[seqfan] Re: Announcements: faster search, new Sys Admin

[Allan Wechsler]

Perhaps the search miss page ("Sorry, but the terms do not match ...")
could be edited to include a suggestion to drop initial terms? It has no
such suggestion now.

On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 2:47 PM Neil Sloane <njasloane at gmail.com> wrote:

> EVERYONE who uses the OEIS regularly should know to omit the first 2 or 3
> terms before doing a search.  This is essential.
>
> However, many people who are using
> the OEIS for the first time don't know this, and I agree that this is
> a major problem.
>
> Only the other day an expert in knot theory
> reviewing a paper, thought it contained a new sequence,
> simply because he did not omit an initial 0 when looking it up.
> So he missed the earlier work on the problem.
>
> So I agree with Brad's suggestion.  In fact I would strengthen it to say
>
> Could there be a post-condition on search returns that checks
> for null result and on finding nothing, searches again without first two
> terms?
>
>
> Best regards
> Neil
>
> Neil J. A. Sloane, President, OEIS Foundation.
> 11 South Adelaide Avenue, Highland Park, NJ 08904, USA.
> Also Visiting Scientist, Math. Dept., Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ.
> Phone: 732 828 6098; home page: http://NeilSloane.com
> Email: njasloane at gmail.com
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 2:01 PM Brad Klee <bradklee at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Russ,
> >
> > Another idea after < https://oeis.org/hints.html > is to automate around
> > the problem of missing first terms. I just got burnt on searching today:
> >
> > 0, 1, -2, -4, -20, -132, -1008
> >
> > and find it non-intuitive to search for:
> >
> > 1, -2, -4, -20, -132, -1008
> >
> > instead. Could there be a post-condition on search returns that checks
> > for null result and on finding nothing, searches again without first
> term?
> >
> > We have seen this time and again, but maybe now we can quit blaming
> > users for their own stupidity?
> >
> > --Brad
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 4:19 PM Russ Cox <rsc at swtch.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 1:08 PM Neil Sloane <njasloane at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Russ Cox has speeded up the search for when the query only contains
> > > > numerical data. Now even sequences of 0's and 1's get a
> lightning-fast
> > > > answer. Superseeker is also much faster.
> > >
> > >
> > > As part of this, I have been looking at actual searches, and I've
> noticed
> > > that there is a steady stream of people searching for space-separated
> > > number lists like:
> > >
> > >     1 2 3 6 11 23 47 106 235
> > >     "1 2 3 6 11 23 47 106 235"
> > >
> > > My guess is that these searches intend to search for that exact
> sequence
> > > (this being the Online Encyclopedia of Integer SEQUENCES and all),
> > > and that despite the hints and warnings about using comma syntax
> > > instead, many people don't realize what is going on.
> > >
> > > As an experiment, I've changed the rules on the server to turn three
> > > or more space-separated numbers into a sequence search, as if they'd
> > > been comma-separated. So now these are all the same search:
> > >
> > >     1,2,3,6,11,23,47,106,235
> > >     1 2 3 6 11 23 47 106 235
> > >     "1 2 3 6 11 23 47 106 235"
> > >
> > > To search for those numbers appearing all together in a sequence entry
> > > but not necessarily in order, they can be quoted individually, as in
> > > ["1" "2" "3" "6" "11" "23" "47" "106" "235"]. And of course if the
> order
> > > is known but not where index gaps are, there are always subsequence
> > > searches like:
> > >
> > >     subseq:2,6,47,106
> > >     2,3,6,__,235
> > >
> > > The hints page https://oeis.org/hints.html is updated with the new
> > > state of the world.
> > >
> > > Please let me know if you think the new behavior is problematic or
> > > can be improved.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Russ
> > >
> > > --
> > > Seqfan Mailing list - http://list.seqfan.eu/
> >
> > --
> > Seqfan Mailing list - http://list.seqfan.eu/
> >
>
> --
> Seqfan Mailing list - http://list.seqfan.eu/
>