stupid group question

I am either stupid or blind, or having a glitch or something because whenever I search for my groups in the "find" they don't come up.

I guess it could be a mistake since the find is so dumb that it can't differentiate between caps/no caps or words with spaces after them as opposed to words that occur inside others. Is there some other criteria? Don't all groups show up?

The only thing I could think of is that maybe all groups but your own show up? But that's so stupid, why would that be? You show up, your stores show up, why not your groups?

Not all groups do show up. When setting up a group (or, after the fact, if you're an officer) there are a number of boxes with options, one of which is (I think this is the wording) Make Group Public. So, I the group founder/officers want it to be a private, hidden group, it won't show up under FIND.

Hope this helps.

Hmmm... what're the names of the groups, Dianne? [ ] SHOW IN GROUP LIST wasn't unchecked in the Group Information panel, perchance? The search shouldn't be that picky.

Thanks vivi (and Torley), but I couldn't find that wording at all.

Half of it is "me bad," because one of the groups wasn't selected to "show in group list" (I checked twice but somehow missed that on the one group).

As soon as I ticked that off it showed.

The other one still does not show at all and it has all the same settings (and I triple checked this time.)

There is no setting for private or hidden that I can see there is just "open enrollment" (or closed). It makes no sense to me that only open enrollment groups would show in the list as most groups are closed and you have to be invited. Also all the important groups like the one governing land and businesses are *not* open enrollment. Also the one that shows up now is also "closed enrollment" so that makes no sense as well.

The name of the group is "BLACK" in capitals (even though the caps are ignored by the search thingie.) The only thing I can think of is that I don't remember ever seeing any other single word groups in the list.

Looks like the search query is pulling up a maximum of 100 results at once. There are many groups with the word "black" in the name--maybe that's why it's not showing? That's a difficulty for some groups with common words as names, I think.

Only showing a hundred results is pretty sad.

Wouldn't it make more sense to show all the results that contain the search term a page at a time, with a next button?

Particulary sad when you can't edit the name of a group.

that would require a change to the UI, and it seems the developers lost that bit of code in the spegetti pile... so if its not as simple as switching out a graphic (like the +- to the arrows) i doubt you will see it before a totally new client.

This is also pretty poor in terms of the name of my group.

One would think that when searching for the single word "BLACK" that a group with that word and only that word as it's title, would show up at the top of the list, not the bottom.

It should be second in the list (after the entry that begins with the "cheat" characters.) It should certainly show up ahead of all the entries that are "Black <word beginning with "A">" (it currently doesn't).

I have made a ton of databases and AFAIK a standard alphanumeric sort should be:

!RED
RED
red
red cat
red dog
etc ...

or sometimes:

red
RED
!red
red cat
red dog

Whereas if Toley is right about it being "further down the list," the find sort must be more like:

!Red cat
red cat
red dog
red zebra
!red
red
RED

or maybe:

!Red cat
!red
red cat
red dog
red zebra
red
RED


Torley - Are you sure it isn't a failure of the search algorithm itself? i.e. - not listing single word answers? Or inadvertently sorting them to the end of the list when it shouldn't? It makes more sense to me that there is a bug that excludes finding single words than it does that the entire alphanumeric sort is different from the norm.

Either way it's a "bug" in the sense that it doesn't do a standard alphanumeric sort. I think when people are choosing group names, store names etc., that we have the right to expect that the sort be a standard one, not some weird made-up thing.