Search Results

Search found 19742 results on 790 pages for 'search tree'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 5/790 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Remote search system for samba shares

    - by fostandy
    I have several shares residing on a samba server in a small business environment that I would like to provide search facilities for. Ideally this would be something like google desktop with some extra features (see below), but lacking this the idea is to take what I can get, or at least get an idea for what is out there. Using google desktop search as a reference model, the principle additional requirement is that it is usable from clients over the network. In addition there are some other notes (note that none of these are hard requirements) The content is always files, residing on a single server, accessible from samba shares. Standard ms office document fare Also a lot of rars and zips which it is necessary to search inside. Permissions support, allowing for user-based control to reflect current permission access in samba shares. The userbase will remain fairly static, so manual management of users is fine. majority of users will be Windows based I know there are plenty of search indexers out there: beagle and tracker seem to be the most popular. Most do not seem to offer access control and web-based/remote search does not seem to be high priority. I've also seen a recent post on the samba mailing list asking for pretty much the exact same thing. (They mention a product called IBM OmniFind Yahoo! Edition and while their initial reception seems positive, I am pretty skeptical. RHEL 4? Firefox 2? Updated much?) edit: similar question here What else is out there? Are you in a similar situation? What do you use?

    Read the article

  • Connectors for Sharepoint Federated Search

    - by TobyEvans
    Hi there, we're setting up Federated Search on our intranet, and this blog: http://blogs.blackmarble.co.uk/blogs/adawson/archive/2008/08/01/sharepoint-federated-search.aspx indicates that there is an on-line gallery for searching other external sources, eg Yahoo The link for the gallery is: http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkID=95798, which initally led to: http://www.microsoft.com/enterprisesearch/en/us/search-connectors.aspx but which now gets redirected to: http://sharepoint.microsoft.com/en-us/buy/Pages/Editions-Comparison.aspx?Capability=Search which isn't what I was looking for at all ... Does anybody know what's happened here/let us have a nice Yahoo connector? thanks Toby

    Read the article

  • Depth First Search Basics

    - by cam
    I'm trying to improve my current algorithm for the 8 Queens problem, and this is the first time I'm really dealing with algorithm design/algorithms. I want to implement a depth-first search combined with a permutation of the different Y values described here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight_queens_puzzle#The_eight_queens_puzzle_as_an_exercise_in_algorithm_design I've implemented the permutation part to solve the problem, but I'm having a little trouble wrapping my mind around the depth-first search. It is described as a way of traversing a tree/graph, but does it generate the tree graph? It seems the only way that this method would be more efficient only if the depth-first search generates the tree structure to be traversed, by implementing some logic to only generate certain parts of the tree. So essentially, I would have to create an algorithm that generated a pruned tree of lexigraphic permutations. I know how to implement the pruning logic, but I'm just not sure how to tie it in with the permutation generator since I've been using next_permutation. Is there any resources that could help me with the basics of depth first searches or creating lexigraphic permutations in tree form?

    Read the article

  • How to search for a Windows 8 folder by name

    - by Edward Brey
    In Windows 7, if you press the Windows key and type the name of a folder, and the folder shows up among the Start menu search results. In Windows 8, if you do the same thing, no folders are listed. The Files filter shows files with matching names, but no folders. I realize that you can still search for folders from the Windows Explorer search box, but navigating that way is a bit slow and clumsy. Is there a quicker way, in particular a way to search directly from the Windows 8 Start screen?

    Read the article

  • Is there any way to search within OneNote 2007 attachments

    - by jtolle
    I'm starting to use OneNote (2007) more. One thing I'd like to do is take notes on papers I have read. That is, I attach, say, a PDF file, and then type in some notes about it. Sometimes I do other stuff like copy some key text or figures from the paper, so OneNote is great for this because all that plus my own notes plus the file itself can all be in one place. However, the OneNote search doesn't seem to be able to search within said PDF files. Windows search finds things, but just in the OneNote cache, not the actual Onenote .one files. (Presumably that will only work for recently accessed stuff, and in any case doesn't take me to my actual notes.) Is there a way to do what I want? If not, does anyone have a suggestion (or link) as to how to best use OneNote to store (and later search for!) this kind of content and notes?

    Read the article

  • Full-text search in C++

    - by Jen
    I have a database of many (though relatively short) HTML documents. I want users to be able to search this database by entering one or more search words in a C++ desktop application. Hence, I’m looking for a fast full-text search solution. Ideally, it should: Skip common words, such as the, of, and, etc. Support stemming, i.e. search for run also finds documents containing runner, running and ran. Be able to update its index in the background as new documents are added to the database. Be able to provide search word suggestions (like Google Suggest) To illustrate, assume the database has just two documents: Document 1: This is a test of text search. Document 2: Testing is fun. The following words should be in the index: fun, search, test, testing, text. If the user types t in the search box, I want the application to be able to suggest test, testing and text (Ideally, the application should be able to query the search engine for the 10 most common search words starting with t). A search for testing should return both documents. Can you suggest a C or C++ based solution? (I’ve briefly reviewed CLucene and Xapian, but I’m not sure if either will address my needs, especially querying the search word indexes for the suggest feature).

    Read the article

  • How to search for a folder from the Windows 8 Start screen

    - by Edward Brey
    In Windows 7, if you press the Windows key and type the name of a folder, and the folder shows up among the Start menu search results. In Windows 8, if you do the same thing, no folders are listed. The Files filter shows files with matching names, but no folders. I realize that you can still search for folders from the Windows Explorer search box, but navigating that way is a bit slow and clumsy. Is there a quicker way, in particular a way to search directly from the Windows 8 Start screen?

    Read the article

  • Convert a binary tree to linked list, breadth first, constant storage/destructive

    - by Merlyn Morgan-Graham
    This is not homework, and I don't need to answer it, but now I have become obsessed :) The problem is: Design an algorithm to destructively flatten a binary tree to a linked list, breadth-first. Okay, easy enough. Just build a queue, and do what you have to. That was the warm-up. Now, implement it with constant storage (recursion, if you can figure out an answer using it, is logarithmic storage, not constant). I found a solution to this problem on the Internet about a year back, but now I've forgotten it, and I want to know :) The trick, as far as I remember, involved using the tree to implement the queue, taking advantage of the destructive nature of the algorithm. When you are linking the list, you are also pushing an item into the queue. Each time I try to solve this, I lose nodes (such as each time I link the next node/add to the queue), I require extra storage, or I can't figure out the convoluted method I need to get back to a node that has the pointer I need. Even the link to that original article/post would be useful to me :) Google is giving me no joy. Edit: Jérémie pointed out that there is a fairly simple (and well known answer) if you have a parent pointer. While I now think he is correct about the original solution containing a parent pointer, I really wanted to solve the problem without it :) The refined requirements use this definition for the node: struct tree_node { int value; tree_node* left; tree_node* right; };

    Read the article

  • Configuring Expert Search in Communicator 14 and SharePoint 2010

    Communicator 14 provides functionality to be able to search for contacts not just by name, but by skill.  For example a customer service agent at an airline can search for other agents with Travel Advisory experience by typing the search criteria into the Communicator search box and performing a search by keyword.  The search results will return users who have specified that skill in their profile on their SharePoint My Site.  This is actually pretty easy to configure, Ill show you how. Create Search and People Search Results Pages in SharePoint Communicator 14 Expert Search works by using the SharePoint 2010 Search Service to search SharePoint for user profiles with matching keywords.  This requires that you have an Enterprise Search site in your site collection which includes the search service and also the People Results pages.  The easiest way to do this is to create a Search Center site in your site collection. Note: I get an error when trying to create an Enterprise Search site in a Team Site in the SharePoint 2010 RTM bits, so I created it as a site collection that is evident in the URLs you see below. In the screenshots below, you can see that the URL of the SharePoint search service in the Search site collection is http://sps2010/sites/search/_vti_bin/search.asmx, and the URL of the People Search Results page is http://sps2010/sites/Search/Pages/peopleresults.aspx. Point Communications Server 14 to Search and People Search Results Pages For Communicator 14 to be able to perform an Expert Search, you need to configure Communications Server 14 to point to the Search Service and People Search Results page URLs. From a server with the OCS Core bits installed, fire up the Communications Server Management Shell and type Get-CsClientPolicy. Scroll down to the bottom of the output, were interested in setting the values of: SPSearchInternalURL SPSearchExternalURL SPSearchCenterInternalURL SPSearchCenterExternalURL SPSearchInternalURL and SPSearchExternalURL correspond to the internal and external URLs of the SharePoint search service in the Search site collection, while SPSearchCenterInternalURL and SPSearchCenterExternalURL correspond to the internal and external URLs of the people search results pages. Well use the Communications Server Management Shell to set the values of these CS policy properties. For simplicity, Im only going to set the internal URLs here. Set-CsClientPolicy SPSearchInternalURL http://sps2010/sites/search/_vti_bin/search.asmx     -SPSearchCenterInternalURL http://sps2010/sites/Search/Pages/peopleresults.aspx Log out and back into Communicator.  You can verify that these settings were applied by running the Get-CsClientPolicy cmdlet again from the Communications Server Management Shell. However, theres another super-secret ninja trick to verify that the settings were applied: Find the Communicator icon in the Windows System Tray Hold down the Ctrl button Click (left) the Communicator icon in the Windows System Tray do not depress the Ctrl button You should now see an extra menu item called Configuration Information, click it. Scroll down and locate the Expert Search URL and SharePoint Search Center URL keys and verify that their values correspond to those you set using the Set-CsClientPolicy PowerShell cmdlet. Configure a Sharepoint User Profile Import Im not going to provide detailed steps here except to say that you need to configure the SharePoint 2010 User Profile  Service Application to import user account details from Active Directory on a scheduled basis. This is a critical step because there are several user profile properties e.g. SipAddress that are only populated by a user profile import.  When performing an Expert Search, Communicator can only render results for users who have a SipAddress specified. Add Skills to User Profiles Navigate to your My Site and click on My Profile.  This page allows you to set many contact details that are searchable in SharePoint.  Were particularly interested in the Ask Me About property of a users profile.  Expert Search searches against this property to find users with matching skills. Configure a SharePoint Search Crawl Ensure that you have a scheduled job to crawl your Local SharePoint Sites content source.  Depending on how you have this configured, it will also crawl the My Site site collection and add user properties such as Ask Me About to the search index. Thats It! SharePoint 2010 provides new social and collaboration features to help users find other users with similar skills or interests. Expert Search extends this functionality directly into Microsoft Communicator 14, allowing you to interact with the users directly from the search results. Did you know that DotNetSlackers also publishes .net articles written by top known .net Authors? We already have over 80 articles in several categories including Silverlight. Take a look: here.

    Read the article

  • Sharding / indexing strategy for multi-faceted search

    - by Graham
    I'm currently thinking about our database structure and how we modify it for scale. Specifically, we're thinking about using ElasticSearch to provide our search functionality. One common pattern with ElasticSearch seems to be the 'user-routing' pattern; that is, using routing to ensure that any one user's data resides on the same shard. This is great for client-specific search e.g. Gmail. Our application has a constraint such that any user will have a maximum of a few thousand documents, so this pattern seems like a good candidate. However, our search needs to work across all users, as well as targeting a specific user (so I might search my content, Alice's content, or all content). Similarly, we need to provide full-text search across any timeframe; recent months to several years ago. I'm thinking of combining the 'user-routing' and 'index-per-time-interval' patterns: I create an index for each month By default, searches are aliased against the most recent X months If no results are found, we can search against previous X months As we grow, we can reduce the interval X Each document is routed by the user ID So, this should let us do the following: search by user. This will search all indeces across 1 shard search by time. This will search ~2 indeces (by default) across all shards Is this a reasonable approach, considering we may scale to multi-million+ documents? Or should I be denormalizing the data somehow, so that user searches are performed on a totally seperate index from date searches? Thanks for any pros-cons of the above scenario.

    Read the article

  • How to functionally generate a tree breadth-first. (With Haskell)

    - by Dennetik
    Say I have the following Haskell tree type, where "State" is a simple wrapper: data Tree a = Branch (State a) [Tree a] | Leaf (State a) deriving (Eq, Show) I also have a function "expand :: Tree a - Tree a" which takes a leaf node, and expands it into a branch, or takes a branch and returns it unaltered. This tree type represents an N-ary search-tree. Searching depth-first is a waste, as the search-space is obviously infinite, as I can easily keep on expanding the search-space with the use of expand on all the tree's leaf nodes, and the chances of accidentally missing the goal-state is huge... thus the only solution is a breadth-first search, implemented pretty decent over here, which will find the solution if it's there. What I want to generate, though, is the tree traversed up to finding the solution. This is a problem because I only know how to do this depth-first, which could be done by simply called the "expand" function again and again upon the first child node... until a goal-state is found. (This would really not generate anything other then a really uncomfortable list.) Could anyone give me any hints on how to do this (or an entire algorithm), or a verdict on whether or not it's possible with a decent complexity? (Or any sources on this, because I found rather few.)

    Read the article

  • Personal search – the future of search

    - by jamiet
    [Four months ago I wrote a meandering blog post on another blogging site entitled Personal search – the future of search. The points I made therein are becoming more relevant to what I'm reading about and hoping to get involved in in the future so I'm re-posting here to a wider audience to hopefully get some more feedback and guage reaction to it. This has been prompted by the book Pull by David Siegel that is forming my current holiday reading (recommended to me by a commenter on my previous post Interesting things – Twitter annotations and your phone as a web server) and in particular by Siegel's notion of us all in the future having a personal online data vault.] My one-time colleague Paul Dawson recently wrote an article called The Future of Search and in it he proposed some interesting ideas. Some choice quotes: The growth of Chinese search giant Baidu is an indicator that fully localised and tailored content and offerings have great traction with local audiences This trend is already driving an increase in the use of specialist searches … Look at how Farecast is now integrated into Bing for example, or how Flightstats is now integrated into Google. Search does not necessarily have to begin with a keyword, but could start instead with a click or a touch. Take a look at Retrievr. Start drawing a picture in the box and see what happens. This is certainly search without the need for typing in keywords search technology has advanced greatly in recent years. The recent launch of Microsoft Live Labs’ Pivot has given us a taste of what we can expect to see in the future This really got me thinking about where search might go in the future and as my mind wandered I realised that as the amount of data that we collect about ourselves increases so too will the need and the desire to search it. The amount of electronic data that exists about each and every person is increasing and in the near future I fully expect that we are going to be able to store personal data such as: A history of our location (in fact Google Latitude already offers this facility) Recordings of all our phone conversations Health information history (weight, blood pressure etc…) Energy usage Spending history What films we watch, what radio stations we listen to Voting history Of course, most of this stuff is already stored somewhere but crucially we don’t have easy access to it. My utilities supplier knows how much electricity I’m using but if I want to know for myself I have to go and dig through my statements (assuming I have kept them). Similarly my doctor probably has ready access to all of my health records, my bank knows exactly what I have spent my money on, my cable supplier knows what I watch on TV and my mobile phone supplier probably knows exactly where I am and where I’ve been for the past few years. Strange then that none of this electronic information is available to me in a way that I can really make use of it; after all, its MY information. Its MY data. I created it. That is set to change. As technologies mature and customers become more technically cognizant they will demand more access to the data that companies hold about them. The companies themselves will realise the benefit that they derive from giving users what they want and will embrace ways of providing it. As a result the amount of data that we store about ourselves is going to increase exponentially and the desire to search and derive value from that data is going to grow with it; we are about to enter the era of the “personal datastore” and we will want, and need, to search through it in order to make sense of it all. Its interesting then that today when we think of search we think of search engines and yet in these personal datastores we’re referring to data that search engines can’t touch because WE own it and we (hopefully) choose to keep it private. Someone, I know not who, is going to lead in this space by making it easy for us to search our data and retrieve information that we have either forgotten or maybe didn’t even know in the first place. We will learn new things about ourselves and about our habits; we will share these findings with whomever we choose; we will compare what we discover with others; we will collaborate for mutual benefit and, most of all, we will educate ourselves as to how to live our lives better. Search will be the means to that end, it will enable us to make sense of the wealth of information that we will collect day in day out. The future of search is personal, why would we be interested in anything else? @Jamiet Share this post: email it! | bookmark it! | digg it! | reddit! | kick it! | live it!

    Read the article

  • Personal search – the future of search

    - by jamiet
    [Four months ago I wrote a meandering blog post on another blogging site entitled Personal search – the future of search. The points I made therein are becoming more relevant to what I'm reading about and hoping to get involved in in the future so I'm re-posting here to a wider audience to hopefully get some more feedback and guage reaction to it. This has been prompted by the book Pull by David Siegel that is forming my current holiday reading (recommended to me by a commenter on my previous post Interesting things – Twitter annotations and your phone as a web server) and in particular by Siegel's notion of us all in the future having a personal online data vault.] My one-time colleague Paul Dawson recently wrote an article called The Future of Search and in it he proposed some interesting ideas. Some choice quotes: The growth of Chinese search giant Baidu is an indicator that fully localised and tailored content and offerings have great traction with local audiences This trend is already driving an increase in the use of specialist searches … Look at how Farecast is now integrated into Bing for example, or how Flightstats is now integrated into Google. Search does not necessarily have to begin with a keyword, but could start instead with a click or a touch. Take a look at Retrievr. Start drawing a picture in the box and see what happens. This is certainly search without the need for typing in keywords search technology has advanced greatly in recent years. The recent launch of Microsoft Live Labs’ Pivot has given us a taste of what we can expect to see in the future This really got me thinking about where search might go in the future and as my mind wandered I realised that as the amount of data that we collect about ourselves increases so too will the need and the desire to search it. The amount of electronic data that exists about each and every person is increasing and in the near future I fully expect that we are going to be able to store personal data such as: A history of our location (in fact Google Latitude already offers this facility) Recordings of all our phone conversations Health information history (weight, blood pressure etc…) Energy usage Spending history What films we watch, what radio stations we listen to Voting history Of course, most of this stuff is already stored somewhere but crucially we don’t have easy access to it. My utilities supplier knows how much electricity I’m using but if I want to know for myself I have to go and dig through my statements (assuming I have kept them). Similarly my doctor probably has ready access to all of my health records, my bank knows exactly what I have spent my money on, my cable supplier knows what I watch on TV and my mobile phone supplier probably knows exactly where I am and where I’ve been for the past few years. Strange then that none of this electronic information is available to me in a way that I can really make use of it; after all, its MY information. Its MY data. I created it. That is set to change. As technologies mature and customers become more technically cognizant they will demand more access to the data that companies hold about them. The companies themselves will realise the benefit that they derive from giving users what they want and will embrace ways of providing it. As a result the amount of data that we store about ourselves is going to increase exponentially and the desire to search and derive value from that data is going to grow with it; we are about to enter the era of the “personal datastore” and we will want, and need, to search through it in order to make sense of it all. Its interesting then that today when we think of search we think of search engines and yet in these personal datastores we’re referring to data that search engines can’t touch because WE own it and we (hopefully) choose to keep it private. Someone, I know not who, is going to lead in this space by making it easy for us to search our data and retrieve information that we have either forgotten or maybe didn’t even know in the first place. We will learn new things about ourselves and about our habits; we will share these findings with whomever we choose; we will compare what we discover with others; we will collaborate for mutual benefit and, most of all, we will educate ourselves as to how to live our lives better. Search will be the means to that end, it will enable us to make sense of the wealth of information that we will collect day in day out. The future of search is personal, why would we be interested in anything else? @Jamiet Share this post: email it! | bookmark it! | digg it! | reddit! | kick it! | live it!

    Read the article

  • Which is better for search engines, repeated phrases or different phrases with the same meaning?

    - by George Botros
    When I'm designing an ads website I have two options: Let the advertiser to choose from some predefined lists to create the new ad. For Example: product list ( T-Shirt, Shorts, Suit, .....) Color list ( Black, Red, .....) Let the advertiser to write his own descriptive content for the product For Example "Amazing suit with a good price" I like the first Scenario but which is better for search engine optimization [SEO], repeated phrases or different phrases with the same meaning? Note : assuming each page will contain one or more ads

    Read the article

  • Is it possible to tell a search engine not to index a specific section of an HTML page? [closed]

    - by Justin
    Possible Duplicate: Preventing robots from crawling specific part of a page I know you can use robots.txt to ignore entire pages or sections of your site, but is there a way to tell cralwers like the Googlebot to ignore specific sections of an HTML page? I found this blog post that discusses one method, but it appears only to work for the Google Search Appliance, not the Googlebot. Is there some method for at least Google for to do this?

    Read the article

  • Spanning-tree setup with incompatible switches

    - by wfaulk
    I have a set of eight HP ProCurve 2910al-48G Ethernet switches at my datacenter that are set up in a star topology with no physical loops. I want to partially mesh the switches for redundancy and manage the loops with a spanning-tree protocol. However, our connection to the datacenter is provided by two uplinks, each to a Cisco 3750. The datacenter's switches are handling the redundant connection using PVST spanning-tree, which is a Cisco-proprietary spanning-tree implementation that my HP switches do not support. It appears that my switches are not participating in the datacenter's spanning-tree domain, but are blindly passing the BPDUs between the two switchports on my side, which enables the datacenter's switches to recognize the loop and put one of the uplinks into the Blocking state. This is somewhat supposition, but I can confirm that, while my switches say that both of the uplink ports are forwarding, only one is passing any real quantity of data. (I am assuming that I cannot get the datacenter to move away from PVST. I don't know that I'd want them to make that significant of a change anyway.) The datacenter has also sent me this output from their switches (which I have expurgated of any identifiable info): 3750G-1#sh spanning-tree vlan nnn VLAN0nnn Spanning tree enabled protocol ieee Root ID Priority 10 Address 00d0.0114.xxxx Cost 4 Port 5 (GigabitEthernet1/0/5) Hello Time 2 sec Max Age 20 sec Forward Delay 15 sec Bridge ID Priority 32mmm (priority 32768 sys-id-ext nnn) Address 0018.73d3.yyyy Hello Time 2 sec Max Age 20 sec Forward Delay 15 sec Aging Time 300 sec Interface Role Sts Cost Prio.Nbr Type ------------------- ---- --- --------- -------- -------------------------------- Gi1/0/5 Root FWD 4 128.5 P2p Gi1/0/6 Altn BLK 4 128.6 P2p Gi1/0/8 Altn BLK 4 128.8 P2p and: 3750G-2#sh spanning-tree vlan nnn VLAN0nnn Spanning tree enabled protocol ieee Root ID Priority 10 Address 00d0.0114.xxxx Cost 4 Port 6 (GigabitEthernet1/0/6) Hello Time 2 sec Max Age 20 sec Forward Delay 15 sec Bridge ID Priority 32mmm (priority 32768 sys-id-ext nnn) Address 000f.f71e.zzzz Hello Time 2 sec Max Age 20 sec Forward Delay 15 sec Aging Time 300 sec Interface Role Sts Cost Prio.Nbr Type ------------------- ---- --- --------- -------- -------------------------------- Gi1/0/1 Desg FWD 4 128.1 P2p Gi1/0/5 Altn BLK 4 128.5 P2p Gi1/0/6 Root FWD 4 128.6 P2p Gi1/0/8 Desg FWD 4 128.8 P2p The uplinks to my switches are on Gi1/0/8 on both of their switches. The uplink ports are configured with a single tagged VLAN. I am also using a number of other tagged VLANs in my switch infrastructure. And, to be clear, I am passing the tagged VLAN I'm receiving from the datacenter to other ports on other switches in my infrastructure. My question is: how do I configure my switches so that I can use a spanning tree protocol inside my switch infrastructure without breaking the datacenter's spanning tree that I cannot participate in?

    Read the article

  • Small Business Server 2008 - Microsoft Windows Search or Microsoft Search Server 2020 Express

    - by Christopher Edwards
    See Also - Small (Business) Server - Microsoft Windows Search or Microsoft Search Server 2008 Express Can anyone tell me if they have Search Server Express 2010 Beta working on Small Business Server 2010, or indeed if it is supported. The only reference I can find is here, but given how scant it is I'm not sure I should trust it:- http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en/sharepoint2010setup/thread/12cf9846-b940-4441-9fc1-30016ea87e5c

    Read the article

  • Search for files after a relative date using Windows search

    - by Zoredache
    I am looking for a way to save a search that includes a relative date. Specifically I am looking for a way to save a search that matches files that have a modification date that is 7 days ago. I have read the Windows Search Advanced Query Syntax document and I am not seeing a way to say 7 days ago. The numbers and ranges section does mention that relative dates are possible. The problem is that the relative dates described there do not fit the criteria I need. The lastweek almost looks like what I want except if I run a query like after:lastweek on a Monday it will only show my file that have been modified since Sunday at 12:00. The lastweek/lastmonth seem to relative to the start of the week/month which is not what I need. Multi-word relative dates: week, next month, last week, past month, or coming year. The values can also be entered contracted, as follows: thisweek, nextmonth, lastweek, pastmonth, comingyear. One nice thing about saved searches is that they are stored as an XML document and the file format is documented. I am not seeing how to form a correct value for a datetime. If I was able to understand this format, I suspect I could use a text editor and created a saved search that does what I want. Fragment from the examples: <conditions> <condition type="leafCondition" valuetype="System.StructuredQueryType.DateTime" property="System.DateModified" operator="imp" value="R00UUUUUUUUZZXD-30NU" propertyType="wstr" /> </conditions> To summarize I am looking for an answer to one or both of these questions How do I make a query for '7 days ago' using the standard syntax? How is the DateTime stored in a saved search?

    Read the article

  • Adding arbitrary search URLs to Firefox search bar

    - by Matthew
    New-ish versions of Firefox (I'm currently on 3.6) have the nifty "search bookmark" feature, which allows you to create searches in the location bar with custom URLs, e.g. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%s. This is really great, but when trying to mange the engines in the search bar, I was dismayed at the lack of customisability there. It looks like the two search methods are entirely distinct. Is there a way to put custom URLs in my search bar, or do I have to just hope that whatever I want is on the long but finite list of plugins at mycroft? Thanks UPDATE: done a bit more research, posting my own answer

    Read the article

  • A particular url on a website suddenly disappeared from google search results - why?

    - by Ragavendran Ramesh
    I have a website which had a particular page url that was indexed in google search results - in the first 10 results. Suddenly it disappeared. Now that page is not even in the first 100 results. What would be the reason? I am feeling that the page has be spammed by our competitors. Is it possible to avoid that, or can I find if that page has been spammed or not? Is it possible to find the particular page in a website is spam or malicious?

    Read the article

  • How should I handle search engines auto-correcting the spelling of a site's name?

    - by Nathan G.
    A client's site and company is called 'Tranin Communications' (Tranin is her last name). It ranks well in searches for her name but rather poorly in searches for the name of her site/company. I realized that this is largely due to* search engines (Google especially) assuming that the query was misspelled and automatically including results for both 'train communications' and 'communications training'. Both of those queries yield many high-ranking sites that completely drown out hers. Sometimes Google even shows results for 'communications training' instead of 'tranin communications', hiding her site altogether. Is there a way to report an incorrect auto-correction to Google or something I can do to discourage this behavior (e.g. a meta tag)? My searches have come up cold, any suggestions would be appreciated. *I've come to this conclusion because her site ranks very highly when the same queries are put in quotes.

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >