Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #87797 > unrolled thread
| Started by | patty1@sonic.net (Patty Winter) |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-01-26 22:01 +0000 |
| Last post | 2016-01-31 01:48 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 54 — 13 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system
Finder search oddity in 10.6.8 patty1@sonic.net (Patty Winter) - 2016-01-26 22:01 +0000
Re: Finder search oddity in 10.6.8 nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-01-26 17:16 -0500
Re: Finder search oddity in 10.6.8 Patty Winter <patty1@wintertime.com> - 2016-01-27 00:28 +0000
Re: Finder search oddity in 10.6.8 nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-01-26 19:39 -0500
Re: Finder search oddity in 10.6.8 Patty Winter <patty1@wintertime.com> - 2016-01-27 05:47 +0000
Re: Finder search oddity in 10.6.8 nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-01-27 06:12 -0500
Re: Finder search oddity in 10.6.8 dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2016-01-27 23:10 +1100
Re: Finder search oddity in 10.6.8 billy@MIX.COM - 2016-01-27 18:33 +0000
Re: Finder search oddity in 10.6.8 Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2016-01-27 17:17 -0500
Re: Finder search oddity in 10.6.8 dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2016-01-27 12:16 +1100
Re: Finder search oddity in 10.6.8 dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2016-01-29 18:59 +1100
Re: Finder search oddity in 10.6.8 nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-01-29 06:44 -0500
Re: Finder search oddity in 10.6.8 dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2016-01-30 09:11 +1100
Re: Finder search oddity in 10.6.8 nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-01-29 17:29 -0500
Re: Finder search oddity in 10.6.8 Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-01-29 15:09 -0800
Re: Finder search oddity in 10.6.8 Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2016-01-30 17:03 +0000
Re: Finder search oddity in 10.6.8 Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-01-31 01:53 -0800
Re: Finder search oddity in 10.6.8 Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2016-01-31 12:54 +0000
Re: Finder search oddity in 10.6.8 Patty Winter <patty1@wintertime.com> - 2016-01-31 17:07 +0000
Re: Finder search oddity in 10.6.8 dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2016-02-01 07:53 +1100
Re: Finder search oddity in 10.6.8 Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-01-31 17:11 -0800
Re: Finder search oddity in 10.6.8 Wolffan <AKWolffan@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 20:49 -0500
Re: Finder search oddity in 10.6.8 Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-02-01 12:29 -0800
Re: Finder search oddity in 10.6.8 Wolffan <AKWolffan@gmail.com> - 2016-02-02 12:05 -0500
Re: Finder search oddity in 10.6.8 Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-02-02 11:10 -0800
Re: Finder search oddity in 10.6.8 Wolffan <AKWolffan@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 06:08 -0500
Re: Finder search oddity in 10.6.8 Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-02-03 10:04 -0800
Re: Finder search oddity in 10.6.8 Wolffan <AKWolffan@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 19:45 -0500
Re: Finder search oddity in 10.6.8 Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-02-03 16:57 -0800
Re: Finder search oddity in 10.6.8 Wolffan <AKWolffan@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 21:20 -0500
Re: Finder search oddity in 10.6.8 Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-02-05 00:24 -0800
Re: Finder search oddity in 10.6.8 Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-05 10:28 +0000
Re: Finder search oddity in 10.6.8 Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-02-05 10:52 -0800
Re: Finder search oddity in 10.6.8 Wolffan <AKWolffan@gmail.com> - 2016-02-06 07:22 -0500
Re: Finder search oddity in 10.6.8 Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-02-06 17:30 +0000
Re: Finder search oddity in 10.6.8 Wolffan <AKWolffan@gmail.com> - 2016-02-06 13:56 -0500
Re: Finder search oddity in 10.6.8 Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-02-06 19:13 +0000
Re: Finder search oddity in 10.6.8 Wolffan <AKWolffan@gmail.com> - 2016-02-06 19:26 -0500
Re: Finder search oddity in 10.6.8 Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-02-06 17:22 -0800
Re: Finder search oddity in 10.6.8 Wolffan <AKWolffan@gmail.com> - 2016-02-15 09:51 -0500
Re: Finder search oddity in 10.6.8 Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-02-15 11:39 -0800
Re: Finder search oddity in 10.6.8 Wolffan <AKWolffan@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 19:54 -0500
Re: Finder search oddity in 10.6.8 Walter Myer <awoolmeyer@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 04:50 -0800
Re: Finder search oddity in 10.6.8 Neal Reid <neal@magma.ca> - 2016-02-22 15:22 -0500
Re: Finder search oddity in 10.6.8 Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-02-22 13:24 -0800
Re: Finder search oddity in 10.6.8 Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-02-22 13:24 -0800
Re: Finder search oddity in 10.6.8 Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-02-06 09:59 -0800
Re: Finder search oddity in 10.6.8 Wolffan <AKWolffan@gmail.com> - 2016-02-06 13:56 -0500
Re: Finder search oddity in 10.6.8 Walter Myer <awoolmeyer@gmail.com> - 2016-02-14 18:13 -0800
Re: Finder search oddity in 10.6.8 Wolffan <AKWolffan@gmail.com> - 2016-02-15 10:01 -0500
Re: Finder search oddity in 10.6.8 dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2016-01-30 10:12 +1100
Re: Finder search oddity in 10.6.8 billy@MIX.COM - 2016-01-30 01:02 +0000
Re: Finder search oddity in 10.6.8 dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2016-01-30 13:45 +1100
Re: Finder search oddity in 10.6.8 Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-01-31 01:48 -0800
Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 Next page →
| From | Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-31 17:11 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <n8mbbj$s5c$2@news.datemas.de> |
| In reply to | #88326 |
On 1/31/16 9:07 AM, Patty Winter wrote: > In article <n8kljc$4il$5@news.datemas.de>, > Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: > > [whole bunch of uneeded text deleted] > >> On 1/30/16 9:03 AM, Lewis wrote: >>> Yes, but that is a search restricted to the NAME of the file. You cannot >>> find files containing "biology" and "psychology" that way. Restrictive >>> searches in Spotlight are a bit different. A general Spotlight search >>> searches the entire database, including file contents and that search >>> only searches, as nospam said, on start-of-word boundaries. >>> >>> You would have to do a Spotlight search for >>> >>> --- Biology psychology oncology physiology >>> >>> to find documents that contained all four terms or >>> >>> --- Biology or psychology or oncology or physiology >>> >>> To find documents that contained any of the words. >>> >>> And neither search would find sociology. >> >> You can do a finder search to find every file that contains "ology" in >> it without any difficulty. >> >> I just took this reply, saved it to my desktop and was able to use >> Cmd-opt-F to find "ology". > > Alan, are you talking about searching the *contents* of a file? My > question was about *filenames*. It's fine if the topic of this thread > has drifted; I just want to make sure which situation you're talking > about, because I sure wouldn't be able to get "ology" to work with > filenames on my computer. > > > Patty > > And I already said I can do it for filenames.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wolffan <AKWolffan@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-31 20:49 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <0001HW.1C5EF11E01CC61657000006343CF@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #88292 |
On 31 Jan 2016, Alan Baker wrote (in article <n8kljc$4il$5@news.datemas.de>): > On 1/30/16 9:03 AM, Lewis wrote: > > In message<n8grg3$sge$1@news.datemas.de> > > Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: > > > On 1/29/16 2:29 PM, nospam wrote: > > > > In article > > > > <do_ray_me-B8F0BE.09112930012016@46.sub-75-242-165.myvzw.com>, dorayme > > > > <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > spotlight does not work for partial name searches. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nonsense. > > > > > > > > > > > > it's not nonsense, as patty found out, and have others. > > > > > > > > > > It may be true for some files but not in general. > > > > > > > > it's true for all spotlight searches. > > > > > > > > spotlight only works if the search query *begins* on a word boundary, > > > > however, you don't have to type the entire word because it effectively > > > > autocompletes it. > > > > > > > > if you search query begins with the second character or later, it will > > > > not find anything. > > > > > > > > for example, let's say you want to find items such as psychology, > > > > biology, oncology and physiology, so you search on 'ology' because > > > > that's common to all of them. spotlight will not find anything. > > > > > > > > however, if you want to find items such as psychology and psychiatry > > > > and you search on 'psy', spotlight will find both, and possibly also > > > > finding the song gangnam style. > > > > > Not quite. > > > > > Spotlight searches done through the general Spotlight interface > > > (initiated by the magnifying glass in the menubar) won't find file name > > > text from the middle of a word, but performing a Finder search for > > > [name][contains]<sometextfromthemiddle> will work. > > > > Yes, but that is a search restricted to the NAME of the file. You cannot > > find files containing "biology" and "psychology" that way. Restrictive > > searches in Spotlight are a bit different. A general Spotlight search > > searches the entire database, including file contents and that search > > only searches, as nospam said, on start-of-word boundaries. > > > > You would have to do a Spotlight search for > > > > --- Biology psychology oncology physiology > > > > to find documents that contained all four terms or > > > > --- Biology or psychology or oncology or physiology > > > > To find documents that contained any of the words. > > > > And neither search would find sociology. > > You can do a finder search to find every file that contains "ology" in > it without any difficulty. you can do a _Finder_ search for things like ‘ology’ and find _some_ but not all items, depending on how you set it up. Searching for _contains_ ‘ology’ tends to find things that searching for _matching_ ‘ology’ doesn’t. Naturally, the default is searching using _matching_. That said, a Finder search is NOT the same thing as a Spotlight search. And, as he said, a Spotlight search will NOT find things with ’ology’ buried in them. When it finds things, a Spotlight search is far faster than a Finder search, but as I usually have to run the Finder search anyway, I rarely do a Spotlight search nowadays. > > > I just took this reply, saved it to my desktop and was able to use > Cmd-opt-F to find "ology". Cmd-F is a Finder search. Cmd-opt-F makes the search text box in the uppermost Finder window live, so that you can conduct a Finder search. Clicking on the magnifying glass on the right side of the menubar launches a Spotlight search. There’s a difference. For one thing, you can launch a Spotlight search from inside any application (you may get Unexpected Results in some cases, though) but can only do a Finder search when using the Finder.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-01 12:29 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <n8of6l$gn0$1@news.datemas.de> |
| In reply to | #88368 |
On 1/31/16 5:49 PM, Wolffan wrote: > On 31 Jan 2016, Alan Baker wrote > (in article <n8kljc$4il$5@news.datemas.de>): > >> On 1/30/16 9:03 AM, Lewis wrote: >>> In message<n8grg3$sge$1@news.datemas.de> >>> Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>>> On 1/29/16 2:29 PM, nospam wrote: >>>>> In article >>>>> <do_ray_me-B8F0BE.09112930012016@46.sub-75-242-165.myvzw.com>, dorayme >>>>> <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>>> spotlight does not work for partial name searches. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Nonsense. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> it's not nonsense, as patty found out, and have others. >>>>>> >>>>>> It may be true for some files but not in general. >>>>> >>>>> it's true for all spotlight searches. >>>>> >>>>> spotlight only works if the search query *begins* on a word boundary, >>>>> however, you don't have to type the entire word because it effectively >>>>> autocompletes it. >>>>> >>>>> if you search query begins with the second character or later, it will >>>>> not find anything. >>>>> >>>>> for example, let's say you want to find items such as psychology, >>>>> biology, oncology and physiology, so you search on 'ology' because >>>>> that's common to all of them. spotlight will not find anything. >>>>> >>>>> however, if you want to find items such as psychology and psychiatry >>>>> and you search on 'psy', spotlight will find both, and possibly also >>>>> finding the song gangnam style. >>> >>>> Not quite. >>> >>>> Spotlight searches done through the general Spotlight interface >>>> (initiated by the magnifying glass in the menubar) won't find file name >>>> text from the middle of a word, but performing a Finder search for >>>> [name][contains]<sometextfromthemiddle> will work. >>> >>> Yes, but that is a search restricted to the NAME of the file. You cannot >>> find files containing "biology" and "psychology" that way. Restrictive >>> searches in Spotlight are a bit different. A general Spotlight search >>> searches the entire database, including file contents and that search >>> only searches, as nospam said, on start-of-word boundaries. >>> >>> You would have to do a Spotlight search for >>> >>> --- Biology psychology oncology physiology >>> >>> to find documents that contained all four terms or >>> >>> --- Biology or psychology or oncology or physiology >>> >>> To find documents that contained any of the words. >>> >>> And neither search would find sociology. >> >> You can do a finder search to find every file that contains "ology" in >> it without any difficulty. > > you can do a _Finder_ search for things like ‘ology’ and find _some_ but > not all items, depending on how you set it up. Searching for _contains_ > ‘ology’ tends to find things that searching for _matching_ ‘ology’ > doesn’t. Naturally, the default is searching using _matching_. > > That said, a Finder search is NOT the same thing as a Spotlight search. And, > as he said, a Spotlight search will NOT find things with ’ology’ buried > in them. When it finds things, a Spotlight search is far faster than a Finder > search, but as I usually have to run the Finder search anyway, I rarely do a > Spotlight search nowadays. No. You are incorrect. A Finder search and a Spotlight search both use the same underlying metadata search system. >> >> >> I just took this reply, saved it to my desktop and was able to use >> Cmd-opt-F to find "ology". > > Cmd-F is a Finder search. Cmd-opt-F makes the search text box in the > uppermost Finder window live, so that you can conduct a Finder search. > Clicking on the magnifying glass on the right side of the menubar launches a > Spotlight search. There’s a difference. For one thing, you can launch a > Spotlight search from inside any application (you may get Unexpected Results > in some cases, though) but can only do a Finder search when using the Finder. > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wolffan <AKWolffan@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-02 12:05 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <0001HW.1C61196A024DD41B700000ACF3CF@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #88450 |
On 01 Feb 2016, Alan Baker wrote (in article <n8of6l$gn0$1@news.datemas.de>): > On 1/31/16 5:49 PM, Wolffan wrote: > > On 31 Jan 2016, Alan Baker wrote > > (in article <n8kljc$4il$5@news.datemas.de>): > > > > > On 1/30/16 9:03 AM, Lewis wrote: > > > > In message<n8grg3$sge$1@news.datemas.de> > > > > Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: > > > > > On 1/29/16 2:29 PM, nospam wrote: > > > > > > In article > > > > > > <do_ray_me-B8F0BE.09112930012016@46.sub-75-242-165.myvzw.com>, dorayme > > > > > > <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > spotlight does not work for partial name searches. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nonsense. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it's not nonsense, as patty found out, and have others. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It may be true for some files but not in general. > > > > > > > > > > > > it's true for all spotlight searches. > > > > > > > > > > > > spotlight only works if the search query *begins* on a word boundary, > > > > > > however, you don't have to type the entire word because it effectively > > > > > > autocompletes it. > > > > > > > > > > > > if you search query begins with the second character or later, it will > > > > > > not find anything. > > > > > > > > > > > > for example, let's say you want to find items such as psychology, > > > > > > biology, oncology and physiology, so you search on 'ology' because > > > > > > that's common to all of them. spotlight will not find anything. > > > > > > > > > > > > however, if you want to find items such as psychology and psychiatry > > > > > > and you search on 'psy', spotlight will find both, and possibly also > > > > > > finding the song gangnam style. > > > > > > > > > Not quite. > > > > > > > > > Spotlight searches done through the general Spotlight interface > > > > > (initiated by the magnifying glass in the menubar) won't find file name > > > > > text from the middle of a word, but performing a Finder search for > > > > > [name][contains]<sometextfromthemiddle> will work. > > > > > > > > Yes, but that is a search restricted to the NAME of the file. You cannot > > > > find files containing "biology" and "psychology" that way. Restrictive > > > > searches in Spotlight are a bit different. A general Spotlight search > > > > searches the entire database, including file contents and that search > > > > only searches, as nospam said, on start-of-word boundaries. > > > > > > > > You would have to do a Spotlight search for > > > > > > > > --- Biology psychology oncology physiology > > > > > > > > to find documents that contained all four terms or > > > > > > > > --- Biology or psychology or oncology or physiology > > > > > > > > To find documents that contained any of the words. > > > > > > > > And neither search would find sociology. > > > > > > You can do a finder search to find every file that contains "ology" in > > > it without any difficulty. > > > > you can do a _Finder_ search for things like ‘ology’ and find _some_ but > > not all items, depending on how you set it up. Searching for _contains_ > > ‘ology’ tends to find things that searching for _matching_ ‘ology’ > > doesn’t. Naturally, the default is searching using _matching_. > > > > That said, a Finder search is NOT the same thing as a Spotlight search. And, > > as he said, a Spotlight search will NOT find things with ’ology’ buried > > in them. When it finds things, a Spotlight search is far faster than a > > Finder > > search, but as I usually have to run the Finder search anyway, I rarely do a > > Spotlight search nowadays. > > No. You are incorrect. A Finder search and a Spotlight search both use > the same underlying metadata search system. Interesting. I wonder why I get different results doing Finder and Spotlight searches. i can, and have, done Spotlight searches and not found something I _knew_ was there, and then done a Finder search and found it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-02 11:10 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <n8quv8$jt8$2@news.datemas.de> |
| In reply to | #88565 |
On 2/2/16 9:05 AM, Wolffan wrote: > On 01 Feb 2016, Alan Baker wrote > (in article <n8of6l$gn0$1@news.datemas.de>): > >> On 1/31/16 5:49 PM, Wolffan wrote: >>> On 31 Jan 2016, Alan Baker wrote >>> (in article <n8kljc$4il$5@news.datemas.de>): >>> >>>> On 1/30/16 9:03 AM, Lewis wrote: >>>>> In message<n8grg3$sge$1@news.datemas.de> >>>>> Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>>>>> On 1/29/16 2:29 PM, nospam wrote: >>>>>>> In article >>>>>>> <do_ray_me-B8F0BE.09112930012016@46.sub-75-242-165.myvzw.com>, > dorayme >>>>>>> <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> spotlight does not work for partial name searches. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Nonsense. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> it's not nonsense, as patty found out, and have others. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It may be true for some files but not in general. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> it's true for all spotlight searches. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> spotlight only works if the search query *begins* on a word > boundary, >>>>>>> however, you don't have to type the entire word because it > effectively >>>>>>> autocompletes it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> if you search query begins with the second character or later, it > will >>>>>>> not find anything. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> for example, let's say you want to find items such as psychology, >>>>>>> biology, oncology and physiology, so you search on 'ology' because >>>>>>> that's common to all of them. spotlight will not find anything. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> however, if you want to find items such as psychology and > psychiatry >>>>>>> and you search on 'psy', spotlight will find both, and possibly > also >>>>>>> finding the song gangnam style. >>>>> >>>>>> Not quite. >>>>> >>>>>> Spotlight searches done through the general Spotlight interface >>>>>> (initiated by the magnifying glass in the menubar) won't find file > name >>>>>> text from the middle of a word, but performing a Finder search for >>>>>> [name][contains]<sometextfromthemiddle> will work. >>>>> >>>>> Yes, but that is a search restricted to the NAME of the file. You > cannot >>>>> find files containing "biology" and "psychology" that way. Restrictive >>>>> searches in Spotlight are a bit different. A general Spotlight search >>>>> searches the entire database, including file contents and that search >>>>> only searches, as nospam said, on start-of-word boundaries. >>>>> >>>>> You would have to do a Spotlight search for >>>>> >>>>> --- Biology psychology oncology physiology >>>>> >>>>> to find documents that contained all four terms or >>>>> >>>>> --- Biology or psychology or oncology or physiology >>>>> >>>>> To find documents that contained any of the words. >>>>> >>>>> And neither search would find sociology. >>>> >>>> You can do a finder search to find every file that contains "ology" in >>>> it without any difficulty. >>> >>> you can do a _Finder_ search for things like ‘ology’ and find _some_ > but >>> not all items, depending on how you set it up. Searching for _contains_ >>> ‘ology’ tends to find things that searching for _matching_ ‘ology’ >>> doesn’t. Naturally, the default is searching using _matching_. >>> >>> That said, a Finder search is NOT the same thing as a Spotlight search. > And, >>> as he said, a Spotlight search will NOT find things with ’ology’ buried >>> in them. When it finds things, a Spotlight search is far faster than a >>> Finder >>> search, but as I usually have to run the Finder search anyway, I rarely do > a >>> Spotlight search nowadays. >> >> No. You are incorrect. A Finder search and a Spotlight search both use >> the same underlying metadata search system. > > Interesting. I wonder why I get different results doing Finder and Spotlight > searches. i can, and have, done Spotlight searches and not found something I > _knew_ was there, and then done a Finder search and found it. > I suspect that the underlying queries are not the same.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wolffan <AKWolffan@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-03 06:08 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <0001HW.1C62172402894C097000005B13CF@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #88571 |
On 02 Feb 2016, Alan Baker wrote (in article <n8quv8$jt8$2@news.datemas.de>): > On 2/2/16 9:05 AM, Wolffan wrote: > > On 01 Feb 2016, Alan Baker wrote > > (in article <n8of6l$gn0$1@news.datemas.de>): > > > > > On 1/31/16 5:49 PM, Wolffan wrote: > > > > On 31 Jan 2016, Alan Baker wrote > > > > (in article <n8kljc$4il$5@news.datemas.de>): > > > > > > > > > On 1/30/16 9:03 AM, Lewis wrote: > > > > > > In message<n8grg3$sge$1@news.datemas.de> > > > > > > Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: > > > > > > > On 1/29/16 2:29 PM, nospam wrote: > > > > > > > > In article > > > > > > > > <do_ray_me-B8F0BE.09112930012016@46.sub-75-242-165.myvzw.com>, > > dorayme > > > > > > > > <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > spotlight does not work for partial name searches. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nonsense. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it's not nonsense, as patty found out, and have others. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It may be true for some files but not in general. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it's true for all spotlight searches. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > spotlight only works if the search query *begins* on a word > > boundary, > > > > > > > > however, you don't have to type the entire word because it > > effectively > > > > > > > > autocompletes it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if you search query begins with the second character or later, it > > will > > > > > > > > not find anything. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for example, let's say you want to find items such as psychology, > > > > > > > > biology, oncology and physiology, so you search on 'ology' because > > > > > > > > that's common to all of them. spotlight will not find anything. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > however, if you want to find items such as psychology and > > psychiatry > > > > > > > > and you search on 'psy', spotlight will find both, and possibly > > also > > > > > > > > finding the song gangnam style. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not quite. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Spotlight searches done through the general Spotlight interface > > > > > > > (initiated by the magnifying glass in the menubar) won't find file > > name > > > > > > > text from the middle of a word, but performing a Finder search for > > > > > > > [name][contains]<sometextfromthemiddle> will work. > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, but that is a search restricted to the NAME of the file. You > > cannot > > > > > > find files containing "biology" and "psychology" that way. Restrictive > > > > > > searches in Spotlight are a bit different. A general Spotlight search > > > > > > searches the entire database, including file contents and that search > > > > > > only searches, as nospam said, on start-of-word boundaries. > > > > > > > > > > > > You would have to do a Spotlight search for > > > > > > > > > > > > --- Biology psychology oncology physiology > > > > > > > > > > > > to find documents that contained all four terms or > > > > > > > > > > > > --- Biology or psychology or oncology or physiology > > > > > > > > > > > > To find documents that contained any of the words. > > > > > > > > > > > > And neither search would find sociology. > > > > > > > > > > You can do a finder search to find every file that contains "ology" in > > > > > it without any difficulty. > > > > > > > > you can do a _Finder_ search for things like ‘ology’ and find _some_ > > but > > > > not all items, depending on how you set it up. Searching for _contains_ > > > > ‘ology’ tends to find things that searching for _matching_ ‘ology’ > > > > doesn’t. Naturally, the default is searching using _matching_. > > > > > > > > That said, a Finder search is NOT the same thing as a Spotlight search. > > And, > > > > as he said, a Spotlight search will NOT find things with ’ology’ > > > > buried > > > > in them. When it finds things, a Spotlight search is far faster than a > > > > Finder > > > > search, but as I usually have to run the Finder search anyway, I rarely do > > a > > > > Spotlight search nowadays. > > > > > > No. You are incorrect. A Finder search and a Spotlight search both use > > > the same underlying metadata search system. > > > > Interesting. I wonder why I get different results doing Finder and Spotlight > > searches. i can, and have, done Spotlight searches and not found something I > > _knew_ was there, and then done a Finder search and found it. > > I suspect that the underlying queries are not the same. So you’re saying that if I search for, say, ‘Red Tide’ using Spotlight and find nothing, and then search for ‘Red Tide’ using a Finder search and find four items, including the one I’m looking for, it’s because Apple uses different search methods in Spotlight and Finder searches? Which means that a Finder search is NOT THE SAME THING AS A Spotlight search, right? Isn’t that what I said, and am quoted as saying above? So I’m right and you are wrong, and you just admitted it, right? This should be good...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-03 10:04 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <n8tffa$463$4@news.datemas.de> |
| In reply to | #88698 |
On 2/3/16 3:08 AM, Wolffan wrote: > On 02 Feb 2016, Alan Baker wrote > (in article <n8quv8$jt8$2@news.datemas.de>): > >> On 2/2/16 9:05 AM, Wolffan wrote: >>> On 01 Feb 2016, Alan Baker wrote >>> (in article <n8of6l$gn0$1@news.datemas.de>): >>> >>>> On 1/31/16 5:49 PM, Wolffan wrote: >>>>> On 31 Jan 2016, Alan Baker wrote >>>>> (in article <n8kljc$4il$5@news.datemas.de>): >>>>> >>>>>> On 1/30/16 9:03 AM, Lewis wrote: >>>>>>> In message<n8grg3$sge$1@news.datemas.de> >>>>>>> Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 1/29/16 2:29 PM, nospam wrote: >>>>>>>>> In article >>>>>>>>> <do_ray_me-B8F0BE.09112930012016@46.sub-75-242-165.myvzw.com>, >>> dorayme >>>>>>>>> <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> spotlight does not work for partial name searches. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Nonsense. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> it's not nonsense, as patty found out, and have others. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It may be true for some files but not in general. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> it's true for all spotlight searches. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> spotlight only works if the search query *begins* on a word >>> boundary, >>>>>>>>> however, you don't have to type the entire word because it >>> effectively >>>>>>>>> autocompletes it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> if you search query begins with the second character or later, > it >>> will >>>>>>>>> not find anything. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> for example, let's say you want to find items such as > psychology, >>>>>>>>> biology, oncology and physiology, so you search on 'ology' > because >>>>>>>>> that's common to all of them. spotlight will not find anything. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> however, if you want to find items such as psychology and >>> psychiatry >>>>>>>>> and you search on 'psy', spotlight will find both, and possibly >>> also >>>>>>>>> finding the song gangnam style. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Not quite. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Spotlight searches done through the general Spotlight interface >>>>>>>> (initiated by the magnifying glass in the menubar) won't find > file >>> name >>>>>>>> text from the middle of a word, but performing a Finder search > for >>>>>>>> [name][contains]<sometextfromthemiddle> will work. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes, but that is a search restricted to the NAME of the file. You >>> cannot >>>>>>> find files containing "biology" and "psychology" that way. > Restrictive >>>>>>> searches in Spotlight are a bit different. A general Spotlight > search >>>>>>> searches the entire database, including file contents and that > search >>>>>>> only searches, as nospam said, on start-of-word boundaries. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You would have to do a Spotlight search for >>>>>>> >>>>>>> --- Biology psychology oncology physiology >>>>>>> >>>>>>> to find documents that contained all four terms or >>>>>>> >>>>>>> --- Biology or psychology or oncology or physiology >>>>>>> >>>>>>> To find documents that contained any of the words. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And neither search would find sociology. >>>>>> >>>>>> You can do a finder search to find every file that contains "ology" > in >>>>>> it without any difficulty. >>>>> >>>>> you can do a _Finder_ search for things like ‘ology’ and find > _some_ >>> but >>>>> not all items, depending on how you set it up. Searching for _contains_ >>>>> ‘ology’ tends to find things that searching for _matching_ > ‘ology’ >>>>> doesn’t. Naturally, the default is searching using _matching_. >>>>> >>>>> That said, a Finder search is NOT the same thing as a Spotlight search. >>> And, >>>>> as he said, a Spotlight search will NOT find things with ’ology’ >>>>> buried >>>>> in them. When it finds things, a Spotlight search is far faster than a >>>>> Finder >>>>> search, but as I usually have to run the Finder search anyway, I rarely > do >>> a >>>>> Spotlight search nowadays. >>>> >>>> No. You are incorrect. A Finder search and a Spotlight search both use >>>> the same underlying metadata search system. >>> >>> Interesting. I wonder why I get different results doing Finder and > Spotlight >>> searches. i can, and have, done Spotlight searches and not found something > I >>> _knew_ was there, and then done a Finder search and found it. >> >> I suspect that the underlying queries are not the same. > > So you’re saying that if I search for, say, ‘Red Tide’ using Spotlight > and find nothing, and then search for ‘Red Tide’ using a Finder search > and find four items, including the one I’m looking for, it’s because > Apple uses different search methods in Spotlight and Finder searches? Which > means that a Finder search is NOT THE SAME THING AS A Spotlight search, > right? Isn’t that what I said, and am quoted as saying above? So I’m > right and you are wrong, and you just admitted it, right? > > This should be good... > No. I'm saying that when you search for "red tide" in Spotlight vs searching for it in the Finder, the actual query gets constructed differently. Ask two different questions of the same person, you may get two different answers, but you still asked the same person.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wolffan <AKWolffan@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-03 19:45 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <0001HW.1C62D6B302B631E07000005B13CF@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #88704 |
On 03 Feb 2016, Alan Baker wrote (in article <n8tffa$463$4@news.datemas.de>): > On 2/3/16 3:08 AM, Wolffan wrote: > > On 02 Feb 2016, Alan Baker wrote > > (in article <n8quv8$jt8$2@news.datemas.de>): > > > > > On 2/2/16 9:05 AM, Wolffan wrote: > > > > On 01 Feb 2016, Alan Baker wrote > > > > (in article <n8of6l$gn0$1@news.datemas.de>): > > > > > > > > > On 1/31/16 5:49 PM, Wolffan wrote: > > > > > > On 31 Jan 2016, Alan Baker wrote > > > > > > (in article <n8kljc$4il$5@news.datemas.de>): > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 1/30/16 9:03 AM, Lewis wrote: > > > > > > > > In message<n8grg3$sge$1@news.datemas.de> > > > > > > > > Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 1/29/16 2:29 PM, nospam wrote: > > > > > > > > > > In article > > > > > > > > > > <do_ray_me-B8F0BE.09112930012016@46.sub-75-242-165.myvzw.com>, > > > > dorayme > > > > > > > > > > <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > spotlight does not work for partial name searches. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nonsense. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it's not nonsense, as patty found out, and have others. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It may be true for some files but not in general. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it's true for all spotlight searches. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > spotlight only works if the search query *begins* on a word > > > > boundary, > > > > > > > > > > however, you don't have to type the entire word because it > > > > effectively > > > > > > > > > > autocompletes it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if you search query begins with the second character or later, > > it > > > > will > > > > > > > > > > not find anything. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for example, let's say you want to find items such as > > psychology, > > > > > > > > > > biology, oncology and physiology, so you search on 'ology' > > because > > > > > > > > > > that's common to all of them. spotlight will not find anything. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > however, if you want to find items such as psychology and > > > > psychiatry > > > > > > > > > > and you search on 'psy', spotlight will find both, and possibly > > > > also > > > > > > > > > > finding the song gangnam style. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not quite. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Spotlight searches done through the general Spotlight interface > > > > > > > > > (initiated by the magnifying glass in the menubar) won't find > > file > > > > name > > > > > > > > > text from the middle of a word, but performing a Finder search > > for > > > > > > > > > [name][contains]<sometextfromthemiddle> will work. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, but that is a search restricted to the NAME of the file. You > > > > cannot > > > > > > > > find files containing "biology" and "psychology" that way. > > Restrictive > > > > > > > > searches in Spotlight are a bit different. A general Spotlight > > search > > > > > > > > searches the entire database, including file contents and that > > search > > > > > > > > only searches, as nospam said, on start-of-word boundaries. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You would have to do a Spotlight search for > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- Biology psychology oncology physiology > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to find documents that contained all four terms or > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- Biology or psychology or oncology or physiology > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To find documents that contained any of the words. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And neither search would find sociology. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You can do a finder search to find every file that contains "ology" > > in > > > > > > > it without any difficulty. > > > > > > > > > > > > you can do a _Finder_ search for things like ‘ology’ and find > > _some_ > > > > but > > > > > > not all items, depending on how you set it up. Searching for _contains_ > > > > > > ‘ology’ tends to find things that searching for _matching_ > > ‘ology’ > > > > > > doesn’t. Naturally, the default is searching using _matching_. > > > > > > > > > > > > That said, a Finder search is NOT the same thing as a Spotlight search. > > > > And, > > > > > > as he said, a Spotlight search will NOT find things with ’ology’ > > > > > > buried > > > > > > in them. When it finds things, a Spotlight search is far faster than a > > > > > > Finder > > > > > > search, but as I usually have to run the Finder search anyway, I rarely > > do > > > > a > > > > > > Spotlight search nowadays. > > > > > > > > > > No. You are incorrect. A Finder search and a Spotlight search both use > > > > > the same underlying metadata search system. > > > > > > > > Interesting. I wonder why I get different results doing Finder and > > Spotlight > > > > searches. i can, and have, done Spotlight searches and not found something > > I > > > > _knew_ was there, and then done a Finder search and found it. > > > > > > I suspect that the underlying queries are not the same. > > > > So you’re saying that if I search for, say, ‘Red Tide’ using Spotlight > > and find nothing, and then search for ‘Red Tide’ using a Finder search > > and find four items, including the one I’m looking for, it’s because > > Apple uses different search methods in Spotlight and Finder searches? Which > > means that a Finder search is NOT THE SAME THING AS A Spotlight search, > > right? Isn’t that what I said, and am quoted as saying above? So I’m > > right and you are wrong, and you just admitted it, right? > > > > This should be good... > > No. I'm saying that when you search for "red tide" in Spotlight vs > searching for it in the Finder, the actual query gets constructed > differently. Ask two different questions of the same person, you may get > two different answers, but you still asked the same person. Which means that doing a search using Spotlight IS NOT THE SAME as doing a Finder search, and that you’re dodging, exactly as expected. Using the same wording would work in the two locations if doing a Spotlight and a Finder search were the same. The very fact that using the exact same wording gives different results is the clearest possible indication that the two searches ARE NOT THE SAME.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-03 16:57 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <n8u7l7$rbd$2@news.datemas.de> |
| In reply to | #88743 |
On 2/3/16 4:45 PM, Wolffan wrote: > On 03 Feb 2016, Alan Baker wrote > (in article <n8tffa$463$4@news.datemas.de>): > >> On 2/3/16 3:08 AM, Wolffan wrote: >>> On 02 Feb 2016, Alan Baker wrote >>> (in article <n8quv8$jt8$2@news.datemas.de>): >>> >>>> On 2/2/16 9:05 AM, Wolffan wrote: >>>>> On 01 Feb 2016, Alan Baker wrote >>>>> (in article <n8of6l$gn0$1@news.datemas.de>): >>>>> >>>>>> On 1/31/16 5:49 PM, Wolffan wrote: >>>>>>> On 31 Jan 2016, Alan Baker wrote >>>>>>> (in article <n8kljc$4il$5@news.datemas.de>): >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 1/30/16 9:03 AM, Lewis wrote: >>>>>>>>> In message<n8grg3$sge$1@news.datemas.de> >>>>>>>>> Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 1/29/16 2:29 PM, nospam wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> In article >>>>>>>>>>> > <do_ray_me-B8F0BE.09112930012016@46.sub-75-242-165.myvzw.com>, >>>>> dorayme >>>>>>>>>>> <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spotlight does not work for partial name searches. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nonsense. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> it's not nonsense, as patty found out, and have others. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> It may be true for some files but not in general. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> it's true for all spotlight searches. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> spotlight only works if the search query *begins* on a word >>>>> boundary, >>>>>>>>>>> however, you don't have to type the entire word because it >>>>> effectively >>>>>>>>>>> autocompletes it. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> if you search query begins with the second character or > later, >>> it >>>>> will >>>>>>>>>>> not find anything. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> for example, let's say you want to find items such as >>> psychology, >>>>>>>>>>> biology, oncology and physiology, so you search on 'ology' >>> because >>>>>>>>>>> that's common to all of them. spotlight will not find > anything. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> however, if you want to find items such as psychology and >>>>> psychiatry >>>>>>>>>>> and you search on 'psy', spotlight will find both, and > possibly >>>>> also >>>>>>>>>>> finding the song gangnam style. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Not quite. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Spotlight searches done through the general Spotlight > interface >>>>>>>>>> (initiated by the magnifying glass in the menubar) won't find >>> file >>>>> name >>>>>>>>>> text from the middle of a word, but performing a Finder > search >>> for >>>>>>>>>> [name][contains]<sometextfromthemiddle> will work. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Yes, but that is a search restricted to the NAME of the file. > You >>>>> cannot >>>>>>>>> find files containing "biology" and "psychology" that way. >>> Restrictive >>>>>>>>> searches in Spotlight are a bit different. A general Spotlight >>> search >>>>>>>>> searches the entire database, including file contents and that >>> search >>>>>>>>> only searches, as nospam said, on start-of-word boundaries. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You would have to do a Spotlight search for >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> --- Biology psychology oncology physiology >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> to find documents that contained all four terms or >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> --- Biology or psychology or oncology or physiology >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> To find documents that contained any of the words. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And neither search would find sociology. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You can do a finder search to find every file that contains > "ology" >>> in >>>>>>>> it without any difficulty. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> you can do a _Finder_ search for things like ‘ology’ and find >>> _some_ >>>>> but >>>>>>> not all items, depending on how you set it up. Searching for > _contains_ >>>>>>> ‘ology’ tends to find things that searching for _matching_ >>> ‘ology’ >>>>>>> doesn’t. Naturally, the default is searching using _matching_. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That said, a Finder search is NOT the same thing as a Spotlight > search. >>>>> And, >>>>>>> as he said, a Spotlight search will NOT find things with > ’ology’ >>>>>>> buried >>>>>>> in them. When it finds things, a Spotlight search is far faster > than a >>>>>>> Finder >>>>>>> search, but as I usually have to run the Finder search anyway, I > rarely >>> do >>>>> a >>>>>>> Spotlight search nowadays. >>>>>> >>>>>> No. You are incorrect. A Finder search and a Spotlight search both > use >>>>>> the same underlying metadata search system. >>>>> >>>>> Interesting. I wonder why I get different results doing Finder and >>> Spotlight >>>>> searches. i can, and have, done Spotlight searches and not found > something >>> I >>>>> _knew_ was there, and then done a Finder search and found it. >>>> >>>> I suspect that the underlying queries are not the same. >>> >>> So you’re saying that if I search for, say, ‘Red Tide’ using > Spotlight >>> and find nothing, and then search for ‘Red Tide’ using a Finder search >>> and find four items, including the one I’m looking for, it’s because >>> Apple uses different search methods in Spotlight and Finder searches? Which >>> means that a Finder search is NOT THE SAME THING AS A Spotlight search, >>> right? Isn’t that what I said, and am quoted as saying above? So I’m >>> right and you are wrong, and you just admitted it, right? >>> >>> This should be good... >> >> No. I'm saying that when you search for "red tide" in Spotlight vs >> searching for it in the Finder, the actual query gets constructed >> differently. Ask two different questions of the same person, you may get >> two different answers, but you still asked the same person. > > Which means that doing a search using Spotlight IS NOT THE SAME as doing a > Finder search, and that you’re dodging, exactly as expected. Using the same > wording would work in the two locations if doing a Spotlight and a Finder > search were the same. The very fact that using the exact same wording gives > different results is the clearest possible indication that the two searches > ARE NOT THE SAME. > I never said it was exactly the same: "A Finder search and a Spotlight search both use the same underlying metadata search system." Which is why you're wrong about a Spotlight search being "far faster" than a Finder search. Both are indexed searches on the same databases.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wolffan <AKWolffan@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-04 21:20 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <0001HW.1C643E57030A7CD57000005B13CF@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #88745 |
On 03 Feb 2016, Alan Baker wrote (in article <n8u7l7$rbd$2@news.datemas.de>): > On 2/3/16 4:45 PM, Wolffan wrote: > > On 03 Feb 2016, Alan Baker wrote > > (in article <n8tffa$463$4@news.datemas.de>): > > > > > On 2/3/16 3:08 AM, Wolffan wrote: > > > > On 02 Feb 2016, Alan Baker wrote > > > > (in article <n8quv8$jt8$2@news.datemas.de>): > > > > > > > > > On 2/2/16 9:05 AM, Wolffan wrote: > > > > > > On 01 Feb 2016, Alan Baker wrote > > > > > > (in article <n8of6l$gn0$1@news.datemas.de>): > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 1/31/16 5:49 PM, Wolffan wrote: > > > > > > > > On 31 Jan 2016, Alan Baker wrote > > > > > > > > (in article <n8kljc$4il$5@news.datemas.de>): > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 1/30/16 9:03 AM, Lewis wrote: > > > > > > > > > > In message<n8grg3$sge$1@news.datemas.de> > > > > > > > > > > Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On 1/29/16 2:29 PM, nospam wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > In article > > <do_ray_me-B8F0BE.09112930012016@46.sub-75-242-165.myvzw.com>, > > > > > > dorayme > > > > > > > > > > > > <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > spotlight does not work for partial name searches. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nonsense. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it's not nonsense, as patty found out, and have others. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It may be true for some files but not in general. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it's true for all spotlight searches. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > spotlight only works if the search query *begins* on a word > > > > > > boundary, > > > > > > > > > > > > however, you don't have to type the entire word because it > > > > > > effectively > > > > > > > > > > > > autocompletes it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if you search query begins with the second character or > > later, > > > > it > > > > > > will > > > > > > > > > > > > not find anything. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for example, let's say you want to find items such as > > > > psychology, > > > > > > > > > > > > biology, oncology and physiology, so you search on 'ology' > > > > because > > > > > > > > > > > > that's common to all of them. spotlight will not find > > anything. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > however, if you want to find items such as psychology and > > > > > > psychiatry > > > > > > > > > > > > and you search on 'psy', spotlight will find both, and > > possibly > > > > > > also > > > > > > > > > > > > finding the song gangnam style. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not quite. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Spotlight searches done through the general Spotlight > > interface > > > > > > > > > > > (initiated by the magnifying glass in the menubar) won't find > > > > file > > > > > > name > > > > > > > > > > > text from the middle of a word, but performing a Finder > > search > > > > for > > > > > > > > > > > [name][contains]<sometextfromthemiddle> will work. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, but that is a search restricted to the NAME of the file. > > You > > > > > > cannot > > > > > > > > > > find files containing "biology" and "psychology" that way. > > > > Restrictive > > > > > > > > > > searches in Spotlight are a bit different. A general Spotlight > > > > search > > > > > > > > > > searches the entire database, including file contents and that > > > > search > > > > > > > > > > only searches, as nospam said, on start-of-word boundaries. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You would have to do a Spotlight search for > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- Biology psychology oncology physiology > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to find documents that contained all four terms or > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- Biology or psychology or oncology or physiology > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To find documents that contained any of the words. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And neither search would find sociology. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You can do a finder search to find every file that contains > > "ology" > > > > in > > > > > > > > > it without any difficulty. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you can do a _Finder_ search for things like ‘ology’ and find > > > > _some_ > > > > > > but > > > > > > > > not all items, depending on how you set it up. Searching for > > _contains_ > > > > > > > > ‘ology’ tends to find things that searching for _matching_ > > > > ‘ology’ > > > > > > > > doesn’t. Naturally, the default is searching using _matching_. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That said, a Finder search is NOT the same thing as a Spotlight > > search. > > > > > > And, > > > > > > > > as he said, a Spotlight search will NOT find things with > > ’ology’ > > > > > > > > buried > > > > > > > > in them. When it finds things, a Spotlight search is far faster > > than a > > > > > > > > Finder > > > > > > > > search, but as I usually have to run the Finder search anyway, I > > rarely > > > > do > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > Spotlight search nowadays. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No. You are incorrect. A Finder search and a Spotlight search both > > use > > > > > > > the same underlying metadata search system. > > > > > > > > > > > > Interesting. I wonder why I get different results doing Finder and > > > > Spotlight > > > > > > searches. i can, and have, done Spotlight searches and not found > > something > > > > I > > > > > > _knew_ was there, and then done a Finder search and found it. > > > > > > > > > > I suspect that the underlying queries are not the same. > > > > > > > > So you’re saying that if I search for, say, ‘Red Tide’ using > > Spotlight > > > > and find nothing, and then search for ‘Red Tide’ using a Finder search > > > > and find four items, including the one I’m looking for, it’s because > > > > Apple uses different search methods in Spotlight and Finder searches? > > > > Which > > > > means that a Finder search is NOT THE SAME THING AS A Spotlight search, > > > > right? Isn’t that what I said, and am quoted as saying above? So I’m > > > > right and you are wrong, and you just admitted it, right? > > > > > > > > This should be good... > > > > > > No. I'm saying that when you search for "red tide" in Spotlight vs > > > searching for it in the Finder, the actual query gets constructed > > > differently. Ask two different questions of the same person, you may get > > > two different answers, but you still asked the same person. > > > > Which means that doing a search using Spotlight IS NOT THE SAME as doing a > > Finder search, and that you’re dodging, exactly as expected. Using the > > same > > wording would work in the two locations if doing a Spotlight and a Finder > > search were the same. The very fact that using the exact same wording gives > > different results is the clearest possible indication that the two searches > > ARE NOT THE SAME. > > I never said it was exactly the same: > > "A Finder search and a Spotlight search both use the same underlying > metadata search system." > > Which is why you're wrong about a Spotlight search being "far faster" > than a Finder search. Both are indexed searches on the same databases. As the two searches use differing methods, you can’t say that. At least you can’t say that without providing rather more evidence than you have to date. In particular you can’t say that when actual empirical evidence suggests that, when it actually finds something, a Spotlight search is in fact far faster than a Finder search. You’ve going to have to provide a _lot_ of contrary evidence to get past actual experience.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-05 00:24 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <n91m7n$cu0$3@news.datemas.de> |
| In reply to | #88816 |
On 2/4/16 6:20 PM, Wolffan wrote: > On 03 Feb 2016, Alan Baker wrote (in article > <n8u7l7$rbd$2@news.datemas.de>): > >> On 2/3/16 4:45 PM, Wolffan wrote: >>> On 03 Feb 2016, Alan Baker wrote (in article >>> <n8tffa$463$4@news.datemas.de>): >>> >>>> On 2/3/16 3:08 AM, Wolffan wrote: >>>>> On 02 Feb 2016, Alan Baker wrote (in article >>>>> <n8quv8$jt8$2@news.datemas.de>): >>>>> >>>>>> On 2/2/16 9:05 AM, Wolffan wrote: >>>>>>> On 01 Feb 2016, Alan Baker wrote (in article >>>>>>> <n8of6l$gn0$1@news.datemas.de>): >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 1/31/16 5:49 PM, Wolffan wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 31 Jan 2016, Alan Baker wrote (in article >>>>>>>>> <n8kljc$4il$5@news.datemas.de>): >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 1/30/16 9:03 AM, Lewis wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> In message<n8grg3$sge$1@news.datemas.de> Alan >>>>>>>>>>> Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/29/16 2:29 PM, nospam wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> In article >>> <do_ray_me-B8F0BE.09112930012016@46.sub-75-242-165.myvzw.com>, >>>>>>> dorayme >>>>>>>>>>>>> <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spotlight does not work for partial >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> name > searches. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nonsense. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's not nonsense, as patty found out, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and have > others. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It may be true for some files but not in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> general. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> it's true for all spotlight searches. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> spotlight only works if the search query >>>>>>>>>>>>> *begins* on a > word >>>>>>> boundary, >>>>>>>>>>>>> however, you don't have to type the entire >>>>>>>>>>>>> word because > it >>>>>>> effectively >>>>>>>>>>>>> autocompletes it. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> if you search query begins with the second >>>>>>>>>>>>> character or >>> later, >>>>> it >>>>>>> will >>>>>>>>>>>>> not find anything. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> for example, let's say you want to find items >>>>>>>>>>>>> such as >>>>> psychology, >>>>>>>>>>>>> biology, oncology and physiology, so you >>>>>>>>>>>>> search on > 'ology' >>>>> because >>>>>>>>>>>>> that's common to all of them. spotlight will >>>>>>>>>>>>> not find >>> anything. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> however, if you want to find items such as >>>>>>>>>>>>> psychology > and >>>>>>> psychiatry >>>>>>>>>>>>> and you search on 'psy', spotlight will find >>>>>>>>>>>>> both, and >>> possibly >>>>>>> also >>>>>>>>>>>>> finding the song gangnam style. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Not quite. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Spotlight searches done through the general >>>>>>>>>>>> Spotlight >>> interface >>>>>>>>>>>> (initiated by the magnifying glass in the >>>>>>>>>>>> menubar) won't > find >>>>> file >>>>>>> name >>>>>>>>>>>> text from the middle of a word, but performing >>>>>>>>>>>> a Finder >>> search >>>>> for >>>>>>>>>>>> [name][contains]<sometextfromthemiddle> will >>>>>>>>>>>> work. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Yes, but that is a search restricted to the NAME >>>>>>>>>>> of the > file. >>> You >>>>>>> cannot >>>>>>>>>>> find files containing "biology" and "psychology" >>>>>>>>>>> that way. >>>>> Restrictive >>>>>>>>>>> searches in Spotlight are a bit different. A >>>>>>>>>>> general > Spotlight >>>>> search >>>>>>>>>>> searches the entire database, including file >>>>>>>>>>> contents and > that >>>>> search >>>>>>>>>>> only searches, as nospam said, on start-of-word >>>>>>>>>>> boundaries. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You would have to do a Spotlight search for >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> --- Biology psychology oncology physiology >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> to find documents that contained all four terms >>>>>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> --- Biology or psychology or oncology or >>>>>>>>>>> physiology >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> To find documents that contained any of the >>>>>>>>>>> words. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> And neither search would find sociology. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You can do a finder search to find every file that >>>>>>>>>> contains >>> "ology" >>>>> in >>>>>>>>>> it without any difficulty. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> you can do a _Finder_ search for things like ‘ology’ >>>>>>>>> and > find >>>>> _some_ >>>>>>> but >>>>>>>>> not all items, depending on how you set it up. >>>>>>>>> Searching for >>> _contains_ >>>>>>>>> ‘ology’ tends to find things that searching for >>>>>>>>> _matching_ >>>>> ‘ology’ >>>>>>>>> doesn’t. Naturally, the default is searching using > _matching_. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That said, a Finder search is NOT the same thing as a >>>>>>>>> Spotlight >>> search. >>>>>>> And, >>>>>>>>> as he said, a Spotlight search will NOT find things >>>>>>>>> with >>> ’ology’ >>>>>>>>> buried in them. When it finds things, a Spotlight >>>>>>>>> search is far faster >>> than a >>>>>>>>> Finder search, but as I usually have to run the >>>>>>>>> Finder search anyway, > I >>> rarely >>>>> do >>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>> Spotlight search nowadays. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No. You are incorrect. A Finder search and a Spotlight >>>>>>>> search > both >>> use >>>>>>>> the same underlying metadata search system. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Interesting. I wonder why I get different results doing >>>>>>> Finder and >>>>> Spotlight >>>>>>> searches. i can, and have, done Spotlight searches and >>>>>>> not found >>> something >>>>> I >>>>>>> _knew_ was there, and then done a Finder search and found >>>>>>> it. >>>>>> >>>>>> I suspect that the underlying queries are not the same. >>>>> >>>>> So you’re saying that if I search for, say, ‘Red Tide’ using >>> Spotlight >>>>> and find nothing, and then search for ‘Red Tide’ using a >>>>> Finder > search >>>>> and find four items, including the one I’m looking for, it’s > because >>>>> Apple uses different search methods in Spotlight and Finder >>>>> searches? Which means that a Finder search is NOT THE SAME >>>>> THING AS A Spotlight search, right? Isn’t that what I said, >>>>> and am quoted as saying above? So > I’m >>>>> right and you are wrong, and you just admitted it, right? >>>>> >>>>> This should be good... >>>> >>>> No. I'm saying that when you search for "red tide" in Spotlight >>>> vs searching for it in the Finder, the actual query gets >>>> constructed differently. Ask two different questions of the >>>> same person, you may get two different answers, but you still >>>> asked the same person. >>> >>> Which means that doing a search using Spotlight IS NOT THE SAME >>> as doing a Finder search, and that you’re dodging, exactly as >>> expected. Using the same wording would work in the two locations >>> if doing a Spotlight and a Finder search were the same. The very >>> fact that using the exact same wording gives different results is >>> the clearest possible indication that the two searches ARE NOT >>> THE SAME. >> >> I never said it was exactly the same: >> >> "A Finder search and a Spotlight search both use the same >> underlying metadata search system." >> >> Which is why you're wrong about a Spotlight search being "far >> faster" than a Finder search. Both are indexed searches on the same >> databases. > > As the two searches use differing methods, you can’t say that. At They use the exact same method, but different queries. > least you can’t say that without providing rather more evidence than > you have to date. In particular you can’t say that when actual > empirical evidence suggests that, when it actually finds something, a > Spotlight search is in fact far faster than a Finder search. You’ve > going to have to provide a _lot_ of contrary evidence to get past > actual experience. I know how the thing works: you don't.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-05 10:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <dhjbpkF8sq4U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #88828 |
On 2016-02-05, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
[229 lines snipped]
> They use the exact same method, but different queries.
[7 lines snipped]
> I know how the thing works: you don't.
You quoted 236 lines to post 2, one of those a pathetic flame?
You, sir, are a dribbling fucktard.
--
Today is Sweetmorn, the 36th day of Chaos in the YOLD 3182
I don't have an attitude problem.
If you have a problem with my attitude, that's your problem.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-05 10:52 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <n92r1q$tld$2@news.datemas.de> |
| In reply to | #88829 |
On 2/5/16 2:28 AM, Huge wrote: > On 2016-02-05, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: > > [229 lines snipped] > >> They use the exact same method, but different queries. > > [7 lines snipped] > >> I know how the thing works: you don't. > > You quoted 236 lines to post 2, one of those a pathetic flame? > > You, sir, are a dribbling fucktard. > Thank you so much for your opinion. It has been appropriately filed for future reference.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wolffan <AKWolffan@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-06 07:22 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <0001HW.1C661D23037AB57E7000004AB3CF@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #88829 |
On 05 Feb 2016, Huge wrote (in article <dhjbpkF8sq4U1@mid.individual.net>): > On 2016-02-05, Alan Baker<alangbaker@telus.net>wrote: > > [229 lines snipped] > > > They use the exact same method, but different queries. Doubt it. > > [7 lines snipped] > > > I know how the thing works: you don't. I really doubt that you know much of anything. Certainly you haven’t demonstrated this. Hint: I specifically asked for evidence to support your position. You have provided none. I suspect that you can’t. > > You quoted 236 lines to post 2, one of those a pathetic flame? > > You, sir, are a dribbling fucktard. And he’s been busily dodging because he knows that he’s got no clue whatsoever.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-06 17:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <dhmou8F4o8bU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #88891 |
On 2016-02-06, Wolffan <AKWolffan@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 2016-02-05, Alan Baker<alangbaker@telus.net>wrote: >> >>> They use the exact same method, but different queries. > > Doubt it. He's right. -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wolffan <AKWolffan@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-06 13:56 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <0001HW.1C6679500390503B7000006343CF@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #88897 |
On 06 Feb 2016, Jolly Roger wrote (in article <dhmou8F4o8bU1@mid.individual.net>): > On 2016-02-06, Wolffan<AKWolffan@gmail.com>wrote: > > > On 2016-02-05, Alan Baker<alangbaker@telus.net>wrote: > > > > > > > They use the exact same method, but different queries. > > > > Doubt it. > > He's right. Cool. Show why you think so.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-06 19:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <dhmuu9F60gaU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #88899 |
On 2016-02-06, Wolffan <AKWolffan@gmail.com> wrote: > On 06 Feb 2016, Jolly Roger wrote > (in article <dhmou8F4o8bU1@mid.individual.net>): >> On 2016-02-06, Wolffan<AKWolffan@gmail.com>wrote: >>>> On 2016-02-05, Alan Baker<alangbaker@telus.net>wrote: >>>> >>>>> They use the exact same method, but different queries. >>> >>> Doubt it. >> >> He's right. > > Cool. Show why you think so. They both use Spotlight, which is evidenced by the fact that Spotlight search query syntax is supported in both, as well as that search results are similar or the same when the same queries are used. It's simple deduction on that point, but it's also well known in the Apple developer and user communities that Finder uses Spotlight for searches: <http://www.macworld.com/article/1132817/business/spotlight3.html> It seems silly that anyone would argue about this. -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wolffan <AKWolffan@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-06 19:26 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <0001HW.1C66C6B303A273727000005B13CF@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #88901 |
On 06 Feb 2016, Jolly Roger wrote (in article <dhmuu9F60gaU2@mid.individual.net>): > On 2016-02-06, Wolffan<AKWolffan@gmail.com>wrote: > > On 06 Feb 2016, Jolly Roger wrote > > (in article <dhmou8F4o8bU1@mid.individual.net>): > > > On 2016-02-06, Wolffan<AKWolffan@gmail.com>wrote: > > > > > On 2016-02-05, Alan Baker<alangbaker@telus.net>wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > They use the exact same method, but different queries. > > > > > > > > Doubt it. > > > > > > He's right. > > > > Cool. Show why you think so. > > They both use Spotlight, which is evidenced by the fact that Spotlight > search query syntax is supported in both, as well as that search results > are similar or the same when the same queries are used. It's simple > deduction on that point, but it's also well known in the Apple developer > and user communities that Finder uses Spotlight for searches: > > <http://www.macworld.com/article/1132817/business/spotlight3.html> > > It seems silly that anyone would argue about this. The problem is that they _don’t_ give the same results when the same query is entered. If i search for stuff in the Finder, I can usually find what I’m looking for. If I use the same search string in Spotlight, most of the time I don’t. The _same_ string, exactly. Furthermore, if Spotlight does find something, it finds it faster than the Finder. Even if they are using the same database, they have to be conducting different searches. It simply must be that a Spotlight search is NOT THE SAME as a Finder search. Empirical experimental results show this. Anyone and any theory which says different simply has to account for real-life results. M’man refuses to even try.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-06 17:22 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <n9668q$9ks$1@news.datemas.de> |
| In reply to | #88908 |
On 2/6/16 4:26 PM, Wolffan wrote: > On 06 Feb 2016, Jolly Roger wrote > (in article <dhmuu9F60gaU2@mid.individual.net>): > >> On 2016-02-06, Wolffan<AKWolffan@gmail.com>wrote: >>> On 06 Feb 2016, Jolly Roger wrote >>> (in article <dhmou8F4o8bU1@mid.individual.net>): >>>> On 2016-02-06, Wolffan<AKWolffan@gmail.com>wrote: >>>>>> On 2016-02-05, Alan Baker<alangbaker@telus.net>wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> They use the exact same method, but different queries. >>>>> >>>>> Doubt it. >>>> >>>> He's right. >>> >>> Cool. Show why you think so. >> >> They both use Spotlight, which is evidenced by the fact that Spotlight >> search query syntax is supported in both, as well as that search results >> are similar or the same when the same queries are used. It's simple >> deduction on that point, but it's also well known in the Apple developer >> and user communities that Finder uses Spotlight for searches: >> >> <http://www.macworld.com/article/1132817/business/spotlight3.html> >> >> It seems silly that anyone would argue about this. > > The problem is that they _don’t_ give the same results when the same query > is entered. If i search for stuff in the Finder, I can usually find what But you are assuming that because they are search the same underlying database that that means they must create the same query. > I’m looking for. If I use the same search string in Spotlight, most of the > time I don’t. The _same_ string, exactly. Furthermore, if Spotlight does > find something, it finds it faster than the Finder. Even if they are using > the same database, they have to be conducting different searches. It simply > must be that a Spotlight search is NOT THE SAME as a Finder search. Empirical > experimental results show this. Anyone and any theory which says different > simply has to account for real-life results. M’man refuses to even try. Your results are hardly definitive. They are one data point that you insist is valid universally. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wolffan <AKWolffan@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-15 09:51 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <0001HW.1C721D770154E2FF7000005B13CF@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #88911 |
On 06 Feb 2016, Alan Baker wrote (in article <n9668q$9ks$1@news.datemas.de>): > On 2/6/16 4:26 PM, Wolffan wrote: > > On 06 Feb 2016, Jolly Roger wrote > > (in article <dhmuu9F60gaU2@mid.individual.net>): > > > > > On 2016-02-06, Wolffan<AKWolffan@gmail.com>wrote: > > > > On 06 Feb 2016, Jolly Roger wrote > > > > (in article <dhmou8F4o8bU1@mid.individual.net>): > > > > > On 2016-02-06, Wolffan<AKWolffan@gmail.com>wrote: > > > > > > > On 2016-02-05, Alan Baker<alangbaker@telus.net>wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > They use the exact same method, but different queries. > > > > > > > > > > > > Doubt it. > > > > > > > > > > He's right. > > > > > > > > Cool. Show why you think so. > > > > > > They both use Spotlight, which is evidenced by the fact that Spotlight > > > search query syntax is supported in both, as well as that search results > > > are similar or the same when the same queries are used. It's simple > > > deduction on that point, but it's also well known in the Apple developer > > > and user communities that Finder uses Spotlight for searches: > > > > > > <http://www.macworld.com/article/1132817/business/spotlight3.html> > > > > > > It seems silly that anyone would argue about this. > > > > The problem is that they _don’t_ give the same results when the same query > > is entered. If i search for stuff in the Finder, I can usually find what > > But you are assuming that because they are search the same underlying > database that that means they must create the same query. You’re assuming that they don’t. On what evidence do you base this? > > > > I’m looking for. If I use the same search string in Spotlight, most of the > > time I don’t. The _same_ string, exactly. Furthermore, if Spotlight does > > find something, it finds it faster than the Finder. Even if they are using > > the same database, they have to be conducting different searches. It simply > > must be that a Spotlight search is NOT THE SAME as a Finder search. > > Empirical > > experimental results show this. Anyone and any theory which says different > > simply has to account for real-life results. M’man refuses to even try. > > Your results are hardly definitive. They are one data point that you > insist is valid universally. My data still must be accounted for.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system
csiph-web