Skip to main content.
home | support | download

Back to List Archive

Re: Searching with Meta Tags > ready to give up

From: Bill Moseley <moseley(at)>
Date: Wed Dec 12 2001 - 20:03:50 GMT
At 09:44 AM 12/12/01 -0800, Rick Ciaccio wrote:
>> Don't confuse the search script with swish.  Where did you find
>> ""?
>I rename scripts and adjust paths as needed to keep things logical.

Ok, but what script?  There's a lot of "swish" scripts around on the web,
so it's helpful for debugging to know exactly what you are using.

>> Anyway, what you need is
>>     UndefinedMetaTags ignore
>Ok, so I need this... where does it go? I added it to the config file and
>an error when indexing. I tried adding it to config.h and it wouldn't

Ok, let's start over.

The swish-e home page describes two versions. 2.0.5 which is called the
last "stable" version.  That's about a year old or so, I'd guess.  It also
describes the development version called 2.1-dev which will be 2.2 some
day.  Some day.  2.1 is development, which is scary, but it's probably less
buggy that 2.0.5, but is much better.

The docs I referred you to are for the current dev version.  If you went to
the docs page you would see this, too.

Now, if you download 2.1-dev, which I'd strongly recommend over 2.0.5, then
you can use the 2.1-dev docs.

You will note that there's a README file which gives an overview, but then
the INSTALL doc goes through basic installation, and then includes a little
tutorial on getting swish to run.  Then in the "conf" directory are sample
configuration examples that offer more advanced examples.

Then there's the SWISH-CONFIG doc that describes all the things you can put
in your config file.  SWISH-RUN describes running swish (what switches you
can use and where you can put them).  There's also the SWISH-FAQ where
common questions and answers might be found.  Hopefully that's not too vague.

>This is why I'm so frustrated with Swish, everything is vague... you have
to be a programmer to use it... there are no practical examples anywhere
that non-
>programmers can look to for a quick tutorial or setup to get the job done 
>without hours of experimantation.

Only hours?  I think it's more than that.

>Obviously I'm very frustrated here.

Good.  Vent!  We are here for you, Rick.

Or better, edit!

Bill Moseley
Received on Wed Dec 12 20:03:56 2001