Lack of a cunting search [ on iamcal.com ]

Posted by Brock, around 28th October 2005:

Or at the very least, paginated topic listings.

I have, for about the last 15 minutes, been trying to find that topic that I posted about wireless connecting my laptop to my PC and all that and I am completely fucking stumped. I abused Cal on IM about his lack of search, and he suggested that I use a site specific search on google.

No....shit.....sherlock.

It doesn't fucking work. It finds about 10 topics (I searched through 50 pages or so of various references) and soon slips into finding links to Iamcal 5(?) pages and not the new ones. I searched various terms I knew were in there (wireless, laptop, lap top, network and the like) and then had a fucking hissy fit, and put in my user, and then Sul's, cos it was his reply I was after (I think).

Man, I nearly confessed to Sul being useful. I ought to be careful here.

So, all you spoddy internet types, tell me why:
a: even a user name search only brings up about a tenth of the threads
b: some of the much later topics are referenced by google but not (apparently) earlier ones.
c: WHERE THE FUCK THAT BASTARD TOPIC IS.

This is, for reference, getting on my man-boobs now.

Posted by SuperFunGordon_DUPE1, around 28th October 2005:

www.iamcal.com/discuss/topi...

You lazy bitch.

Posted by Brock, around 28th October 2005:

For fuck's sake.

How did you find that?

Posted by ellipse, around 28th October 2005:

get's a daily email digest and searched through those?

Posted by WarHead, around 28th October 2005:

Now then, make a note of the URL Brock, or make it a Fave, then you can always get back there with a couple of click and drags.

Posted by WarHead, around 28th October 2005:

He's got a point, though, the current incarnation isn't really as good as the last one by a long chalk. But Mr H has got a whiff of the Yahoo dollar, so we must accept that his priorities lie elsewhere.

Posted by Saltation_DUPE1, around 28th October 2005:

www.google.co.uk/search?hl=...

but yes, i reluctantly have to agree with wh. not in the sense of being reluctant to agree with wh in a general sense; typically quite the opposite. no, i mean more in the sense that, yes i know cal wants to make a new sexy allcuttingedgeoratleastStandard sitecode code, but the old version really was EXCELLENTLY DESIGNED from the perspective of thse USING it. and, critically, cal is now busyasfuck and will not likely get the chance to put the same UI-focussed coding inspiration in in the next 12months because he's now stepped on to quite a different conveyor belt from what he was expecting when he first bit off this MAJOR chunk of work.

Posted by Saltation_DUPE1, around 28th October 2005:

not wanting to sound ungrateful, but who else would be very happy for cal to port the current site's data to new tuples in the old site's data, and for the totaldata+oldcode to be reinstated?

i'd put a poll up, but... you know...
;)

Posted by WarHead, around 28th October 2005:

If I knew what that meant, I'd probably support it. I assume it means having the new content copied into the last version, with all it's lovely whistles and bells.

Posted by Brock, around 28th October 2005:

Although I, personally, would like to keep the lovely warm sheen of piss gently bestowed on every new post.

It makes me smile every time.

Posted by Brock, around 28th October 2005:

It's the way it fades, see. Like it soaked into the page.

Posted by Saltation_DUPE1, 29th October 2005:

i agree with wh, and wh agrees with me. he thinks. and he's right.

but not with brock. not the piss-soaked screen. that's just worrisome.

Posted by Sul_DUPE1, around 29th October 2005:

Oooh, I haven't heard Cal say "Fuck off if you dont like it" in a long time.

*waits*

Posted by ellipse, around 29th October 2005:

maybe he likes the idea of brock's piss

Posted by Saltation_DUPE1, around 29th October 2005:

smells like teen spirit

Posted by Saltation_DUPE1, around 29th October 2005:

why would cal say "fuck off"?
he had loads of time to make his previous forum code,
but he's had fuckall time to make his replacement forum code.
as a coder, therefore, you'd have to expect the replacement to be less good in terms of user experience. cal's a first tier coder-- he looks to the result, not how groovy he thinks other people will think his code is.

i'm minded of the rdbms shop i used to work in, with the good but rigid coder fulminating about how crap the code was in apple's LaserWriter init, and the *seriously productive* coders quietly pointing out that, 5 years later, that code hadn't needed to change. given the speed of OS/arch changes at the time, that was literally unheard of. dirty on the inside, perfect on the outside.
perfect OO, if you want to go theoryy.
and, as it happens, 15 years later, anyone printing in classic in osx is still using that exact same "crap" code.
and it works rather more generically than does the "modern" version.

elegance is more fit-for-purpose than internal-rectitude.