Angus Jung wrote:The name "Cormac" is utterly unique. It is the world's simplest search.

"Cormac" produces seven topic results as opposed to five topic results for "Cormac AND McCarthy".

For instance, "Cormac" picked up this result:

"Last year over 500 people packed into our warehouse off Brick Lane to hear headphone-only performances from the likes of Leafcutter John, Janek Schaeffer, Sanso-Xtro, Recon, Hot Chip, David Toop and Max Eastley. In 2005 we return with another 14 hours of headphonics, this time with a more electronic, underground direction. Expect sets from Ardisson, Foneq, Walker, Matt Grey, Ubergeek, Pline, Julian Weaver, U-Sun + John Chantler, Poptatari, Gavin Starks, Pete Marsh, Butterfly Cut, Slub, Boca Raton, Cheapmachines, Knut Auferman + Sarah Washington, Bad Anarok 404 and old favourites Cormac Heron, Leafcutter John, Sanso-Xtro and Dallas Simpson. Plus more tbc."

If one has the ability to narrow his/her search as narrowly as possible, then I say do so. It's not so very hard, and there aren't that many truly unique terms.

Get Boolean, chumps.

Bradley R. Weissenberger wrote:Get Boolean, chumps.

Don't make me go Ranganathan on you.*




*You will be able to find out who I am referring to very quickly, without Boolean logic. Assuming you did not already know. Salut.**




**It is fun to wind Brad up, but there is no real reason to take some kind of anti-Boolean stance. Boolean logic is a wonderful thing. Get Boolean, chumps.

Bradley R. Weissenberger wrote:

same wrote:whoops. how do i search exclusively in the title?

You don't, but that's not the issue. A simple search on "cormac AND mccarthy" (title and message text) produced a mere five results with this thread being at the top of the list.

thanks for the extremely informative answer. but due to past experience and the amount of others that have complained about searching for something after being called out for posting a duel topic for i've lost enough faith in the engine to where i mostly stopped bothering to use it some time time ago. anyway, it seems that having the ability to search topics would be very helpful in a forum such as this.

Angus Jung wrote:

same wrote:whoops. how do i search exclusively in the title?

Bradley R. Weissenberger wrote:You don't, but that's not the issue. A simple search on "cormac AND mccarthy" (title and message text) produced a mere five results with this thread being at the top of the list.

The name "Cormac" is utterly unique. It is the world's simplest search.

I'm just sayin'.

utterly unique? not that many indeed.

bradley, sorry for sounding so sarcastic in my previous post, i have a tendency to unintentionally do so from time to time.

same wrote:

Bradley R. Weissenberger wrote:

same wrote:whoops. how do i search exclusively in the title?

You don't, but that's not the issue. A simple search on "cormac AND mccarthy" (title and message text) produced a mere five results with this thread being at the top of the list.

thanks for the extremely informative answer. but due to past experience and the amount of others that have complained about searching for something after being called out for posting a duel topic for i've lost enough faith in the engine to where i mostly stopped bothering to use it some time time ago. anyway, it seems that having the ability to search topics would be very helpful in a forum such as this.

I've found typing:

+"cormac mccarthy"

(the plus is the key) will do it.

okay!

same wrote:utterly unique? not that many indeed.

same then wrote:bradley, sorry for sounding so sarcastic in my previous post, i have a tendency to unintentionally do so from time to time.

So funny, to have both these statements in same posting!

All of this because you did not bother to type the word "Cormac" into the EA search function!

All of this sarcasm!

All of this time!

All of this effort!

All of these Library Science 101 lectures from Boisenono!

C-O-R-M-A-C!

Type it!

It goes pretty fast!

Salut!

perhaps you think i'm kissing ass because he agreed with me. i'm not. i'm just trying not to seem like a dick because there's too much of that going around here right now. perhaps the written word is not so good at conveying an attitude as people tend assume certain affects are attached. perhaps this petty semantic bullshit has gone long enough.

I'm a good ways into Blood Meridian and while it's interesting, his prose style is a little disconcerting. It's just very obtuse to the point at which it kind of blocks out the reader. I dunno, maybe I shouldn't have read "A Reader's Manifesto" beforehand.

A violent as all fuck, gritty Texas western: this is the kind of story I want to like very much. I mean, eyeball-gouging is always entertaining.

aaron wrote:suttree and blood meridian are unquestionably great

agreed.
one of my favorite writers.

I once loved him more than I do, but Suttree is unquestionably magnificent.