Search Criteria too specific?
 

I searched for an audio file by typing in 'guitar boogie shuffle' for Title and 'chuck berry' for Artist. I then received the message 'Your search is too specific. Please make your search smaller and try again.' This is the first time I've ever received this message and, to tell the truth, the criteria I typed in is not extravagent. Could someone tell me what I sem to be doing wrong? Thanks..........

Yes--there's a limit on the number of characters that can be sent in a single search, and "artist" and "title" are also added as part of the seach.

Try using the "Any Type" search. It will not add the extra criteria, and so will be shorter.

But I have entered many searches with far more characters than the one in my post. It seems very odd.

You consider this as too specific? That's really ridiculous.

I don't. I'm missing the point of your contribution. Does it have anything to do with Gnoozle?

btw--are you getting notifications, or did you manage to find a way around the limitations of an apparently unregistered user account?

The point is that this limitation is too harsh. It's not my problem though. The user having this problem should consider reporting this as a bug or a feature request.

What does Gnoozle have to do with this or me?

Neither.

Agreed on the limitation and solution. You can read code, so I wish you would have either explained why that search term should trigger the warning (or better yet, sent in a patch to fix it), or initially made the suggestion to post the case as a bug or feature request. I'd already suggested the workaround of the "any type" search.

As for Gnoozle, it seems to be one of the keywords to which you have responded in your past few weeks of trolling these forums, so just checking.

Why should I waste time trying to understand code, if the developers can probably fix this in a fraction of the same time or otherwise explain these harsh limits? As I wrote, it's not my problem anyway.

I agree it's not your problem. I don't think you should waste your time responding with useless contributions either.

As for probably fixing it in a fraction of your time, I doubt it. The problem has been reported for quite a while (and the related problem with similar searches returning "OR" results), so I guess it's not as simple as you probably know.

Anyway, you should know better than to to troll a thread, so get out of the way.

I'm not in anyone's way. If you know all that, you should have said so in your first reply to the OP. There was no indication of a bug whatsoever.

Go to this thread

i should have posted here, but i am sure you guys flame for double posting so I figured that was best.