questions about search option

Februs, I tried the new option you added to the search function. It worked perfectly and I think represents a major step forward. The library is very lucky to have someone of your advanced skills making the site better continuously. Thanks for all you do.

i thought i did use hand only and i cannot imagine that there is just 1 story with minor sex, adult, male spanker, female spankee in the library and when you did put the function in i used the hand only quite often and had several stories (more than 1 i am sure) and i have changed how i looked for awhile because i was trying new stories and searches. if it is any with hand and you get 635 matches then i guess that was what i was using, but i did think that i was using only hand and got that many, but i still think it is impossible to have only 1 story or limerick using minor sex,adult, male spanker, female spankee hand only as the search parameter suggests. i do enjoy almost all the stories i do find and thank you for having the only function, but i still say that 1 story is unbelieveable. have a great day
Jim

Well it turns out you were right and the thing that got me thinking is when you said that until recently you'd been getting a different result. So then, from a programming point of view you have to ask yourself the question "has anything changed recently?". Eventually, I remembered that a couple of days ago I added a couple of addition implements to the search form (martinet and clothes brush) and that's when the penny dropped.

The implements that feature in a particular library submission are all stored in the database as packed data in a single field with a '0' indicating that a particular implement isn't featured and 1 indicating that it is. So, if you had a story that had, say, only a cane being used and cane was stored as the 5th implement out of the total the value you'd get would be: 000010000000000000000000. This is where there are only 24 different implements being recorded. However, I recently added 2 more and so the same search would then look for 00001000000000000000000000 and of course that can't match with any of the library items apart from the very recent ones because the search string is too long. In other words:

000010000000000000000000 (items with just cane for all but recent submissions)
00001000000000000000000000 (search parameter generated by search form)

Basically, I'd forgotten to pack the implement field for the older records with a couple of trailing zeroes. Anyway, I've done that now so you should find your search is once again generating plenty of matches and you can forget all the techy waffle above....

Tsk! Didn't your mother tell you: NEVER forget your trailing zeroes when packing an implement field, ESPECIALLY for older records!
Really, Februs, this is kids' stuff!

You are absolutely right and my mother's programming and database skills are legendary. The omission is unforgivable and having just watched the final of The Apprentice I have decided the only decent thing to do in the circumstances is fire myself!

Under the circumstances, it might be better for all of us if you just put yourself on probation.

Guy

That's exactly what I was going to suggest as the problem.


I think we should put it to a vote:

- All in favor of retaining Februs, click here [ ]
- All in favor of not firing him, click here [ ]
- All in favor of sentencing him 20 years to life toiling away in the cellar tech center of the Library, click here [ ]

I for one vote for 20 years to life in the cellar, and only day parole IF he reports to Thrashbottom's office on a weekly basis.

but... I wanted to do that

I'm with Rick, 20 years in the cellar... oh and you have to provide flops and I with crisps

One frightening thought occurrs to me Februs! If you are going to fire yourself who is to be left in charge?