Community Chat

[LilacTree]

Google was easy for me to learn because it uses boolean search techniques.  When I worked for the CPA firm, we used LexisNexis which also worked off the boolean search techniques, so I never had a problem finding what I needed.

Google has refined it of course, and made it much easier, but it's the same basic methodology.

[Moonchilde]

---

@Spurt wrote:

---

@SahmIam wrote:

IMHO, often asking someone how to do XYZ gives up info that is more helpful than ANY book or site can provide. I read all the books on childbirth but GIVING birth gave me insight that NO book could.

Same thing when applying for Social Security for my son; I did research and I called and I ordered pamphlets and OMG.... I was lost. I asked here and so many offered advice, help, insight that they had gained having gone through it themselves.

That's the answer for you; We ask here because of the insight from those who have actually gone through it themselves.

---

@SahmIam

I consider your situation totally different, you did your research but after reviewin all the information you are looking for some practical advice based on someone's personal experience.........So maybe that's what people are leaving out when they post a question....that they did search but are all confused by many opposing opinions or solutions found on Google.........Maybe that's @Moonchilde answer!

---

@Spurt

When I'm in that situation, I say so - because I don't want people to think I didn't bother. But as I've stated numerous times in this thread already, this isn't the kind of question I meant.  I'm talking cut, dried, 2+2 questions.

[Moonchilde]

---

@LilacTree wrote:

Google was easy for me to learn because it uses boolean search techniques.  When I worked for the CPA firm, we used LexisNexis which also worked off the boolean search techniques, so I never had a problem finding what I needed.

Google has refined it of course, and made it much easier, but it's the same basic methodology.

---

Exactly, @LilacTree. Once upon a time it wasn't as "obvious" as to how to search, and wasn't as user-friendly-intuitive as it is now. But I still make use of Boolean search methods sometimes - though now that I think of it, not sure Google even recognizes it any longer!

[LilacTree]

---

@Moonchilde wrote:

---

@LilacTree wrote:

Google was easy for me to learn because it uses boolean search techniques.  When I worked for the CPA firm, we used LexisNexis which also worked off the boolean search techniques, so I never had a problem finding what I needed.

Google has refined it of course, and made it much easier, but it's the same basic methodology.

---

Exactly, @LilacTree. Once upon a time it wasn't as "obvious" as to how to search, and wasn't as user-friendly-intuitive as it is now. But I still make use of Boolean search methods sometimes - though now that I think of it, not sure Google even recognizes it any longer!

---

@Moonchilde

The partner I mostly worked for was a forensic CPA, so I used LexisNexis to look up court cases.  As long as I knew the caption, it was easy to find.  Other information could be more difficult. 

I should find out if LexisNexis is still used . . . probably not because that was when such search methodology was in its infancy. 

Remember . . . one had to put in long descriptions sometimes, such as "[word] w/i ten words of [word], and/or [word]" etc.  I loved it because it was a challenge sometimes.

Nice to find someone who also worked with the early "information highway." 

Same thing with DOS . . . most people don't realize that Windows still uses DOS modalities in some of its applications and so do some programs.  It's not the DOS we knew, but it's still there in the background. 

Going further back, we get into programming, which I started to learn, but became too busy (hah, imagine being "too busy") and that was really hard.  Once I installed the system disk (DOS) I liked the simplicity of it in comparison (all the work done for us in multiple commands). 

Do you remember how thick the books were?  As though they were meant to last a hundred years.  Today one doesn't even get a printed leaflet, let alone a bound book.  "It's all online" if you want to know how something works.

[ROMARY]

'Still', I think it's just a matter of starting conversations for many folks here.  Something several friends might do sitting around, having coffee or going for a walk around the neighborhood.  'Something to talk about'.  (Hey, isn't that a song?)

[Moonchilde]

---

@LilacTree wrote:

---

@Moonchilde wrote:

---

@LilacTree wrote:

Google was easy for me to learn because it uses boolean search techniques.  When I worked for the CPA firm, we used LexisNexis which also worked off the boolean search techniques, so I never had a problem finding what I needed.

Google has refined it of course, and made it much easier, but it's the same basic methodology.

---

Exactly, @LilacTree. Once upon a time it wasn't as "obvious" as to how to search, and wasn't as user-friendly-intuitive as it is now. But I still make use of Boolean search methods sometimes - though now that I think of it, not sure Google even recognizes it any longer!

---

@Moonchilde

The partner I mostly worked for was a forensic CPA, so I used LexisNexis to look up court cases.  As long as I knew the caption, it was easy to find.  Other information could be more difficult. 

I should find out if LexisNexis is still used . . . probably not because that was when such search methodology was in its infancy. 

Remember . . . one had to put in long descriptions sometimes, such as "[word] w/i ten words of [word], and/or [word]" etc.  I loved it because it was a challenge sometimes.

Nice to find someone who also worked with the early "information highway." 

---

I never got really technical with it, @LilacTree, but I did use with and without and quotes and a couple of other things.

At work, my early technology was strictly with all the various iterations of automatic typing, from mag cards to memory typewriters, forward to computers. I also had a home version of one of the early machines that had a 7" screen (b&w or green, as I recall) so you could more easily correct as you typed, and then print it out.

With the interests and the friends I had at the time, I was aware of and exposed to the earliest affordable home computers, and early Listserv lists and all sorts of privately hosted lists, on into Compuserv, Yahoo Groups, etc. I got my first home computer in 1993. Because I was an early adopter I've always just absorbed new facets of computers and online interaction as they came along. Except DOS. Never was good at DOS commands 😬

[LilacTree]

---

@Moonchilde wrote:

---

@LilacTree wrote:

---

@Moonchilde wrote:

---

@LilacTree wrote:

Google was easy for me to learn because it uses boolean search techniques.  When I worked for the CPA firm, we used LexisNexis which also worked off the boolean search techniques, so I never had a problem finding what I needed.

Google has refined it of course, and made it much easier, but it's the same basic methodology.

---

Exactly, @LilacTree. Once upon a time it wasn't as "obvious" as to how to search, and wasn't as user-friendly-intuitive as it is now. But I still make use of Boolean search methods sometimes - though now that I think of it, not sure Google even recognizes it any longer!

---

@Moonchilde

The partner I mostly worked for was a forensic CPA, so I used LexisNexis to look up court cases.  As long as I knew the caption, it was easy to find.  Other information could be more difficult. 

I should find out if LexisNexis is still used . . . probably not because that was when such search methodology was in its infancy. 

Remember . . . one had to put in long descriptions sometimes, such as "[word] w/i ten words of [word], and/or [word]" etc.  I loved it because it was a challenge sometimes.

Nice to find someone who also worked with the early "information highway." 

---

I never got really technical with it, @LilacTree, but I did use with and without and quotes and a couple of other things.

At work, my early technology was strictly with all the various iterations of automatic typing, from mag cards to memory typewriters, forward to computers. I also had a home version of one of the early machines that had a 7" screen (b&w or green, as I recall) so you could more easily correct as you typed, and then print it out.

With the interests and the friends I had at the time, I was aware of and exposed to the earliest affordable home computers, and early Listserv lists and all sorts of privately hosted lists, on into Compuserv, Yahoo Groups, etc. I got my first home computer in 1993. Because I was an early adopter I've always just absorbed new facets of computers and online interaction as they came along. Except DOS. Never was good at DOS commands 😬

---

@Moonchilde

I loved DOS when setting up the computer system in the firm because I had only to install the various programs on the server and provide a menu for about 15 computers to access the programs.  It was a snap.

When Windows came along, I had to install the programs on each computer, and by then there were over 20 of them.  Later on, at the time of my retirement, I had two servers and 36 workstations.  Some of the accountants would take the software and install it themselves, but most of them at that time didn't want that task and I was stuck installing the programs on their computers.  I was no longer that young, and they even expected me to attach the printers . . . we had four huge HP laser printers at the time and all computers had to access them.  It started getting physically hard for me by then. 

I didn't realize that the aches and pains I was starting to get were the beginnings of RA.  When I look back now, I get angry at what was just assumed to be my job.  I retired at 66 and six months later was diagnosed with RA.  

[ILoveFragrance]

Some may not know exactly what word to use or maybe they are lonely and want to come here to see if someone has a better place to find something or maybe they are wanting to see how you like what they are looking for?????  Anyway it would not bother me if someone wanted some information. Just depends on the person I guess, some may also write from their cell and just don't like digging for info in their cell phone.  I am here to help anyone that needs something.

[dooBdoo]

---

Trinity11 wrote:

I can count on one hand how often I start a thread here. I welcome the brave people who do and ask questions. At least they start a conversation, which lately have been few and far between...

Google has its place but seeking opinions from a larger audience harms nobody. People are always free to ignore what they dislike and exercise restraint.

---

          @Trinity11,  I know fewer and fewer posters choose to start threads.   Based on the comments I've seen, the main reason is that those who reply can't resist attacking the poster instead of attacking the topic.   

          We see what seems like great enjoyment in personal insults, the ridicule of a person, and it's not only displayed in the posts themselves...  we see it in the hearts given to posts such as that.   "High-five hearts" for being really, genuinely unkind to other people.   Those same posters, on other threads, will decry the lack of compassion, courtesy, and good will toward our fellow human beings in the world.

           Seeing the way we treat each other here used to anger me, but that transformed into a sort of weariness making the forums less and less enjoyable.    And that transformed into sadness.   Sadness that we relish the jabs, pokes, the slings and arrows directed at fellow posters.    Fellow human beings.   

          I think it's almost like a video game, and people get pleasure in the insults and put-downs...  but they detach and forget we are flesh-and-blood humans posting here.   Good people no longer start threads because of what they're subjected to...  good people leave and never return.   Many will place blame on the moderators, and I agree the moderation is far too imbalanced and unpredictable.    But the blame fingers need to point back at us...  myself included.

[catwhisperer]

NM