Omnimaga
Omnimaga => Site Feedback and Questions => Topic started by: lkj on March 16, 2013, 11:40:43 am
-
Today I tried to search the forum, but I got an error "You are not allowed to search for posts in this forum. "
Is it just intentionally disabled or did it break?
-
Yeah it's broken. There is an alternative: custom google search
-
Yeah, it's just a bit annoying that you get a link to the wap version of omni.
-
Yah i've had this error for weeks now, I just kind-of ignored it and searched around myself xP
-
You can use this, it searches on Google without giving WAP versions of pages (thanks Vijkhoek :D).
http://megapowers.net/v/search.htm
-
You can google for 'site:omnimaga.org <mysearchstring>'
Or just type in omnomirc '@omnimaga <mysearchstring>' (which does basically the same)
-
However, sometimes @omnimaga fails as epically as the search bar :P
-
Only when Sorunome's bots are down tho :P
-
Was the rel=canonical thing ever figured out? Just did a search and the whole first page was ;wap pages 0.o
-
that is googles fault, it keeps putting ;wap there......
-
Yeah it happens with many other forums too (Invisionfree, Invisionboard, VBulletin, etc). It mostly caches those pages first because they're easier to crawl.
-
So bump.. Can this be fixed? I was using our "search" feature up until recently and it is quite useful.
-
So bump.. Can this be fixed? I was using our "search" feature up until recently and it is quite useful.
It's not broken, it's disabled on purpose. The SMF search functionality is really inefficient and causes the CPU to max out which slows down the whole site. If we leave it on there is a lot of negative impact on the users browsing the site. Namely huge slowdowns.
-
I checked SMF site and couldn't find an SMF 1.x Google mod so if that is ever added like on Cemetech that would need to be coded by the staff >.<
You could maybe add an extra ezblock on the search error page saying that search is disabled due to taking too much resources and use site:omnimaga <search query> on Google.
-
@Eeems:Ah ok. Thanks for the explanation. :)
-
@Eeems:Ah ok. Thanks for the explanation. :)