Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
For the life of me I can't figure out any way to perform an advanced search where the options selectable under any given category (e.g., religion, smoking, etc.) are inclusive, not exclusive.
For instance, if I want to find all the people who smoke in a given locality, I have to do two searches: one for "occasionally" and one for "frequently."
It would be a great help to be able to select all options that apply. If it exists, I can't find it.
For instance, if I want to find all the people who smoke in a given locality, I have to do two searches: one for "occasionally" and one for "frequently."
That's the way it works.
It would be a great help to be able to select all options that apply. If it exists, I can't find it.
It's been suggested before and would provide for a more flexible search.
Exponentially. I don't know how great a programming challenge it is, but I would augment my predecessor's (or predecessors') suggestion(s), and my own, by suggesting that it be made a priority in the enhancement arena to an already outstanding service.
I wholeheartedly concur! I'm truly surprised that there are so few suggestions that this be done. I, also, do not know what is involved in programming this, but many other sites have it as a matter of course. I do not know how other users think, but the ability for me to narrow my searches with meaningful criteria (rather than 'I don't care') would be more useful to me than the compatability profile that so few users complete. (Besides which, the CP hasn't provided any viable matches for me yet! ) Using on/off bullets seems to be the way many other sites work this out, but the way it is already set up here on PoF, being able to use the Control key would seem to be the way to go to make multiple selections. In the Advanced Search area, there are at least nine potential multiple-selection criteria. While I have the floor (lol), I might also suggest that it would be nice if non-smokers who are smoke-tolerant were able to indicate that somewhere on their profiles. I know that 'must not smoke' is an option in Mail Settings, but the majority of users do not seem to use the Mail Settings anyway. Guess that's it for now. Would really like to see some support for this enhancement idea, but am not going to hold my breath!
Admin recently enabled this in Advanced Search for Body Type and what kind of relationship the users are looking for. Hold the CTRL key while you click and it will highlight and search for all the selections you choose.
Although, since the change we don't seem to be able to get the results in anything but the Gallery view on Advanced Search, which I find rather useless.
He giveth, he taketh away. Maybe he'll fixeth it if he sees this.
Ahh, I see now that the detailed view works if you're logged in. Could we also get it working when not logged in? I prefer to search that way because I get all the results, rather than just the ones a computer program decides I should see.
I see now that the detailed view works if you're logged in.
Membership has its Privileges.
Search Type
Body Type
In Respect to the Advanced Search, if you will only be selecting 1 Item for each the Search Type & Body Type, just click 1 in each Field. Using those 2 Criterias, the Search Feature will make off on those 2 Items only.
You can also hold down the < CTRL > Key while selecting any Items whatsoever from both Option Menus.
Hold down the < Shift > Key if you will be selecting a Block of consecutive Items to Search for.
You can use the < CTRL > Key for one Search Type & at the same Time the < Shift > Key for the Body Type, and vice versa, etc.
I prefer to search that way because I get all the results, rather than just the ones a computer program decides I should see.
In the Advanced Search, except for the Type of View, I have found no Search Engine Discrepancies between being E-Mail Logged in or E-Mail Logged out.
Basic Search Results vary depending whether you are logged in or not, but the Advanced Search does not draw on any of of your Default Search Settings, Mail Settings, Profile or Registration Data.
Just did an Advanced Search for:
- female seeking male - age range 18 - 99 - in Canada - with interest keyword "steak"
All other fields were left on defaults. Not logged in results came back with 73 hits. Logged in came back with 56 hits. I have no mailing restrictions, so the results are being filtered by something else when I'm logged in.
It's been like this as long as I've been around here, which is why I got into the habit of only searching when logged out. I don't like having the results filtered unless I understand how they're being filtered, and I haven't been able to figure out why some are left out.
I have no mailing restrictions, so the results are being filtered by something else when I'm logged in.
Confirmed, Admin must have made some Changes recently, pegged something to the Advanced Search when E-Mail logging in.
When I checked 6-9 months ago, the Results were the same across the Board. When I have some Time, I'll trace back the "User Difference" and see what Common Denominator could possibly currently exist.
There is a Possibility its now been tied to the Search: Define your default Search Settings, or minimally your Postal Code because of the Search Overshooting Factor into other Zones, such as far beyond the entered City, State or Country Limits.
I do however suspect when you are E-Mail Logged in your Search Results are far more accurate, filtering out Profiles with Errors or insufficient Information than when E-Mail Logged out
I believe the only field used here is the logged in age.. ie its checked against the messaging restrictions of users profiles.
If you are 50, and if someone says they only want to contact 20 to 40 on their profile that profile won't be shown when you do a search and are logged in.
Cant figure out how to post my own thread so I'm just sticking it in here....in the first and nearest thread available to me.
Why on earth.......when you live in the furthest corner of the coast of Ireland that you cna only access within 100 miles in some of the searches. It's definately fishing for us if we apply the 1oo limit west of us......this needs to be expanded to 400 miles radius to facilitate us country 'yobbos'.
Well known it wasnt a kerryman who disigned the site !!!!!!!!
Why on earth.......when you live in the furthest corner of the coast of Ireland that you cna only access within 100 miles in some of the searches. It's definately fishing for us if we apply the 1oo limit west of us......this needs to be expanded to 400 miles radius to facilitate us country 'yobbos'.
Use the Postal Code of: 2694 for all of Ireland now.
Hey there!! I am having trouble with the advanced(?) search section. If I put the basics in, age, gender, location, and "doesnt matter"into all the other sections, I get good results, but if I put anything into the "interests" box, it gets zero. I am a nurse, not a computer scientist. Please just fix it. It should be idiot proof, because you get people like me, trying to play with it!! I have tried all the combos under the sun and am feeling frustrated with this now. "Tweak this" if you can please. Chris
put only one item in the interests section and see what happens,
OR
don't put anything in the interests, see what results come up, check a few profiles that may have some interests, go back to your search and put that interest item into the interst field and click on search to see if it's working properly for you.
How about changing the search criteria so that instead of drop down menus they're all like the 'Search Type' and 'Body Type' boxes? It would also help if you added to the description of the Advanced Search page that you can select multiple fields by holding down Ctrl when you click.
Actually, the more that I think about it, the bigger an issue this seems. For a lot of the drop down fields, people aren't necessarily going to be looking for something really specific, but rather trying to winnow things down through a process of elimination. Just going down the list:
Religion: I can imagine that there are a lot of users who would want multiple options here, especially with so many Christian denominations listed. What if someone wanted to limit his/her search to just Methodist, Lutheran, Presbyterian and Anglican, for instance?
Drink: Again, laid back middle-of-the-roaders might see 'Yes' and 'Socially' (or 'No' and 'Socially') as being equally acceptable.
Marital status: Same thing. Single/Divorced/Widowed might be all the same to a large population of users.
Children: Like drinking -- 'Unsure' goes with 'yes' or 'no'.
So already, there's a good possibility that someone would have to perform a lot of searches to find what they wanted, or else would have to comb through a lot of potentially avoidable false hits. The example above would require 4x2x3x2=48 separate searches to get exactly the right set of matches. Either that or you'd have to settle for a much broader search. When you're living in a large city (say, +500K inhabitants -- and there are 32 of those in the U.S., plus another 9 in Canada), doubling the number of hits is significant; doubling them in multiple categories is a problem.
Actually, the more that I think about it, the bigger an issue this seems. For a lot of the drop down fields, people aren't necessarily going to be looking for something really specific, but rather trying to winnow things down through a process of elimination.
This is exactly what I was thinking! I would like to be able to search users that: Drink: Socially, Never Smoke: Occasionally, Often Children: None, All my kids are over 18 User Wants children?: Undecided/Open, No Status: Single, Separated, Divorced, Widowed
However for those criteria, I can't choose more than one option per search. Personally, I'd find any one of those criteria more worthy of multiple choice than say, ' income' (seeing as quite a few people; myself included; don't post their income anyway)
Home
login 
E-Mail Logged in