X-Original-To: pgsql-www-postgresql.org@postgresql.org Received: from localhost (wm.hub.org [200.46.204.128]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDDD79FB256 for ; Tue, 29 Aug 2006 11:54:20 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.128]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 30292-01 for ; Tue, 29 Aug 2006 14:54:13 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.88]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0721D9FB22E for ; Tue, 29 Aug 2006 11:54:12 -0300 (ADT) Received: from mailgate.vale-housing.co.uk ([194.217.48.34] helo=vale-housing.co.uk) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 4.42) id 1GI4yh-0006qB-0c for pgsql-www@postgresql.org; Tue, 29 Aug 2006 14:54:11 +0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: A counter productive conversation about search. Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 15:54:10 +0100 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <44F44EF5.3090102@commandprompt.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [pgsql-www] A counter productive conversation about search. thread-index: AcbLd1PrpLK/YOqIQdarsvqxvVDnYgAAlwXA From: "Dave Page" To: "Joshua D. Drake" Cc: "PostgreSQL WWW" X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200608/167 X-Sequence-Number: 10558 =20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Joshua D. Drake [mailto:jd@commandprompt.com]=20 > Sent: 29 August 2006 15:28 > To: Dave Page > Cc: PostgreSQL WWW > Subject: Re: [pgsql-www] A counter productive conversation=20 > about search. >=20 >=20 > >> So is anyone up for helping develop a page grabber? > >=20 > > We have one - it builds the static version of the main site=20 > by spidering > > it hourly. >=20 > Should we look at that then? Is that the "Royal" we? I'm currently in 'no more project atm' mode, but as far as I'm concerned you're welcome to work on it yourself on the understanding that whatever you come up with will only be accepted to replace the current solution if the community (-www) agrees that it is a) better from a user perspective, b) more maintainable and c) matches the main site look'n'feel. FWIW, one of the problems with building a true online index of the archives is that we don't know what URL a message might have until it has been indexed by the archives site. Currently that is then indexed by ASPSeek sometime later. It might be worth considering rewriting both the archives and the search to make it all truly realtime. That shouldn't be terribly difficult apart from generating thread indexes/forward/back links, and dealing with the historic URL problem. A SMOP you might say... :-p Regards, Dave.