Snaller's Journal: Slashdots search sucks??

I was trying to find a recent story, tried several different searches and get a load of crap.
Then i google the query and site:slashdot and the correct hit is the second one (first one is in the thread)

Hm.. not good slashdot.

Why is it not good?

[fustakrakich]

Let Google do all the work, less maintenance for the Slashdot people.. Besides this arrangement could be the result of some advertising/data sharing-harvesting deal between the two. If Google provides what you're looking for, then there you go.

Re:

[Snaller]

No. Either they have a working search engine or they should remove it.

Re:

[fustakrakich]

You're gonna get an ulcer... It's their site, let 'em do want they want. You're always free to open up the "New and Improved Slashdot! Now with a working search function!" anytime you wish. Or you can offer these guys here some assistance..

Re:

[Snaller]

Why don't you just fuck of you stupid troll.

Quityerbellyachin'!

[fustakrakich]

"...fuck of"? preview! preview! preview! and don't forget the comma!

And settle down, Beavis! Not only will you get that ulcer, it looks like you're working on a heart attack :-)

Peace!

PS.. AOL is that-a-way.. That's where your type hangs out

It's been crap for a while

[damn_registrars]

There have been suggestions that at some point in the past the slashdot search was useful. However for as long as I have tried to use it, the mechanism and results have been utterly worthless. I previously wrote a journal entry about the contortions required to get only moderately shitty returns from the slashdot search function [slashdot.org].

However in the end it doesn't change the fact that the slashdot search function is epically bad. I think I've seen better search functions written in C64 BASIC in the 80s. I