search broken?
RickB
Posts: 395
Is there a trick to get search to find anything on the forum? All I get is a short page of google ads.
Comments
Give me your search criteria, and I will show you what I get. I see you are in the US, so search should be the same.
I get a ton of Parallax links for that and only two adds here.
What browser are you using?
I am using Chrome. Win7 PRO
It works fine on the main Parallax site.
Are you able to try a different browser from your XP machine? Might be a Google plug-in within FF for which support is no longer active.
Well, an interesting test at least.
I recall seeing endless pop-ups within Chrome about how that browser would no longer be expected to work correctly at all websites from an XP machine I gave up using a few months ago. Hence I'm wondering if that might be something here.
Maybe IE or even Chrome might behave differently than FF in this case.
RickB mentioned he's using Windows XP, and so perhaps that might produce a different set of results to a browser running on a more modern Edge-compatible OS.
Loaded FireFox for XP, then it wanted to upgrade to 48.0.2.
Search works fine with this installation.
Maybe virus protection is preventing full search?
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/7676084/ForumSearch.html
I can't see how any virus protection can get in the way of the HTTPS communication between your browser and google.
I suspect there is something about the google search's use of HTML/CSS/Javascript that fails in old browsers. Or at least behaves differently.
<search context> site:forums.parallax.com
I have had to use that over the years because of the bad search in the old forum.
I will be staying with XP until I move to linux, so any searching will have to be done directly from google. Thanks for the sleuthing.
Which link? The standard Google link? That should work with any browser.
The Parallax site has a different server as I recall, and does nor search the forums.
Try and upgrade FireFox to 48.
Typing "elev-8" into the forum search box produces a few adds and then a lot of Parallax links.
Typing "site:forums.parallax.com elev-8" into Google directly, produces no adds and then a lot of Parallax links.
Only the links returned seem to be a lot older than current activity on that subject.
But here is the kicker:
By using Google search on the forum, Parallax is ensuring that Google presents people with links to competing products ahead of any Parallax links.
There is something very wrong with all this.
Of course, we all have different machines and we are in different places in the world. And Google "knows" all about us from our browsing habits We can never be sure what results we get from the Google machine.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/7676084/ForumSearch.html
FF 47.0.1 or 43.0.1 is the latest (take your pick) according to mozzila.
Are you opposed to using chrome?
FireFox 48.0.2 was the latest I got today.
When I check for updates, I get 47.0.1.
Different version for Win7?
No robots however....
Is that in response to my request for elaboration?
I don't understand it. The search on Parallax works on all browsers I have tried.
In an ideal world, yes.
It seems you've hit an issue based on multiple causes.... with one root.
That is your choice of OS, Windows XP.
Ie. Running XP means you no longer get updates to your browser software. (As Chrome/FF no longer provide updates for XP).
Parallax has no control over how the bit of code used for search (in the forums) works, or what dependencies it has- but even if it did, then Parallax (like any other company) would be obliged to ensure their website compatible with current browser versions- over ensuring compatibility with all EOL browser versions.
You also asked .... The main site uses a different search engine, which clearly still works out for XP users. That's good to know.
Unfortunately all XP users (like all iPhone 3 users before them) are destined for the same fate. Slowly but surely more and more software will stop working as expected (or stop working totally), as certain links in the chain become obsolete.
Anyway, it seems you've got your own solution:
So I think we're all done here.
Thanks for reporting this Rick, and I'm glad you're set on a solution.