List Info

Thread: photos.search won't return more than 4k or 5k results?
photos.search won't return more than 4k or 5k results?
user name
 2006-06-16 18:43:27 

  


  

    




  



    

            
On 6/16/06, Matthew Smillie <sms.ed.ac.uk">m.b.smilliesms.ed.ac.uk> wrote:

On Jun 16, 2006, at 19:20, Stewart Butterfield wrote:

&gt; We've gone back and forth on this for a while, but the I think the
> 4k limit has now officially evolved from bug to fact-of-life. With
> time-sorted results, you can add time ranges to the queries and

> then get all photos. We'll likely alter the UI on time-sorted
> searches to make this easier on the site.
>
> On the other hand, for relevance-sorted or interesting-sorted
&gt; results, the expense of sorting beyond 4k is just too high. And, in

> any case, the 4,001st "most relevant&quot; or "most interesting" result
>; for a given query is probably not all that interesting or relevant.
> So, there's not a lot of return on changing the way the search

&gt; systems work to accomodate that.

Rats. &nbsp;I had a neat project in mind for the collaborative tagging
workshop that was at WWW2006 here in Edinburgh, but had to put if off
because of this feature-nee-bug. ; It was interesting, though, and I'd

sort of hoped to do it later.

I agree with Stewart that the current way is probably the best way to go.  You don't want the performance of 95% of your cases to suffer for the sake of the other 5% (or less).&nbsp; It sounds like it would be possible to grab the first 4000 photos and then start the search again at the date of the last photo.


-- 
Dan Coulter
http://www.dancoulter.com/
http://www.phpflickr.com/
It is time - 
http://e-hobo.com/

Hey, I got nothing to do today but smile
-Simon and Garfunkel


    
  

    
    __._,_.___
    
     
    
    
  
.


  

__,_._,___



  

  
  
   
     
    

  

    photos.search won't return more than 4k
or 5k results?
  


  

     user name

     2006-06-16 19:33:29
  


  

    

  


  

    




  



    

            


On Jun 16, 2006, at 19:43, Dan Coulter wrote:

&gt;

> I agree with Stewart that the current way is probably the best way  

> to go.

> You don't want the performance of 95% of your cases to suffer for  

> the sake

> of the other 5% (or less).  It sounds like it would be possible to  

> grab the

> first 4000 photos and then start the search again at the date of  

> the last

> photo.



Hmm, am I missing something? I thought that this sort of sequential  

call was exactly what you couldn't do.



matt.



    
  

    
    __._,_.___
    
     
    
    
  
.


  

__,_._,___



  

  
  
   
     
    

  

    photos.search won't return more than 4k
or 5k results?
  


  

     user name

     2006-06-16 19:41:40
  


  

    

  


  

    




  



    

            
On 6/16/06, Matthew Smillie <sms.ed.ac.uk">m.b.smilliesms.ed.ac.uk> wrote:

Hmm, am I missing something? I thought that this sort of sequential
call was exactly what you couldn't do.

Ok, let me rephrase it (because I was slightly confused before).&nbsp; You can use the date filters to lower the results from relavance and interestingness below 4000. ; After you parse those, you filter the next set of dates.&nbsp; This won't necessarily work for every application, but it could help.


-- 
Dan Coulter
http://www.dancoulter.com/
http://www.phpflickr.com/
It is time - 
http://e-hobo.com/

Hey, I got nothing to do today but smile
-Simon and Garfunkel


    
  

    
    __._,_.___
    
     
    
    
  
.


  

__,_._,___



  

  
  
   
     
    






 [1-3]











   
 





about | contact  Other archives ( Real Estate discussion Medical topics )