with. Canonical has been extremely gracious to us but we can't expect such generosity to be unlimited. We're making do with what is available to us and trying to allocate resources in the most useful and equitable way possible. Unfortunately the limits we have mean something has to be sacrificed or compromised on...such as placing a time limit between searches. It's a bummer, but that's life sometimes. You make do the best you can with what you have available to you.


If not, I'll shut up, promise. :)No stress. We're not opposed to the expression of thoughts, feelings and ideas and any input that comes our way that is helpful and constructive is always welcomed with open arms.

[agurk]

Why would it be abuse? Surely you're searching google's cache and not stressing these forums?
Exactly. We put our search load on someone else (Google). Borderline abuse of Google was my point.

[Lord Illidan]

Exactly. We put our search load on someone else (Google). Borderline abuse of Google was my point.

Check here :http://www.google.com/help/features.html

Google advertises this as a feature.


Site Search The word "site" followed by a colon enables you to restrict your search to a specific site. To do this, use the site:sampledomain.com syntax in the Google search box.Thus, we are not abusing it.

Edit: And as in terms of the search load, I doubt google search will replace the forum search. It is intended as an alternative in the case of slow forums or timers.

[agurk]

Thanks matthew for explaining. I can live with the Google solution.

(Lord Illidan, I didn't say we were abusing Google, my point was: using a custom made Google search tool to search our own forums is bordering on abuse.)

[OffHand]

No stress. We're not opposed to the expression of thoughts, feelings and ideas and any input that comes our way that is helpful and constructive is always welcomed with open arms.
By calling it ranting?

[PriceChild]

I'm closing this thread.

Reasons have been given why the current situation will not be changing.

Alternatives have been explained to those with larger needs.

Pricey