Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : SI Beta Site Launch - 7/01/99 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: BryanB who wrote (200)	7/5/1999 4:30:00 PM
From: David Lawrence	Respond to of 2340

Bryan, The "StockTalk Search" search at the bottom of messages is somewhat confusing because its drop down menu is defaulted to "Quotes", which contradicts the three radio buttons for "Subject Titles Only/Full-Text/Messages with Links". There is no "execute" button - it looks like that is done be selecting something from the drop down menu......? I need to play with it some more, but it doesn't seem real intuitive.

To: BryanB who wrote (200)	7/5/1999 11:50:00 PM
From: Toby Zidle	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 2340

Where did you try to do the keyword search? BryanB, I was searching for the keyword 'lawsuit' from the search box at the bottom of an individual message page. Subject Titles Only, btw. The box says "Enter symbols or keywords for search". The search result says "Sorry, security lawsuit not found". Further, "lawsuit" is now in the GO box for quotes at the top of the result page. I know "lawsuit" is not a security. But what's wrong with wanting to find Subject Titles with the word "lawsuit" in them? It IS a valid keyword. In the old SI, the Search box worked the same no matter where the box was. (My original posting documented the different result between the old SI and the Beta SI.) Are you trying to tell us now that 'Search' for a Subject Title works differently depending on what page the search is done from? I don't like that - not at all!! [O/T] Btw, how about for underlining? It would have been useful here. ------- Oops. As I wrote this, I hadn't seen David Lawrence's posting #202 to you -- the perfect example of not having read ahead, which I noted in an earlier reply to John Biddle.