Listing your cabins on all replies :(

[jtl513]

When I put in "Amsterdam 2041" only your post shows up.

 

When I put in "Westerdam 8010" 31 posts show up, one of which is yours. 6 are from 1 poster that has a "pseudo-signature" set up as Globaliser describes. The other 24 posts mention "Westerdam 8010."

Correct! For about 6 months 4 years ago I HAD a "pseudo-signature" on a few posts. Since then I have used a true signature as shown in this post ... but most of the time I omit it when I post. It has cabin numbers which are NOT found by Search. This post will be found only because I'm quoting you. :) Edited November 17, 2014 by jtl513

[dobiemom]

Correct! For about 6 months 4 years ago I HAD a "pseudo-signature" on a few posts. Since then I have used a true signature as shown in this post ... but most of the time I omit it when I post. It has cabin numbers which are NOT found by Search. This post will be found only because I'm quoting you. :)

Sorry, I wasn't knocking you. I know you have a "regular" signature block. :)

 

I was only pointing out to SetAnOpenCourse that whatever they were doing to search (and getting lots posts with cabin numbers in signatures) was not was I was getting.

[jtl513]

I was only pointing out to SetAnOpenCourse that whatever they were doing to search (and getting lots posts with cabin numbers in signatures) was not was I was getting.

... and I was just confirming it! :):)

[Folk Singer]

May I suggest that CC members who list their cruises at the bottom of the post NOT include the cabin numbers? When I was researching a specific ship/cabin recently, the search results were cluttered with threads on topics that had nothing to do with cabins. (If the moderator is reading this, perhaps an official opinion on this would be helpful.)

 

agree.

[maxout]

With millions of posts already in place do you really think that changing this would really make any difference now? I see it as a way of conducting the search issue.

[kazu]

There seems to be some confusion about the red triangle. Just awhile ago, Walt came on here regarding an unrelated topic, and said the quickest way to reach the mods is to hit the red triangle. Anyone want to try it?:D

 

Actually LIzzie, I do this every week. Per Walt's request I red triangle my Future Cruise Listing thread that I want closed when the update has been done and it is always closed promptly:) He recommended the process to me as it was the fastest way to reach him or another moderator :)

[jtl513]

With millions of posts already in place do you really think that changing this would really make any difference now? I see it as a way of conducting the search issue.

Amen!! :)

 

He recommended the process to me as it was the fastest way to reach him or another moderator :)

I frequently use the red triangle to suggest to a Host that a couple of threads be merged, and no one has told me not to do it.

 

[RuthC]

I frequently use the red triangle to suggest to a Host that a couple of threads be merged, and no one has told me not to do it.

As do I. It's the most logical way to alert the mods, and direct them to the problem that needs solving. To use any other method, such as e-mail, for something like that is a waste of everyone's time.

[Lizzie68]

Actually LIzzie, I do this every week. Per Walt's request I red triangle my Future Cruise Listing thread that I want closed when the update has been done and it is always closed promptly:) He recommended the process to me as it was the fastest way to reach him or another moderator :)

 

Thank you for confirming. I do remember him stating it here at some time in last year or so.

[SetAnOpenCourse]

With millions of posts already in place do you really think that changing this would really make any difference now? I see it as a way of conducting the search issue.

 

This thread virtually confirms that it would.

 

Cabin numbers in signatures do sometimes cause unwanted threads to be returned in searches.

 

Based on replies here, this seems to be rarely noticed, and therefore suggest that new cabin-included signatures would have cabins not yet appearing in signatures.

 

Perhaps you did not really mean "any difference". What seems to be implied is, a habit need not be modified to remedy a probably-rare inconvenience. I'm alright with that - although I wasn't asking for much, we're only dealing with a luxury, cruises. (Leaving towel in the ring.)

Edited November 18, 2014 by SetAnOpenCourse

[maxout]

This thread virtually confirms that it would.

 

Cabin numbers in signatures do sometimes cause unwanted threads to be returned in searches.

 

Based on replies here, this seems to be rarely noticed, and therefore suggest that new cabin-included signatures would have cabins not yet appearing in signatures.

 

Perhaps you did not really mean "any difference". What seems to be implied is, a habit need not be modified to remedy a probably-rare inconvenience. I'm alright with that - although I wasn't asking for much, we're only dealing with a luxury, cruises. (Leaving towel in the ring.)

 

What I meant was that the damage is already done. So many posts are already out there that changing it now would do very little to combat your problem. Even if current posters removed the numbers, there are thousands that will never see your request as they no longer frequent the CC boards or are not currently active. I did not intend to be "snarky" but my suggestion was to alter your search method or the criteria in hopes of achieving your goals. Good luck to you and enjoy your travels. :D

Edited November 18, 2014 by maxout

[SetAnOpenCourse]

Even if current posters removed the numbers, there are thousands that will never see your request as they no longer frequent the CC boards or are not currently active.:D

 

Thank you. Good point - an extremely limited number of people will read this thread. I had in mind also people who may begin adding cabin numbers - even though they are even less likely to stumble on my post. But I figured that my suggestion to refrain from listing cabins entails no real sacrifice, yet does have some small potential benefit. I also figured that others who agree could have an idea of how to spread the suggestion to a wider audience (a note on the CC page where one edits the signature, perhaps). Looks like only one or two people agreed, however. No problem, let my suggestion fade away. Thanks to some of the replies I learned a little more about CC, and about the website with cabin info.

[Boytjie]

I just did a search on 'B2B' on the HAL forum and the response was cluttered with results in the various threads titled ""Holland America Board's Future Cruise Listing updated...".

 

That's just the way the internet and search engines work; you can't expect to get the results in an optimum way to your liking; you often have to wade through lots of non-relevant (to you) results to find what you want or try out different search criteria to narrow it down to your liking.

Edited November 18, 2014 by Boytjie

[Spendogirl]

Holland America Board's Future Cruise Listing updated...

 

I agree, I have never seen signature cabin numbers (even my own) while searching, but I see pages and pages of those while searching for cruise information.

[Lizzie68]

Thank you. Good point - an extremely limited number of people will read this thread. I had in mind also people who may begin adding cabin numbers - even though they are even less likely to stumble on my post. But I figured that my suggestion to refrain from listing cabins entails no real sacrifice, yet does have some small potential benefit. I also figured that others who agree could have an idea of how to spread the suggestion to a wider audience (a note on the CC page where one edits the signature, perhaps). Looks like only one or two people agreed, however. No problem, let my suggestion fade away. Thanks to some of the replies I learned a little more about CC, and about the website with cabin info.

 

In fact, it rather back-fired, didn't it? Someone who already has one of the most cluttered signatures on CC latched on to the idea of adding even more, and putting in the cabin numbers.:rolleyes: In searching, I guess it's just a process of elimination. I have googled by ship name and cabin number before, and fortunately have been pretty lucky in getting the info I want. I didn't use the search function on CC - often it doesn't work anyway.

[kazu]

I just did a search on 'B2B' on the HAL forum and the response was cluttered with results in the various threads titled ""Holland America Board's Future Cruise Listing updated...".

 

That's just the way the internet and search engines work; you can't expect to get the results in an optimum way to your liking; you often have to wade through lots of non-relevant (to you) results to find what you want or try out different search criteria to narrow it down to your liking.

 

 

sorry that the Future Cruise Listing cluttered up your search Peter:o;):D

[Boytjie]

sorry that the Future Cruise Listing cluttered up your search Peter:o;):D

 

Oh, it did not bother me - I just used it as a example of how internet searches can give results that may not be always that helpful - it happens all the time. It is the nature of the beast. :)

Edited November 18, 2014 by Boytjie

[Globaliser]

Cabin numbers in signatures do sometimes cause unwanted threads to be returned in searches.

 

Based on replies here, this seems to be rarely noticed ...

Perhaps because this does not happen if you use CC search.

[SetAnOpenCourse]

Perhaps because this does not happen if you use CC search.

 

It did happen with a CC search (as I think I mentioned earlier.), but thanks for the input.

[Globaliser]

It did happen with a CC search (as I think I mentioned earlier.), but thanks for the input.

The odd thing is that none of us can reproduce this with a CC search.

 

For example, take the phrase "Australian spelling lesson" in my signature. This will appear in something like 20,000 posts in about 10,000 threads, if you show signatures.

 

Yet run a CC search for this exact phrase by clicking here and then clicking "Search Now". It returns a grand total of four posts in which that phrase appears, returning only posts in which someone has used the phrase in the body of the post. It doesn't return any hits on my signature.

 

Are you seeing something different?

[SetAnOpenCourse]

The odd thing is that none of us can reproduce this with a CC search.

 

For example, take the phrase "Australian spelling lesson" in my signature. This will appear in something like 20,000 posts in about 10,000 threads, if you show signatures.

 

Yet run a CC search for this exact phrase by clicking here and then clicking "Search Now". It returns a grand total of four posts in which that phrase appears, returning only posts in which someone has used the phrase in the body of the post. It doesn't return any hits on my signature.

 

Are you seeing something different?

Five posts are returned now, but we can say it worked the same for me.

[SetAnOpenCourse]

I think there were two "disconnects" on this topic.

1) including pseudo-signatures as evidence of a problem, or not.

2) including results from uninformed search methods (google instead of CC; CC without turning off signatures) as evidence of a problem, or not.

 

I'm still skeptical about putting cabin #s on signatures of any kind, even if there is currently only a remote possibility of it hampering the search on a random cabin #. Future searches could include different search applications, or the habit could spread to members who use pseudo-signature's (who would perhaps become prolific posters), etc. And, whether or not the problem I encountered is of any significance to the community, it was a real-enough annoyance for me.

 

Thanks, globalizer, for trying to ascertain, and for sharing information. I'd better make this my last post on this thread.

Edited November 20, 2014 by SetAnOpenCourse