HOME > Chowhound > Site Talk >
What have you made lately? Share your food adventure
TELL US

Somewhat Useless Search Engine

a
allyoucanet Feb 28, 2010 12:02 PM

When I put in more than one word, even if they have "quotes" around them, it still searches each word separately. Not very useful if you ask me.

  1. Aromatherapy Feb 28, 2010 02:35 PM

    I tried searching for carbonara on the Home Cooking board (just the simple board search) and it insisted on searching for chef, producing a bunch of top chef links. Advanced search got me where I wanted and I couldn't replicate the original problem, but it sure was annoying.

    1. Jacquilynne Feb 28, 2010 04:26 PM

      We've got a problem ticket open on the excessive fuzziness of our fuzzy search. Hopefully it will be addressed in a future iteration of the search function.

      5 Replies
      1. re: Jacquilynne
        Mr Taster Aug 5, 2010 01:59 PM

        Jacquilynne, will the new site design address the "relevance" issue (or will the new search design make this moot?)

        Also:
        http://chowhound.chow.com/topics/7241...

        Mr Taster

        1. re: Mr Taster
          nsxtasy Aug 6, 2010 06:12 AM

          >> will the new site design address the "relevance" issue (or will the new search design make this moot?)

          As noted in the release announcement:

          “Best match” will be the default result; it means that it will return the most relevant and most recent results.

          Apparently, somehow it combines sorting by relevance and sorting by newest. We'll have to see how it does that and how well it works. Regardless, it appears that we will be able to re-sort by either criterion if we're not happy with the combined method.

          1. re: nsxtasy
            Servorg Aug 6, 2010 06:33 AM

            "Apparently, somehow it combines sorting by relevance and sorting by newest. We'll have to see how it does that..."

            I believe it stems from a brand new algorithm which was developed via an amalgamation of reading tea leaves, throwing dice and reading palms. So, it ought to work like a charm... ;-D>

            1. re: Servorg
              Pia Aug 12, 2010 12:42 PM

              Whatever it is, it appears to work very well. Today I searched for Paella and instead of getting a whole bunch of threads about pizza places where one person mentions that they would rather eat paella, I got a whole page of threads with titles like, "Where to find the best paella," sorted by date! Hooray! Thanks, Jacquilynne / Chow team. (And I'm glad to see the debunking of the claim that people prefer less relevant search results.)

              1. re: Pia
                nsxtasy Aug 12, 2010 03:12 PM

                Shhhh.... don't tell anyone, but the new sort on BEST MATCH is the same sort that used to be called Relevance. And yes, it's much much better now!

      2. nsxtasy Mar 8, 2010 08:04 AM

        Put "quotes" around the phrase with more than one word, and it will search for only that phrase. With quotes, it does NOT search each word separately.

        The "excessive fuzziness" that Jacquilynne refers to is a separate problem (and one that I've found is easy to get around by clicking "sort by relevance" rather than "sort by newest first").

        21 Replies
        1. re: nsxtasy
          Pia Mar 17, 2010 12:42 PM

          It would be great if "sort by relevance" were the default. I always end up immediately re-running my search to sort by relevance.

          1. re: Pia
            kpzoo Mar 17, 2010 01:16 PM

            I agree 100% and same here - I always re-sort by relevance. The norm for almost every search engine I can think of is to always try to give you the most relevant results for your search query as possible.

            1. re: kpzoo
              Mr Taster Mar 23, 2010 04:18 PM

              Oh god, don't get me started on the "relevance" issue.

              http://chowhound.chow.com/topics/681940

              What I don't get is why "relevance" and "newest/oldest first" are mutually exclusive search criteria. Like kpzoo said, shouldn't ALL search results give you relevant info? The only user-defined option should be whether you want those relevant searches sorted newest or oldest first.

              Jacquilynne, *please* tell me that a fix is in the works for this. It seriously drives me loony having to do every search twice. It's not as bad when I'm at my desktop, but when I'm accessing CH from my cell phone, which is MUCH slower, it really, really annoying.

              I know you said this was a workaround for complaints about people bumping old threads, but really the workaround is *NOT* to provide recent (but irrelevant) search results. (That's just silly!)

              The workaround is to make old threads look visibly different so it's immediately visible to the user. Highlight the post or the date in red. Better yet, why not give the user the option to define what an "old thread" is, as I personally don't mind getting a 2006 post in my search results, as long as the thread is relevant!

              Mr Taster

              1. re: Mr Taster
                nsxtasy Mar 24, 2010 07:24 AM

                >> What I don't get is why "relevance" and "newest/oldest first" are mutually exclusive search criteria. Like kpzoo said, shouldn't ALL search results give you relevant info? The only user-defined option should be whether you want those relevant searches sorted newest or oldest first.

                That's exactly how the "SORT BY" option works. You get the same results either way, but "relevance" sorts by relevance (for example, topics with the search words in the title come first), and "newest/oldest first" is by the date of the last post.

                >> why not give the user the option to define what an "old thread" is, as I personally don't mind getting a 2006 post in my search results, as long as the thread is relevant!

                This is also already part of the search function. You can select the following options for DATE:

                All Years
                Past 7 Days
                Past 30 Days
                Past 12 Months (default)
                Past 5 Years
                Enter Date Range

                These additional options (date, sort by, etc) all pop up on the search screen which appears after you enter your search text on any particular board or topic (where it says "Results will be limited to the last year and sorted newest first."). Maybe you never noticed them?

                1. re: nsxtasy
                  Mr Taster Mar 24, 2010 09:23 AM

                  That's not how the search function works. Read my linked post about my Santa Rosa search results and you'll see what I mean when I say that newest first posts returns mostly irrelevant results.

                  Mr Taster

                  1. re: Mr Taster
                    Servorg Mar 24, 2010 09:30 AM

                    I just went to the SF board, entered Santa Rosa in the search box and this is what was returned: http://search.chow.com/search?query=S...

                    1. re: Servorg
                      Mr Taster Mar 24, 2010 10:00 AM

                      OK, Servorg (and nsxtasy), at your insistence we'll do this again.

                      Based on Servorg's "newest first" search result for Santa Rosa, this is what came up. Let's start with the first one and work our way down the list.

                      GROCERY OUTLET: MARCH 2010 (3/1/2010)
                      http://chowhound.chow.com/topics/691575
                      A supermarket which happens to have a branch in Santa Rosa-- not directly relevant/Sanra Rosa specific. However, based nsxtasy's claim, this should be the MOST relevant recent result. Remember that as we continue this experiment.

                      SF: EDEN'S RESTAURANT – CHEF BAHIT VASIR FOUND (3/15/2009)
                      http://chowhound.chow.com/topics/603989
                      Only mention of Santa Rosa is that Chef Vahit was highly regarded for his gyros when he had a restaurant called Real Gyro in Santa Rosa. HAD. Past tense. Irrelevant. (Again, reminder... as #2 on the list, this should be the second MOST relevant, recent post about Santa Rosa)

                      CATCHING UP WITH CHEF RICK VARGAS AT SEBASTOPOL'S LA BODEGA IN THE SONOMA WINE SHOP (3/13/2010)
                      http://chowhound.chow.com/topics/694439
                      This is a Sebastopol relevant post—NOT Santa Rosa. The only reason this hit was returned is because a random Santa Rosa restaurant is mentioned in comparison to the Sebastopol place. NOT directly relevant to Santa Rosa.

                      ROYAL CHINA, SANTA ROSA– this is the only timely, relevant hit for Santa Rosa (3/22/2010)
                      http://chowhound.chow.com/topics/696317

                      GREEN PAPAYA SALAD CONTEST– EARLY REPORTS? (4/11/2009)
                      http://chowhound.chow.com/topics/611270
                      This post is actually about an event which took place in the SF Civic Center, over an hour away from Santa Rosa. It *does* link back to a directly relevant 4/10/2009 Melanie Wong post titled “Lao Larb at Vang Vieng Kham in Santa Rosa“). But this post itself has NOTHING to do with Santa Rosa.

                      SEEKING ADVICE FOR MY 40th CALIFORNIA TRIP: SAN FRANCISCO, NAPA, MONTEREY (12/28/2009)
                      http://chowhound.chow.com/topics/676784
                      Santa Rosa is only mentioned as a possible detour route. NOTHING food specific.

                      And on the list goes, returning only sporadically relevant hits.

                      Now then, let's look at the results sorted by "relevance"

                      http://search.chow.com/search?query=SANTA+ROSA&advanced=1&from_date=1+year+ago&type=Topic&sort_mode=relevance&from_date_select=1+year+ago&search_boardgroup_id=1&search_board_id=1&user_name=&post_title=

                      ROYAL CHINA, SANTA ROSA - (3/22/2010)
                      http://chowhound.chow.com/topics/696317
                      Loook!! The ONLY directly relevant hit from the "newest first" list comes out on the TOP of the "relevance" list! (It was the 4th from the top in "newest first" search results)

                      LUNCH RECS FOR SANTA ROSA - Ding! (3/6/2010)
                      http://chowhound.chow.com/topics/692698
                      Directly relevant, AND it's NOT an old post! (SIDEBAR: Why in the world did "NEWEST FIRST" ignore this post in the top 6, and instead return an IRRELEVANT, OLDER result from 4/11/2009 (green papaya contest at SF Civic Center) when this one was posted just a few weeks ago?) N.B. this does appear way down at #13 on the "newest first" list.

                      SANTA ROSA CHINESE RESTAURANT (2/23/2010) - DING.
                      http://chowhound.chow.com/topics/690009
                      Again, directly relevant, and timely... and not found on the top of the "newest first" list

                      Do I need to continue? OK, I will. Let's continue down the list.

                      TORTA CUBANA IN SANTA ROSA? (10/18/2009)
                      http://chowhound.chow.com/topics/660542
                      Directly relevant and timely.

                      DINNER IN SANTA ROSA (10/14/2009)
                      http://chowhound.chow.com/topics/659543
                      Directly relevant and timely.

                      SANTA ROSA - HEALDSBURG LUNCH? (10/8/2009)
                      http://chowhound.chow.com/topics/658120
                      Directly relevant and timely.

                      SANTA ROSA LUNCH SPOTS? (9/23/2009)
                      http://chowhound.chow.com/topics/654453
                      Directly relevant and timely

                      Have I made my point? I hope so. I don't want to do this again.

                      Jacquilynne, I hope this helps you and ChowHQ see that the current default search paramaters are pointless and frustrating, particularly when used on a mobile device.

                      Please make "relevance" the default, and if you're concerned about ancient posts being unknowingly bumped, make posts older than X years a different color.

                      Mr Taster

                      1. re: Mr Taster
                        nsxtasy Mar 25, 2010 06:46 AM

                        >> Please make "relevance" the default

                        I agree with this request, 100 percent.

                        Still, the SORT BY parameter is working properly.

                        In the example above from Servorg, you get the same 300 topics, regardless of whether you sort by relevance or by newest first. When you sort by relevance, the list is led by the topics that have Santa Rosa in the title, as the most relevant. (I never claimed otherwise!) When you sort by newest first, the first post which appears may be one in which Santa Rosa is buried deep in the topic. It won't even give you the newest mention of Santa Rosa; it's based on the last time the topic was updated. So a topic which last mentioned Santa Rosa 11 months ago but had another post yesterday goes to the top of the list.

                        So I agree with you that "newest first" is basically useless, and that "relevance" should be the default setting.

                        >> However, based nsxtasy's claim, this should be the MOST relevant recent result.

                        I never said this! The most relevant posts are ones in which Santa Rosa is in the title, just as they should be. When you sort by relevance, those are the ones that appear first.

                        1. re: Mr Taster
                          Mr Taster May 17, 2010 12:17 PM

                          Jacquilynne,

                          Has there been any progress in making "relevance/limited to past year" the default search criteria when searching on specific boards?

                          (...for the reasons I'd meticulously outlined in my prior "Santa Rosa" reply)
                          http://chowhound.chow.com/topics/6912...

                          Thanks,
                          Mr Taster

                          1. re: Mr Taster
                            s
                            small h May 17, 2010 12:39 PM

                            I hope not. I'm much more interested in seeing the newest responses first. When I'm looking for information about a particular restaurant, I'd like that information to be recent. If you have 100 posts that all correctly list the name of the restaurant, which one is the most relevant?

                            1. re: small h
                              Mr Taster May 17, 2010 01:21 PM

                              I'm getting a sense that you haven't carefully read my long post (and the ones leading up to it)

                              Mr Taster

                              1. re: Mr Taster
                                s
                                small h May 17, 2010 07:50 PM

                                My reading comprehension skills are pretty strong, but of course, they're not infallible. My home board is Manhattan. All the posts on that board (theoretically) are about Manhattan restaurants. Thus, sorting by relevance returns all of Manhattan Restaurant X - in no particular order - whereas sorting by date returns Manhattan Restaurant X - newest first. I get that relevance sorting works better for you, because your home board includes a wider geographic area. But date sorting works better for me. If I'm missing something, enlighten me.

                                1. re: small h
                                  nsxtasy May 18, 2010 07:18 AM

                                  Here's why relevance works better, and it applies everywhere, regardless of whether or not your "home forum" covers a large geographic area. (I'm in the Chicago Area forum, FWIW.)

                                  The problem with sorting by newest first rather than relevance is that it is more likely to turn up instances that have nothing to do with the restaurant in question. Let's use a couple of Manhattan restaurants as examples. Let's say you want to read about a specific restaurant so you type in the restaurant name, like "Craft" or "Per Se". If you search by newest first, appearing first will be any usage of those terms, including a lot of posts with these terms as everyday English words in context - "a chef plying his craft" or "this is not a burger place per se" - rather than specific references to the restaurants in question. You'll also get a lot of topics that mention those restaurants in passing, rather than are specifically about those restaurants. OTOH if you search by relevance, the first topics to appear will be ones with these terms in the title, so they will instead be the topics that are usually all about these specific restaurants, rather than topics that mention the restaurants in passing or use the name in some other context.

                                  That's why searching by relevance is preferable to newest first in most cases.

                                  1. re: nsxtasy
                                    s
                                    small h May 18, 2010 07:50 AM

                                    That is a valid point, but if you actually do side by side searches for Per Se, the number of results on the first page of each that do NOT refer to the restaurant is...zero. And if you do the same for Craft, the number is one for relevance, and one for newest-first. So I'm sticking with my newest-first preference.

                                    1. re: small h
                                      nsxtasy May 18, 2010 10:45 AM

                                      When you're searching, you're looking for information about a restaurant, not for any time it gets mentioned. And sorting the results by relevance gives you the topics that inform you about a restaurant first, not the ones that only mention it in passing.

                                      Let's look at an example, and you'll see why searching by relevance is usually better than searching by newest first.

                                      Again, let's say you want to search for information about Craft. Here are the first five topics listed sorting by newest first:

                                      Anniversary Dinner - Foodie who loves a non Foodie
                                      Manhattan Baohaus - real taiwanese gua bao in the LES
                                      Manhattan Top 3 cheap eats (not street food)
                                      Manhattan Best mushroom dishes
                                      Manhattan Thanks from North Caroilina

                                      As you can see, none of these is specifically about Craft.

                                      Now, search on topics sorted by relevance:

                                      Craft
                                      Craft??
                                      Craft or special dinner for son
                                      Craft, Blue Hill or Mas?
                                      craft, quality meats, or keens

                                      As you can see, ALL of these are specifically about Craft.

                                      It's pretty cut and dried, as I see it. And you almost always get much better results by sorting by relevance and not by newest first.

                                      1. re: nsxtasy
                                        s
                                        small h May 18, 2010 11:02 AM

                                        I am, nearly always, looking for information that's less than three months old. And I'm fine with the restaurant getting a brief mention in a post primarily about another topic. Believe me, I've thought about this as much as you have, and it's pretty cut and dried to me, too. I just define "better" differently than you do.

                                        1. re: small h
                                          Mr Taster May 18, 2010 12:56 PM

                                          The reason Google, for example, is so effective and useful as a search engine is because it provides pointed, direct results for whatever search string you've inputted.

                                          Google doesn't make you root through a pile of mud to find the nugget you're looking for. Google knows that relevant results are important to the vast majority of internet users. Not all, certainly, but the overwhelming majority are looking for a specific result, right now. That's how things work in the internet age.

                                          But of course I acknowledge that there are some people whose ultimate goal may not be to find that nugget of gold in the pile of mud. Perhaps these people enjoy the cooling sensation of the mud drying on their face as they root around in it, getting their hands dirty. Perhaps they enjoy the process more than the results. These people search with Yahoo :)

                                          My point is, it's fine that you use the Chow search function the way you do. However, if Google is an indicator of the popular majority, relevant & recent search results are a great deal more important to most internet users than irrelevant & recent results.

                                          Incidentally small_h, you could always set your search criteria to "relevant" and set time for last 3 months. I'd dare say that you'll probably get more accurate results for what you're looking for by doing that, then using the default "newest first"/"all posts within last year" that you use by default now. I'm sincerely curious when I ask if you've ever tried that?

                                          The real answer to all of our prayers would be to add user definable search settings to our accounts, so that the Chow-defined "limited to this board/newest first/within last year" is restricted only to the newbies (and those who search with Yahoo)

                                          I continue to hope and pray that our dear Jacquilynne sends this up the appropriate flagpole for expedited processing.

                                          Mr Taster

                                          1. re: Mr Taster
                                            s
                                            small h May 18, 2010 01:24 PM

                                            <My point is, it's fine that you use the Chow search function the way you do. >
                                            Gosh, thanks. I've been waiting for your approval.

                                            <I'm sincerely curious when I ask if you've ever tried that?>
                                            Yep. But it's extra clicks. And I get what I'm looking for now, without it.

                                            <The real answer to all of our prayers would be to add user definable search settings to our accounts...>
                                            Agreed. That would satisfy us both.

                                            The Chowhound search function used to be much worse, in that putting quotes around a phrase returned the same results as the phrase without quotes. So I used to use Google to search Chowhound, which was annoying. But I'm reasonably satisfied these days.

                            2. re: Mr Taster
                              nsxtasy May 18, 2010 07:21 AM

                              >> Has there been any progress in making "relevance/limited to past year" the default search criteria when searching on specific boards?

                              "Past 12 months" is already the default search criterion for the time period. What still needs to be done (and is highly desirable IMHO) is to change the default from "newest first" to "relevance".

                        2. re: Mr Taster
                          nsxtasy Mar 25, 2010 07:06 AM

                          >> That's not how the search function works.

                          Yes, it is.

                          >> Read my linked post about my Santa Rosa search results and you'll see what I mean when I say that newest first posts returns mostly irrelevant results.

                          In Servorg's example, when you search by newest first, you get 300 results. The first ones are topics which contained Santa Rosa somewhere in the topic, and which were updated in the past few days. Yes, they are mostly irrelevant, but they DO contain the words Santa Rosa.

                          In the same example, when you search by relevance, you get 300 results - the EXACT SAME 300 topics as when you search by newest first. However, the ones that show up first are the ones with Santa Rosa in the title. Buried deep lower down in that list are those other topics that you describe as mostly irrelevant. IT IS A LIST OF THE SAME 300 TOPICS, JUST SORTED DIFFERENTLY.

                          1. re: nsxtasy
                            Mr Taster Mar 25, 2010 09:43 AM

                            So we're not disagreeing on the big points. I think the breakdown in communication came from defining the word "relevant" strictly as a digital search parameter versus defining it not only as a search parameter, but as the concept of "actual useful information that I will want to see". I never considered the absurdist extreme of going 300 deep in order to widen the field to the point where you go so far into the search results that the actual relevant but older topics start popping up on the list. It's ridiculous, but I think we agree on that point too. So no arguments from me! (Though I am tempted to actually do that 300 topic comparison and see whether or not, as you say, the EXACT SAME 300 topics appear!)

                            Mr Taster

              2. hannaone Mar 24, 2010 11:57 AM

                Possibly add the existing expansion box for search options that comes up on the results page?
                This would give users the chance to set options for the first search without having to click through to an advanced search page.

                10 Replies
                1. re: hannaone
                  Mr Taster Mar 24, 2010 12:00 PM

                  That would be a workaround, but it doesn't solve the problem that the default search criteria ("newest first") returns mostly irrelevant results.

                  Mr Taster

                  1. re: Mr Taster
                    hannaone Mar 24, 2010 12:20 PM

                    By having the options available before you search, you could set the sort order from the beginning, simply check the radio box for "Relevance"

                    Doing it this way would be much easier than trying to flag dated posts, and would also let each user set the options according to their own preference, irregardless of any default setting.

                     
                     
                    1. re: hannaone
                      kpzoo Mar 24, 2010 12:35 PM

                      The point is that it's two extra steps to do it that way (click once for advanced search, then click "Relevance"). "Relevance" should be the default setting. Since the default is to return results within the last year only, results returned in this fashion will never be *that* old, anyway.

                      1. re: kpzoo
                        Mr Taster Mar 24, 2010 12:37 PM

                        Precisely. Especially the part about default search bringing up results no more than a year old anyway. Given a choice between irrelevant recent results and relevant recent results, I will choose relevant recent results every time :)

                        Particularly when trying to access Chowhound through a slow mobile phone, those extra clickthroughs slow things way down.

                        Mr Taster

                        1. re: kpzoo
                          hannaone Mar 24, 2010 12:57 PM

                          The advantage is that EACH user can set his/her own preference without being slaved to a "default" setting that may not suit their needs.

                          I personally search with the current default setting and prefer it that way. Changing the default would add those steps to my search. (I know, better me than you :-))

                          As for the extra steps, when you start a search these options are loaded into your browser whether you see them or not. Clicking the options tag simply makes them visible.

                          The point is each user being able to set their own preferences to suit their own search is probably the best solution.

                          1. re: hannaone
                            Mr Taster Mar 24, 2010 01:23 PM

                            hannaone,

                            Can you explain why you prefer:

                            - IRRELEVANT and RECENT results ("newest first" search)

                            over

                            - RELEVANT and RECENT results? ("relevance" search)

                            Because that's really what we're talking about here.

                            Carefully look at my Santa Rosa example(s) for an extremely clear illustration of why "newest first" is hopelessly broken. It's all out there, clear as day. http://chowhound.chow.com/topics/6912...

                            If you prefer to keep working with a broken widget, or if your perception is that the widget isn't proken, that's fine. But why should the default for everyone be set to "broken"? It doesn't make any sense. You must be using CH in a manner completely different from how I'm using it if you are satisfied with the "newest first" set of results.

                            Edit: Having reread your post, I agree that having the "advanced" search options appear on the initial screen (without having to click through to a second "advanced" screen) would be a big improvement, but would not be as beneficial (in terms of saving time and increasing efficiency) as having working search criteria pre-programmed :)

                            Mr Taster

                            1. re: Mr Taster
                              hannaone Mar 24, 2010 01:55 PM

                              Hmmm -
                              Most of my searches are done on the home cooking board.
                              I am primarily interested in current or new threads concerning Korean anything.
                              So I search for the newest threads referencing Korean. I have little interest in old threads unless someone posts a new question or insight, in which case that becomes a recent result.

                              So compare these two searches -
                              The first has entries dated from today going back that reference "Korean", so for my purpose this is both relevant and recent, not "broken".
                              The second has a bunch of entries from 2009, 2007, 2006, etc, which I am not interested in right now and so would be "broken" from my perspective. (A side note - Relevance searches look for search terms in the title first, then in the body, whereas what I am looking for may only be mentioned in the body of the thread)

                              http://search.chow.com/search?query=korean+&search_board_id=31&search_boardgroup_id=10&sort_mode=newest&type=Topic&from_date=1+year+ago

                              http://search.chow.com/search?query=k...

                              The solution I proposed has nothing to do with default searches, it simply gives each and every user the options up front to set each search to their own personal preference, and do it before any search is started.
                              No wait for a search page to load in and then change it to what you want.

                              The whole point of the suggestion is to make it easier for you or I to do the search that meets your needs OR my needs.

                              1. re: hannaone
                                Mr Taster Mar 24, 2010 03:13 PM

                                Hey, that's not fair-- on the relevance search, you changed the date on "relevance" from "last 12 months" to "all years"! It's no wonder you got 2006 results :)

                                Let's compare apples with apples, and look at 2 "Korean" searches limited to default "last 12 months" criteria:

                                http://search.chow.com/search?query=korean+&search_board_id=31&search_boardgroup_id=10&sort_mode=newest&type=Topic&from_date=1+year+ago

                                http://search.chow.com/search?query=korean+&advanced=1&from_date=1+year+ago&type=Topic&sort_mode=relevance&from_date_select=1+year+ago&search_boardgroup_id=10&search_board_id=31&user_name=&post_title=

                                The oldest result from the first page of "relevance" search is August 2009 whereas the oldest result from "newest first" is March 17, 2010. So in this case, you're definitely getting fresher results with "newest first".

                                However, the "newest first" page is filled with all kinds of things that are not actually Korean-focused-- indeed most merely mention "Korean" as a throwaway reference in the context of a completely different subject, without any real substance. If this works for you, I can't argue. It certainly doesn't work for me.

                                The "relevance"/"last 12 months" search for Korean brings up extremely detailed, specific topics on Korean recipes, cooking Korean-themed dinners, etc. If I were looking for ideas about cooking "Korean anything", that's exactly what I'd be looking for. Yes, some of the topics date back to mid-2009 (I don't consider that "old"). But these posts are really good, detailed, Korean-specific topics and recipes for things like Dak Dori Tang, for example. http://chowhound.chow.com/topics/545121 Hey, I'm on "home cooking", searching for "Korean".... doesn't it make sense that the vast majority of users are there for Korean recipes (or ideas on what to do with Korean ingredients)?

                                Compare that with the "Korean" results from "newest first" find "What's For Dinner"
                                http://chowhound.chow.com/topics/695986 It's nothing. A throwaway mention of Korean chili paste. Yes, it's a fresh post. But how does this in any way further the quality of your Korean home cooking knowledge? In my opinion, it's a wasted search with useless results. Why a you would be looking for a fresh post with a throwaway reference to "Korean" is really beyond me.

                                Of course, this really is all off-topic. I understand the point you're trying to make about letting the user decide up front. I can live with that solution, even if it rankles my feathers a bit!!

                                Mr Taster

                                1. re: Mr Taster
                                  hannaone Mar 24, 2010 04:12 PM

                                  LoL

                                  Not so far off topic because it shows the tech people how different users actually use the search function.
                                  If they can use the info to make the search better for everyone it's worth it.

                          2. re: kpzoo
                            nsxtasy Mar 25, 2010 07:07 AM

                            >> The point is that it's two extra steps to do it that way (click once for advanced search, then click "Relevance"). "Relevance" should be the default setting. Since the default is to return results within the last year only, results returned in this fashion will never be *that* old, anyway.

                            I agree with you 100 percent, kpzoo. Let's make "relevance" the default. Please? Pretty please?

                    2. i
                      ilikefood Mar 24, 2010 01:56 PM

                      "Somewhat Useless Search Engine" - Chowhounders' understatement of the year
                      or of all time ?

                      Stop the frustration and self inflicted pain - GOOGLE !!. Type in chowhound, the board name. and what your searching for.

                      Show Hidden Posts