OK, this time I found it... but the search mechanism IS a little strange
Posted by Lotg on February 03, 2004
In Reply to: I agree, but... posted by Lotg on February 03, 2004
: : : : : : : By George??? Why George? Who is this George? When, where & why did this saying originate? I feel reasonably confident in suggesting that it sounds 'terrribly Brritish'!!
: : : : : : : I often say, by George, I think she's got it, but it's never occurred to me before to ask why we say it.
: : : : : Yes, but it depends on the object of the exercise. Is it a purely academic pursuit or the start of a new thread which may be of interest to others as well? We can look at things again!
: : : : I don't mind if people ask questions we've already covered. It is very satisfying to know the answer. But that's just me.
: : : Just to satisfy my curiosity, I looked at the archived discussion and it was well and thoroughly answered. So I think it's fair to say we should check for previous discussions, then renew the question if it isn't resolved. Imagine how many W9Y questions that would forestall?
: : Yes, checking the archives is a good idea. Funny thing, many times when I google a phrase, it leads me right back to Phrase Finder. I could have saved myself a step.
: OK, well it might surprise you all to know that I agree too. It might surprise you even more to know that I did do a search, and all it came up with was 'george'. So I admit that I didn't bother to read detail, but that was probably my mistake. So sorry to have wasted peoples' time. It wasn't intentional. Besides, I've seen many many many repeated threads.
: Although I agree with one previous comment that if they're all repeated this will be a never ending circuit.
: I'll have another look at the archives, and this time read the detail under the heading 'George'.
OK folks, I found it on the 2nd page. But I didn't bother looking past the first page the first time I searched, because I literally typed 'By George' as my search criteria. I therefore expected, and would think this reasonable, that exact matches would come up first. But instead I had to scroll to the second page to find the precise match. Other examples, such as George & George Washington... were displayed first.
If the exact match isn't first displayed, the remaining results tend to become increasingly approximate. Consequently, I don't generally bother to look any further than the first screen, as further searching tends to yield more extraneous information.
This is not a standard search routine. Does anyone know why?
- Searching and browsing Henry 03/February/04