Ok, I've tried to resist asking but for weeks now I can't seem to get any joy using the advanced search with queries including AND, OR or NOT. I just get a message back stating these words are too common and have been omitted!!!

Is this just my problem? Am I missing something obvious here? It used to work for me just fine.

 

Exactly what I have been thinking lately, I don't know what is going on with the search function. Gives you hits for everything, but what you are searching for.

 

try as shown in the example "fuel pump" try using the " " around your search and see if it helps. i was fouled up for a while also.

 

There are numerous posts around the various forums all complaining about the "new" search capabilities. IB is stating that they have been "tweaking" the search function. It appears more like a full replacement and a cluster f*!

The suggestion to double quote strings to get the old effect of AND queries seems to work, but search has become a real problem, for sure.

 

I have to agree, " xxx " in no way replaces those boolean type queries. If I want to see all threads containing X and Y, that is very different to seeing threads that contain "X Y".....

Cluster F... indeed. Were should we direct our feedback?

 

IB Search complaint thread

Search for 'search' in Title - 8 or 9 of top 10 are about broken search.

 

thanks

 

OBITUARY .
Our dear friend , search , has been missing for a great deal of time .
The court of popular opinion , search has been gone long enough to be declared illegally dead .
Search is survived by not much at all , slim and nothing and best O luck .
In lieu of flowers , please spend endless hours searching the threads for something relevant , cause thats what search would do for you if it could .

 

 

Such a shame. Rennlist has been THE GREATEST resource for learning to work on and fixing my Porsche.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgMEPk6fvpg

http://www.dilbert.com/

 

Use the plus sign instead of AND as in
Front+swaybar
Note no spaces.

 

Thanks Bob, but as per the thread referred to in dfinnegan response above, things are not quite that straighforward.... this + operator doesn't seem to replace the old AND function and has limited scope.

 

Just curious Bob, but why do we have to add " " and +'s to the search? Why not just leave it like it was? I just don't understand why tinker with a good thing?