NightWind's Card Searcher

Inverted would be nice, but not what I meant.

I don't mean 'not dark'. I mean the combination of all cards that are dark/light, dark/grey or light/grey, with certain criteria. Or a search for monocolor cards of cost 6.

So "exact" then? Though "invert" could also be useful, if we were going that route.

I don't understand what you mean by 'exact'. It's not a color of choice I'm talking about, it's a nonspecific color or combination of nonspecific different colors.

What, so you search for D, and you want just D, rather than D/DL/DG/DLG?

I think he means "list all bicolor cards".

Tamdrik understands me. I thought I gave it away with "Or a search for monocolor cards of cost 6".

I think the simplest way to do that is to have a series of checkboxes (all checked by default) for D, L, G, DL, DG, LG, and DLG.

As long as they are xor, yes.

No, just or. If you want to view only monocolour cards, you'd check D, L, and G and none of the others, for instance.

What you're explaining is xor, yet you're calling it or.

If it's xor, and you check d, l and g and none of the others, you'd get all monocolor cards. If it's or, you'd get all cards that are dark, light or grey or any valid combination.

Ah, I was reading your post as if you wanted it to return only on colour at a time. I'm treating DL, DG, LG, and DLG as distinct sets, not intersections of D, L, and G.

(09-08-2008 11:55 AM)moonfish Wrote:  What you're explaining is xor, yet you're calling it or.

If it's xor, and you check d, l and g and none of the others, you'd get all monocolor cards. If it's or, you'd get all cards that are dark, light or grey or any valid combination.

And I'm back. Well at least what's left of me anyways.

Reading through all the posts, I think I might have an understanding of what you'd like moonfish. But just in case I make a wrong assumption, can you please provide me with perhaps a few examples of what you want to see and what you don't want to see.

Looking ahead, I might either need to redesign the form to fit the group of checkboxes in - perhaps by reducing the size of the card text box and rearranging some headers to go on the side.

But the problem is how to not do it in such a way so that users don't get confused by all the similar options. I'll have to see if this would run into "Total mana cost between" functionality. Should I disable some fields if a user decides to do a specific search? *becomes confused*

I also need to think about the SQL implications and how it will affect the SQL I already have. Let's hope I can implement this without having to rewrite too much.

---

Oh and I think I'll keep the "include store searcher results" unchecked - the reasons for this outweigh the number of votes to have it checked. Those who have voted for it to be checked do seem okay to leave it unchecked if needs be. And an extra click for some is better than having unessecary scrolling and increased load time for the others.

The searcher isn't returning results anymore for some reason (experienced by others too but not mentioned here).

This is still working though.

Yea, I've been wondering why that's the case...

And fixed. I need to look into the HS results a bit because myjavaserver is acting weird again.

uh

i think both of them are gone...

Wow. For a few minutes, the site was down (led me to a "Do you want to buy this site?") but now it's back up again...

hmm
still isn't working for me...
do we have different links maybe?

this is mine: http://users5.nofeehost.com/nightwind/cardsearcher/

Nope, appears to be the same as mine, Bookmarked, of course
http://users5.nofeehost.com/nightwind/cardsearcher/

Edit:
And just to be sure, I used your link, and then mine to do two different searches. And they both worked.

thats really strange
it's working again

i wonder what happened