macOS Big Sur's search doesn't find everything?

[Ant]

Hello.

I was searching "culture" (without quotation marks) for Office 365
v16.48's Office filenames, but macOS Big Sur v11.3.1's Finder and
Spotlight doesn't find them in a 13" 2012 Intel MacBook Pro's SSD. It
doesn't show all of the files that I see when manually listing them in
Finder's Documents.

Thank you for reading and hopefully answering soon. :)

[nospam]

In article <OcydnQDfx-vMywn9...@earthlink.com>, Ant

<a...@zimage.comREMOVETHIS1ST> wrote:

> I was searching "culture" (without quotation marks) for Office 365
> v16.48's Office filenames, but macOS Big Sur v11.3.1's Finder and
> Spotlight doesn't find them in a 13" 2012 Intel MacBook Pro's SSD. It
> doesn't show all of the files that I see when manually listing them in
> Finder's Documents.

totally normal. spotlight is not great at finding stuff.

try this instead:
<https://apps.tempel.org/FindAnyFile/>

[Alan Baker]

On 2021-05-06 2:46 p.m., nospam wrote:
> In article <OcydnQDfx-vMywn9...@earthlink.com>, Ant
> <a...@zimage.comREMOVETHIS1ST> wrote:
>
>> I was searching "culture" (without quotation marks) for Office 365
>> v16.48's Office filenames, but macOS Big Sur v11.3.1's Finder and
>> Spotlight doesn't find them in a 13" 2012 Intel MacBook Pro's SSD. It
>> doesn't show all of the files that I see when manually listing them in
>> Finder's Documents.
>
> totally normal. spotlight is not great at finding stuff.

Actually, Spotlight is EXCELLENT at finding stuff.

[nospam]

In article <s71o6c$4nv$3...@dont-email.me>, Alan Baker

<notony...@no.no.no.no> wrote:

> >> I was searching "culture" (without quotation marks) for Office 365
> >> v16.48's Office filenames, but macOS Big Sur v11.3.1's Finder and
> >> Spotlight doesn't find them in a 13" 2012 Intel MacBook Pro's SSD. It
> >> doesn't show all of the files that I see when manually listing them in
> >> Finder's Documents.
> >
> > totally normal. spotlight is not great at finding stuff.
>
> Actually, Spotlight is EXCELLENT at finding stuff.

actually it's not.

for example, it fails miserably with partial matches. it doesn't search
everywhere. the index can silently corrupt.

[Alan Baker]

Give an example...

> it doesn't search
> everywhere.

It does... ...if you ask it to.

> the index can silently corrupt.

Anything can.

[nospam]

In article <s71pcr$fb3$1...@dont-email.me>, Alan Baker

<notony...@no.no.no.no> wrote:

> >>>> I was searching "culture" (without quotation marks) for Office 365
> >>>> v16.48's Office filenames, but macOS Big Sur v11.3.1's Finder and
> >>>> Spotlight doesn't find them in a 13" 2012 Intel MacBook Pro's SSD. It
> >>>> doesn't show all of the files that I see when manually listing them in
> >>>> Finder's Documents.
> >>>
> >>> totally normal. spotlight is not great at finding stuff.
> >>
> >> Actually, Spotlight is EXCELLENT at finding stuff.
> >
> > actually it's not.
> >
> > for example, it fails miserably with partial matches.
>
> Give an example...

consider a bunch of documents and/or folders of medical specialties,
such as toxicology, cardiology, physiology, anesthesiology, oncology,
dermatology, radiology, neurology, and ophthalmology.

you want to find all of them, so you search for common letters, in this
case, 'ology'.

since the query does not begin on a word boundary, the search results
will not be particularly helpful, as in none.

on the other hand, if the search query started on a word boundary,
e.g., 'cardio', then it will find cardiology but not any of the others.
you'd have to do multiple searches for each one, hopefully not
forgetting any of them.

> > it doesn't search
> > everywhere.
>
> It does... ...if you ask it to.

not where it hasn't indexed.

> > the index can silently corrupt.
>
> Anything can.

true, except that spotlight relies on an index, and if it's corrupted,
it's not going to work particularly well.

the real problem is that spotlight doesn't tell you that the index is
corrupt, so you'll never know why the results aren't what you might
expect. btdt.

[Alan Baker]

On 2021-05-06 3:41 p.m., nospam wrote:
> In article <s71pcr$fb3$1...@dont-email.me>, Alan Baker
> <notony...@no.no.no.no> wrote:
>
>>>>>> I was searching "culture" (without quotation marks) for Office 365
>>>>>> v16.48's Office filenames, but macOS Big Sur v11.3.1's Finder and
>>>>>> Spotlight doesn't find them in a 13" 2012 Intel MacBook Pro's SSD. It
>>>>>> doesn't show all of the files that I see when manually listing them in
>>>>>> Finder's Documents.
>>>>>
>>>>> totally normal. spotlight is not great at finding stuff.
>>>>
>>>> Actually, Spotlight is EXCELLENT at finding stuff.
>>>
>>> actually it's not.
>>>
>>> for example, it fails miserably with partial matches.
>>
>> Give an example...
>
> consider a bunch of documents and/or folders of medical specialties,
> such as toxicology, cardiology, physiology, anesthesiology, oncology,
> dermatology, radiology, neurology, and ophthalmology.
>
> you want to find all of them, so you search for common letters, in this
> case, 'ology'.
>
> since the query does not begin on a word boundary, the search results
> will not be particularly helpful, as in none.

Sorry, but you're wrong.

"Name ends with" works great.

>
> on the other hand, if the search query started on a word boundary,
> e.g., 'cardio', then it will find cardiology but not any of the others.
> you'd have to do multiple searches for each one, hopefully not
> forgetting any of them.
>
>>> it doesn't search
>>> everywhere.
>>
>> It does... ...if you ask it to.
>
> not where it hasn't indexed.

It indexes everywhere.

>
>>> the index can silently corrupt.
>>
>> Anything can.
>
> true, except that spotlight relies on an index, and if it's corrupted,
> it's not going to work particularly well.

And the gain is that searches are nearly instantaneous.

Tradeoffs.

[Snit]

I have had issues looking for content in Pages files. Have even reset the
index.

If you find an answer please share. I will as well.

--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

[Ant]

https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201716 is the answer and fix from my
https://discussions.apple.com/thread/252741130 forum thread! :D

--
It is National Nurses and World Password Days!
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.home.dhs.org.
/ /\ /\ \ Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail.
| |o o| |
\ _ /
( )

[Snit]

On May 6, 2021 at 2:47:56 PM MST, "Alan Baker" wrote
<s71o6c$4nv$3...@dont-email.me>:

> On 2021-05-06 2:46 p.m., nospam wrote:
>> In article <OcydnQDfx-vMywn9...@earthlink.com>, Ant
>> <a...@zimage.comREMOVETHIS1ST> wrote:
>>
>>> I was searching "culture" (without quotation marks) for Office 365
>>> v16.48's Office filenames, but macOS Big Sur v11.3.1's Finder and
>>> Spotlight doesn't find them in a 13" 2012 Intel MacBook Pro's SSD. It
>>> doesn't show all of the files that I see when manually listing them in
>>> Finder's Documents.
>>
>> totally normal. spotlight is not great at finding stuff.
>
> Actually, Spotlight is EXCELLENT at finding stuff.

It generally is -- but I have been having an issue where it does not find
content in Pages. Any ideas? I have checked to make sure they are set to be
indexed in the Spotlight preference panel.

[Lewis]

In message <060520211806506328%nos...@nospam.invalid> nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <s71o6c$4nv$3...@dont-email.me>, Alan Baker
> <notony...@no.no.no.no> wrote:

>> >> I was searching "culture" (without quotation marks) for Office 365
>> >> v16.48's Office filenames, but macOS Big Sur v11.3.1's Finder and
>> >> Spotlight doesn't find them in a 13" 2012 Intel MacBook Pro's SSD. It
>> >> doesn't show all of the files that I see when manually listing them in
>> >> Finder's Documents.
>> >
>> > totally normal. spotlight is not great at finding stuff.
>>
>> Actually, Spotlight is EXCELLENT at finding stuff.

> actually it's not.

Disagree. I use it every day.

> for example, it fails miserably with partial matches. it doesn't search
> everywhere. the index can silently corrupt.

It searches everywhere if you tell it to search everywhere. It does well
with partial matches, and I've never had the index corrupt,. or not for
many years.

I mostly use mdfind from the command line.

The biggest issue, but it has nothing to do with Spotlight per se is
finding things stored in iCloud.

--
Kid 1: What are the four horsemen of the apocalypse?
Dad: War, death, famine and pestilence.
Kid 2: You forgot flatulence!

[Lewis]

In message <060520211841190470%nos...@nospam.invalid> nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> consider a bunch of documents and/or folders of medical specialties,
> such as toxicology, cardiology, physiology, anesthesiology, oncology,
> dermatology, radiology, neurology, and ophthalmology.

> you want to find all of them, so you search for common letters, in this
> case, 'ology'.

mdfind ology -onlyin ~ | wc -l
43
grep ology ~/Documents/newsposts/20160130-100600.news
>> for example, let's say you want to find items such as psychology,
>> biology, oncology and physiology, so you search on 'ology' because
>> however, if you want to find items such as psychology and psychiatry
find files containing "biology" and "psychology" that way. Restrictive
--- Biology psychology oncology physiology
--- Biology or psychology or oncology or physiology
And neither search would find sociology.

***END

Seems like you may have made this same flawed argument in the past (I did not
check the entire message, maybe it wasn't you.

> since the query does not begin on a word boundary, the search results
> will not be particularly helpful, as in none.

But as you can see, you are wrong.

>> > it doesn't search
>> > everywhere.
>>
>> It does... ...if you ask it to.

> not where it hasn't indexed.

Oh, that's just dumb. Yes, of course it will not search in places you have
*specifically* told it it cannot search.

--
I used to work in a fire hydrant factory. You couldn't park anywhere
near the place.

[nospam]

In article <s71s99$cd$1...@dont-email.me>, Alan Baker

<notony...@no.no.no.no> wrote:

> >>>>>> I was searching "culture" (without quotation marks) for Office 365
> >>>>>> v16.48's Office filenames, but macOS Big Sur v11.3.1's Finder and
> >>>>>> Spotlight doesn't find them in a 13" 2012 Intel MacBook Pro's SSD. It
> >>>>>> doesn't show all of the files that I see when manually listing them in
> >>>>>> Finder's Documents.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> totally normal. spotlight is not great at finding stuff.
> >>>>
> >>>> Actually, Spotlight is EXCELLENT at finding stuff.
> >>>
> >>> actually it's not.
> >>>
> >>> for example, it fails miserably with partial matches.
> >>
> >> Give an example...
> >
> > consider a bunch of documents and/or folders of medical specialties,
> > such as toxicology, cardiology, physiology, anesthesiology, oncology,
> > dermatology, radiology, neurology, and ophthalmology.
> >
> > you want to find all of them, so you search for common letters, in this
> > case, 'ology'.
> >
> > since the query does not begin on a word boundary, the search results
> > will not be particularly helpful, as in none.
>
> Sorry, but you're wrong.

the above example works exactly as i described. i tested it prior to
posting.

it's a very simple search that should not fail.

try the same set of words in bbedit. a search for 'ology' will find all
of them. if you search for 'col', it will find only toxicology and
oncology. both exactly as expected

> "Name ends with" works great.

additional steps that should not be needed.

> > on the other hand, if the search query started on a word boundary,
> > e.g., 'cardio', then it will find cardiology but not any of the others.
> > you'd have to do multiple searches for each one, hopefully not
> > forgetting any of them.
> >
> >>> it doesn't search
> >>> everywhere.
> >>
> >> It does... ...if you ask it to.
> >
> > not where it hasn't indexed.
>
> It indexes everywhere.

no it doesn't.

> >>> the index can silently corrupt.
> >>
> >> Anything can.
> >
> > true, except that spotlight relies on an index, and if it's corrupted,
> > it's not going to work particularly well.
>
> And the gain is that searches are nearly instantaneous.

other alternatives are also nearly instantaneous, but more importantly,
they are more reliable.

> Tradeoffs.

reliability should never be traded off.

you also snipped the part where i mentioned about the index being
silently corrupted, which turned out to be the cause of ant's problem.
he's not the only one who has had that happen.

[nospam]

In article <slrns9b2fe....@m1mini.local>, Lewis

<g.k...@kreme.dont-email.me> wrote:

> > consider a bunch of documents and/or folders of medical specialties,
> > such as toxicology, cardiology, physiology, anesthesiology, oncology,
> > dermatology, radiology, neurology, and ophthalmology.
>
> > you want to find all of them, so you search for common letters, in this
> > case, 'ology'.
>
> mdfind ology -onlyin ~ | wc -l
> 43
> grep ology ~/Documents/newsposts/20160130-100600.news
> >> for example, let's say you want to find items such as psychology,
> >> biology, oncology and physiology, so you search on 'ology' because
> >> however, if you want to find items such as psychology and psychiatry
> find files containing "biology" and "psychology" that way. Restrictive
> --- Biology psychology oncology physiology
> --- Biology or psychology or oncology or physiology
> And neither search would find sociology.
>
> ***END
>
> Seems like you may have made this same flawed argument in the past (I did not
> check the entire message, maybe it wasn't you.

i'm referring to the command-space version, which is what just about
everyone uses, not the command line.

[Lewis]

They are the same tool.

--
*** AgentSmith sets mode: +m

[Alan Baker]

So you're admitting you can search successfully for what you claimed
could be searched for at all.

>
>>> on the other hand, if the search query started on a word boundary,
>>> e.g., 'cardio', then it will find cardiology but not any of the others.
>>> you'd have to do multiple searches for each one, hopefully not
>>> forgetting any of them.
>>>
>>>>> it doesn't search
>>>>> everywhere.
>>>>
>>>> It does... ...if you ask it to.
>>>
>>> not where it hasn't indexed.
>>
>> It indexes everywhere.
>
> no it doesn't.

Where does it not index?

>
>>>>> the index can silently corrupt.
>>>>
>>>> Anything can.
>>>
>>> true, except that spotlight relies on an index, and if it's corrupted,
>>> it's not going to work particularly well.
>>
>> And the gain is that searches are nearly instantaneous.
>
> other alternatives are also nearly instantaneous, but more importantly,
> they are more reliable.

So you claim...

...but you also claimed something was impossible that you now admit is
possible.

[Alan Baker]

On 2021-05-07 5:33 p.m., nospam wrote:

They are two interfaces to the same facility.

[Lewis]

and searching for "ology" brings up the same items, and the same news
archive post from 2016.

--
"Are you pondering what I'm pondering?"
"Well, I think so, Brain, but pantyhose are so uncomfortable in the
summertime."

[nospam]

In article <s74u5f$she$2...@dont-email.me>, Alan Baker

<notony...@no.no.no.no> wrote:

> >
> > i'm referring to the command-space version, which is what just about
> > everyone uses, not the command line.
> >
>
> They are two interfaces to the same facility.

yet they produce different results.

that is a significant failure.

[Lewis]

Not on my system they don't.

--
I collect blondes and bottles. ~Marlowe

[Alan Baker]

When using different queries, yes.

>
> that is a significant failure.

It's not a failure at all.

It's called revealing an appropriate level of complexity.


Command-space reveals one level.

Finder search a more complete level.

mdfind at the command line is fully complete

[Lewis]

In message <s76opn$jsp$1...@dont-email.me> Alan Baker <notony...@no.no.no.no> wrote:
> On 2021-05-08 10:39 a.m., nospam wrote:
>> In article <s74u5f$she$2...@dont-email.me>, Alan Baker
>> <notony...@no.no.no.no> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> i'm referring to the command-space version, which is what just about
>>>> everyone uses, not the command line.
>>>>
>>>
>>> They are two interfaces to the same facility.
>>
>> yet they produce different results.

> When using different queries, yes.

mdfind does include system file by default, where the GUI you have to
enable that. Perhaps that is what nospam is thinking of?

>> that is a significant failure.

> It's not a failure at all.

> It's called revealing an appropriate level of complexity.


> Command-space reveals one level.

> Finder search a more complete level.

> mdfind at the command line is fully complete

That's about right. Of course, if you learnt he query language mdfind
can slice and dice you results down to a very find grain

(find files containing 'ology' that are PDFs that were created in June
or July of 2014 ONLY if their file names do not contain "2014").

--
Today the road all runners come/Shoulder high we bring you home. And
set you at your threshold down/Townsman of a stiller town.