On Wed, 23 Oct 1996 10:53:25 -0500 John Cottingham <[log in to unmask]>
said:
 
>While this site in incomplete in implementation...it seems that the form
>for the  archives search is as  user unfriendly as the  previous methods
>used to interrogate archives.
 
You're the  first to find the  search form "unfriendly", in  fact all the
other feedback that we got was very positive. Could you please elaborate?
 
>Forms based  pages should indicate  which fields and what  syntax inputs
>need to be, to be successful.
 
All the  fields are optional.  The syntax  is whatever you  are searching
for, and there are hyperlinks to online explanations with hints on how to
formulate a search that is likely to work.
 
>search * in listname from 1/1/96 to 10/10/96
>index
 
Are  we talking  about the  same  thing? This  is the  e-mail version  of
course.
 
>Doing   sequential   searchs   by    e-mail   makes   optimum   use   of
>resources....interactive online...requires extensive resources.
 
The  only difference  is  that WWW  access adds  overhead  to format  the
results and  deliver them to the  browser. To a (very)  large extent, the
main difference is that the WWW search form will add a zero or two to the
number of searches  done, because users don't need to  learn and remember
the syntax of the SEARCH command. This means you need a bigger box so you
can trade more horsepower for saved manpower.
 
  Eric