Just getting tired of newbies not paying attention to the dates of old posts. Trying to revise something that was posted years ago is mostly useless because the original poster doesn't remember the post and probably doesn't have the information that was needed at the time. Also why do members not have their location in their profile. It makes a difference to some if they want to respond to a wanted item or an item for sale. thats all....

Ed

 

I hear ya, Ed. I think it has to do with this" Infinite scroll and related threads" that automatically comes up if you don't opt out.

 

Ed, Greg, you're right.

In some cases, there could be an advantage, however. If a poster has new information to solve a problem, anyone who looks in old threads for solutions would be helped.

 

I understand these concerns as I've seen it play out on other forums through the years. I think I've seen it from both sides of the coin too.

I wish folks would put in their location too, the only way to fix it,is to make it a required field when joining. I guess some people look at that as a privacy issue, thinking its something they can control and feel safer in this information world, when in reality it's no protection. It's the only reason I can think of.

I all most don't want to get started on the older thread issue, but why not? I believe this problem got worse with the last couple of updates we've had here. If I'm correct, it was mostly geared to somehow assist with users of the mobile variety. Statistics are showing that most are using mobile these days for pretty much everything. The screen size is a limitation. As Greg stated above the problem gets better with opting out of the scrolling...thing. As well as the related topics tag by unclicking it. I guess what I'm getting at is the user interface as subtle differences in mobile and PC and the chosen browsers. And like any tool, its some times about how you use it. Furthermore, I believe its in the best interest of really any forum is to always post a new question to an old problem. If for one reason only, it helps to create a larger database for the search criteria. And secondly, if gives a newer, fresher look at a given problem even if its same old problem asked a million times with people who are current users. Sometimes new products come along that can aid a given concern wheres as older responses will lack that, granted, that happens rarely when dealing with 50 year old car designs. So, really responding to older threads don't help current users much, yet create more work for moderators.

A brief mention should be made though I'm sure most all ready know this. Google does a better job at searching than the search function contained within this forum software. By all means, use it instead.

But you know what really gets me? Are responses to for sale ads by folks that have no intention of buying, that have nothing to do with purchasing said item stated in the ad. Just stay out of it. And please, use proper English grammar and at least some punctuation along the way. And maybe a complete sentence or two. It really helps. This abbreviated text talk is nonsense and won't gain you any internet points. All this kinda points out how you use tools. A real live key board is a good tool. Mobile can't do that very effectively.

Rants, all good.

 

 

I feel your pain with ancient threads.

Some sites archive threads to prevent this.

That forces you to look in the archives. Now you know its an old thread. The thread is closed. You can still extract the information including the emails of the people involved if you need more.
But that's a double-edged sword because new redundant threads get started...IE the nuclear 1/2 life of the offset C/S engine for headers.

Its laziness ignorance(I mean this in the gentlest PC way...NOT) and simply not paying attention. Hell, I'm guilty of occasionally grave robbing. The thread date is not the first thing I look at when I'm azz deep in a problem frustrated bouncing tools off the floor and just want answers.

I just did a thread "Proper Posting Etiquette". It wasn't the warm reception I hoped for. It's too long? Maybe, but it's all there.

The Top 5 things that bug me more than unearthing ancient threads:
1. Cocky, arrogance, attitude or just being a plain old *******.
2. Bad grammar, sentence structure, and one large and long run-on paragraph.
3. Lack of any homework or research prior to posting.
4. The crystal ball effect...My cars broken...thats it...no more info, (year make model engine et al)
5. Not closing the thread once the problem is found.

 

I don't find the Search feature of this site to be difficult to employ. Like any database, the back-end database operates via Boolean logic. The CO site employs a GUI interface for the Boolean logic (this is a modest limitation). It's basically made of two key elements: (1) the key words and the (2) operators.

Key Word Example: 442, differential, brakes (note these are single word terms)
Key Words Examples: 442 brakes, 2.56 rear end, 28 spline bolt (note these are multiple word terms)

Operators: AND, OR, NOT

The best manner to Search the CO site is via the Advanced Search function, but a simple tool is to employ quote marks around the phrase you must search for (essentially a AND and NOT operator). The phrase must include 442 AND the term brakes in that specific order and NOT include any other terms. This then becomes a AND/NOT (operators) search statement. In other words, take the following example in the very simple Search Threads block at the top RH corner of the page:

If I place into the Search Threads field the statement 442 brakes, I'll get a result of 500 pages which will include all pages which contain either the term 442 or the term brakes. What I'm really after is "442 brakes". So, I place quote marks around the statement e.g. "442 brakes". This then excludes (NOT) all other statements and words which do NOT run together but only which do run together as stated "442 brakes" (442 AND brakes). I have now narrowed my results to six pages instead of 500 pages. Clearly the statement "442 brakes" is much more definitive than simply 442 brakes.

Additionally, regarding Operators. There are more Operators (modifiers) defined in the Advanced Search function. They are the fields (as an example): Username (only find posts by Vintage Chief which contain the phrase "442 brakes" - include the quote marks); Brakes/Hydraulic Systems (Operator/Modifier) i.e. only find posts by Vintage Chief contained within the Brakes/Hydraulic Systems thread which contain "442 brakes"; additionally, only find "442 brakes" contained in Posts or Threads, and/or any Post/Thread or only Threads Started By Vintage Chief.

The only limitations I have found in the Search function is the size of the resulting Search and the fact you cannot emphatically employ Boolean Search Operators within the Search Threads string. The CO website will only produce the most recent 500 pages of terms which meet the Boolean Search criteria and the Search Threads string is an end-user GUI (Graphical User Interface) Search string and not a Boolean Search (logic) string which allows you to query the database directly with known Operators.

In a nutshell, employ quotes around a string of keywords which are the most likely to garner the best results. Change the order of the keywords, use different keywords, etc.

 

As minor tweak to demonstrate my point regarding the ability to query the CO back-end DB, the Search Threads GUI is not a direct Boolean (logic) Query. The Query is invoked from only certain known Boolean Operators made available by the Administrators of the CO DB.
Try the Boolean Operator (Modifier) asterisk on the Search Threads string (top RH corner of page) and try the same Search String on Google or any DB which allows direct Boolean Operators w/in the Search String.

"442 * brakes"

The Asterisk (Operator/Modifier) means keep an open space for anything in between the term 442 and the term brakes and provide me with the results.
You'll notice the CO Search Threads does not produce the same result you'd expect (you can test this on other terms, as well).
The same search on Google and other common Search Engines (Yahoo, etc) will produce results such as: 442 Performance Brakes, 442 Disc Brakes, etc.
Additionally, the algorithmic logic for Boolean Searches is quite different and VERY proprietary among all of the various Search Engines.
Google is, IMO, certainly the very best Internet Search Engine anywhere on the Internet. Knowing the algorithms which make up the keyword rankings is what separates Google from the rest of the world.

 

Even google has its flaws. If I google "fat men get no respect," all the results are about fat women getting no respect from men. I don't know if Google is making the results that way, or if the internet is truly that way. It's like there's no country for Al Bundy anymore.

 

Google definitely cooks the results they present to users. They are actively influencing society, just as are Twitter, FB, etc. with the results - filtering out what they don't want you to see. It is no longer the power search engine, providing the info YOU are looking for. They provide the info THEY think you should have. The algorithms now include more paid advertising results ahead of the data you really want. You will no longer receive data that matches your searches from the more obscure websites. You only get the top X-percent. You used to be able to click to the tail-end of the results and find some treasured nugget. Not any more. Using quotes for specific strings no longer works, as Koda mentioned. I long for the Google of year 2001!

Predictive advertising is a waste of time. Google provides ADs for things I searched for in the (recent) past, and have already purchased. I don't need to see ads for anything - I just want unvarnished SEARCH results.

There! That is my rant for the day.

 

Here is the result of my Google Boolean Search query for the string "fat men get no respect". I received exactly two results. I'd be interested in being able to visualize your search results.

 

Getting back on track...I feel sorry for Joe P answering the same “ where’s my engine number located” questions 48 times over, with the same answer. Second rant is one or two people (you know who you are) trying to sell the same overpriced parts not for weeks, months, but YEARS! Get a frekkin clue already!

 

I opted out of "infinite scroll" for that very reason. I would be happily reading a current thread from the "New Posts" tab and then realize I was reading a different thread from 8 years ago.

 

hey all you kids ....GET OFF MY LAWN

 

I don't like myths and untruths. You are both incorrect. I've already proven this once, I will prove it again for you.

Create a Boolean Search String in Google entitled: "Boolean Search Strings"

Result:Every single result returned by Google for the Boolean Search String "Boolean Search Strings" yields one and ONLY one search string result >>> Boolean Search Strings

I fail to comprehend how you cannot see the result when creating any Boolean Search String in Google. Please demonstrate your statement Again, it DOES in fact work.

 

Why does anybody even still use Google anymore? What you've noticed is becomming common knowledge.
There are other search engines available which are objective and not biased against sources who don't pay them advertisement royalties: www.duckduckgo.com
Despite the following being Microsoft's offering www.bing.com , I sometimes do find information here of which I can't find at the other two.
Duck basically gets their information from Google. But, the difference is, they distribute it fairly. In other words, if you're looking up rental vehicles, Duck won't only include the most expensive companies paying royalties to Google on their first page

 

Norm, I respectfully disagree. I have my experiences, and you have yours.

I apologize for my part in derailing Edzolz' initial subject. My insertion of this google subject was a tangent and unrelated to Edzolz' subject. I should have let it go, or started my own, separate, rant.

Apologies, all, and especially to Edzolz.

 

Norm

stop boolean the other members

a little algebraic humor ( ok very little)

 

Love it!

 

unvarnished SEARCH results.....I couldn't agree more!

I go out of my way to eliminate all ads in my life. I've unplugged my local cable, do not watch local or national news. I select news on the local station's web sites. No ads with adblocker plus.
I do Netflix Hulu Sirius Pandora etc...This is how I reduced some stress...no more BS ads! I dont have time in my life to watch what is touted as an hour-long broadcast with 20 minutes of BS ads...simply not doing it. The retail and media markets can kiss my royal....

 

Brave browser also filters out ads: www.brave.com

 

"I'd be interested in being able to visualize your search results," is the most on-the-spectrum way of calling bullshit I've ever heard of.

I found the issue.

What I meant was I put in the following words: fat men get no respect. The quotation marks were there to denote what I put in, not that I put the quotation marks in. If I had put the following:

then I would have gotten your results.

Here is to what I was referring. Sounds like I need to use the boolean operators, however, my point of there being bias on the internet still stands, as this search is demonstrably off of center.

 

My rant/ issue is on first generation oldsmobiles when a op asks a question why do some members give a reply when they aren't familiar with a particular era of automobile, not all Oldsmobiles are A bodies, not all transmission are the same and will bolt up without major work if at all, There are a hundred differences in different era cars and people take our advice as gospel whether right or wrong they trust our opinions and spend good money following it. Occasionally(not often) someone steps in and makes a remark/post that is not related to the era of the car in question and information is passed on which is bogus. Hopeful someone else catches it and makes a correction otherwise it will remain inaccurate in infamy forever in a Google search. Enough said.... Tedd

 

 

Stop bouling them also

 

I'd let her win then pick up my ***** and go home with her...Tedd

 

LMAO Ted...I could really run with this....
Steve