And maybe search for "hole word" only as default:===> 'Fun'
With an hint to use asterisks ===> '*fun*'  for fuzzy search.
Or better an check box?

There's a serious problem with matching "whole word" only, normally you do NOT want to search with this option in that:

With "whole word" matching on, if someone searches "tool", it won't find "tools"; similarly, for "play", the search wont be able return "played", "playing", "player", etc. variants. In the end there will be many missing results and the user may end up having to revise search query many times.

Let's say I search for: free download manager, should a post that contains "freeware downloader manager" or "freebie downloading managers" match. With "whole word" matching on, the post will be excluded from results, unfortunately.

Able to use RegEx would be handy of course ==> '\bFun??'  ===> 'Fun' , 'funny',....

Yes, but it will hit v hard on the server and drive mouser mad 

regex and case sensitive seem a bit overkill to me, but whether to default to whole word searching seems worth considering.

Read my reply above, if we set default to "whole word" matching it could ruin our search as too many relevant topics would be excluded simply due to its keywords being a little bit different from user query terms.

one thing you could do is higher score to whole word matches..

We do that already, the content keyword density analysis is primarily about awarding whole word matches. As such topics with whole word matches get ranked significantly higher than those without.

Maybe, if possible? ... search for match words in hole thread?

It's possible, although I believe it will hit hard on server. Potential server problem aside, I'm not sure if it's desirable. It seems to work well in this "Simpson fun" case (simpson is fun, after all ).

We have too many topics here (with numerous replies) where people share different opinions or even wander off the topic for a while. Expanding the search to entire thread for each search term will, while return more results, suffer a whole lot in relevance -- when:

We have 3 posts (1, 2, 3) in topic X, and 3 user search keywords A, B, C

Now -

Post 1 contains keyword A, but not B, C
Post 2 contains keyword B, but not A, C    <-- it disagrees with Post 1
Post 3 contains keyword C, but not A, B    <-- it wanders off the topic or is spam

If we go with the new 'entire thread' method, the topic would match even if it's not all what the user was looking for! 

Additionally, it could allow those super-popular topics (with hundreds of replies) to become "catch all" since it's superabundant with mountainloads of keywords -- with none of the individual messages on its own relevant to the user search.

First: i like to find all post no matter what subject from the last three days to see what happens.
f.ex. i was online but had no time to read all ..... and next i went online i don't see the last posts any more.

I know there is the way via "Forum > Recent Posts" ... but i guess find Recent Posts by search function is more native?

Not a bad idea at all.   It seems more intuitive to tell forum to "display unread message in the last XX days".

Second: i like to see the search result in an compressed form... the subject lines only.
Sometimes this would help to find the wanted thread, especially for the issue mentioned above.

That was exactly what I did with Zillarank when it was still an independent script (not integrated into SMF by then)!   Actually I've been meaning to implement this, thanks for reminding me!! 

Added to my to-do list.

Quote from: AbteriX on July 28, 2007, 12:29 AM

Maybe, if possible? ... search for match words in hole thread?

It's possible, although I believe it will hit hard on server.
We have too many topics here (with numerous replies) where people share different opinions or even wander off the topic for a while.
Expanding the search to entire thread for each search term will, while return more results, suffer a whole lot in relevance -- when:

JBS:
(Just brain storming, {do you say the same in english?} )

we have
Search Forum: [All                  ]
For Word:      [picture            ]
From Author:  [                    ]

what about
Only Threads subject containing: [REQ*    date time      ]

Update: some new features added

Firstly, lemme show off some snapshots


Dropdown Quick Search




View all matching messages in a topic after search




Quick query adjustment




Search within a specific topic

Quote from: AbteriX on July 28, 2007, 11:53 AM

what about
Only Threads subject containing: [REQ*    date time      ]

What does that mean? 

I mean search for word/words or user but only in thread with "word" in subject.

Like search for
WORD [editor regualare expression]
USER [    ]
but only in threads with
SUBJECT [discount]



or search for
WORD [explorer context menu]
USER [  ]
but only in threads with
SUBJECT [REQ*  or  date or time      ]



So for my example above with 'Simpson Fun'
i would search for
WORD [fun]
Hole Word only [X]
USER [  ]
SUBJECT [ Simpson or Simpsons]

.

Mouser: the real power of this feature is that you can now select this from the quick search dropdown box for the topic you are currently browsing, or from *within* the results page.

It's very much appreciated. For me, the new work by Wordzilla turns all of the interesting material on Donation Coder into a really useful database.

Also, since Wordzilla is just an anagram of Dollar Wiz, it's helpful to know how much to donate 

I love screenshots, they explain everything, well... almost 

Updates:

Added new matching mode selection:

1. Matching whole words only

Perfect match: "play" = "play"

verbatim whole word matching, no more no less.

What you get: Least results, Least noise

2. Smart matching (default)

"play" finds: playable, playground, played, playing, player, plays...

What you get: absolute most of all potential matches, some noise

Note: actually smart matching is smarter than "just matching one side of the word"

3. Matching any sequence

"play" finds: display, byplay, foreplay, downplay, playable, ...

What you get: everything! Hold on... are you crazy?

Thank you.
I don't have time to test now, but i have an suggestion:

How knows what "Smart matching" means ... if he didn't just read this thread...have he search first the docu's ?

Would you consider to use smtg like:
1. Matching whole words only
2. Smart matching (default) ==> "Matching Word starts with" (default)
3. Matching any sequence ===> "Matching Word contains"

Thank you!! Glad you like it. 

How knows what "Smart matching" means ... if he didn't just read this thread...have he search first the docu's ?

Would you consider to use smtg like:
1. Matching whole words only
2. Smart matching (default) ==> "Matching Word starts with" (default)
3. Matching any sequence ===> "Matching Word contains"

Yes it's always wrong to confuse users.

I personally like #3 but I was told that "Matching Word contains" could confuse as well. Gonna think about it and I'm open to suggestions.

With regard to #2:

The problem is that 'Smart matching' doesn't really just do "Matching Word starts with" at all times, in fact it will decide the best matching mode based on its analysis of individual search terms, as one size doesn't fit all.