How to disable "auto-generated keywords"

[slangmgh]

Every time i modify document, UR will re-generate keywords, it always takes several seconds so i want to disable it. I remove ".rtf" from option "File extensions to keywords", but it seems not working.

Anyone can help me!

I have tried version from 1.4e to 3.0.

[janrif]

Originally posted by slangmgh
Every time i modify document, UR will re-generate keywords [snip]

Take a look @ Tools | Options | Import (more) | 4th item.

[slangmgh]

Originally posted by janrif
Take a look @ Tools | Options | Import (more) | 4th item.

I am sorry, i checked 4th item, it's "Download entire document for keywording and summary information when not storing contents", but i think it's nothing to do with my problem. Maybe i have missed something.

[janrif]

Originally posted by slangmgh
I am sorry, i checked 4th item, it's "Download entire document for keywording and summary information when not storing contents", but i think it's nothing to do with my problem. Maybe i have missed something.

I would think you might want to un-check this item.

[slangmgh]

Originally posted by janrif
I would think you might want to un-check this item.

I un-check this item, but nothing happened. The problem i encountered is "every time the document is modified, ur will re-generate the 'auto-generated keywords', and in fact, i don't need any 'auto-generated keywords', and i think this in nothing to do with something about 'import'"

[kevina]

Currently if you remove the appropriate extension (in your case, you mention .rtf), the related type of linked/stored documents will not be processed for keywords. Note, however, that any attributes assigned to the item (ie. URL) will continue to be "keyworded".

Are the rtf items in question based on the Document template or the Text template? Items based on the [b]Text template (including Appointments & Tasks) currently will always be keyworded, even when .rtf is removed from the "File extensions to keyword" option. Typically these items are not large enough to cause a perceptible delay for the keywording step, but we will likely change this to also honor the presence of .rtf in the above option in future version of Ultra Recall.

One note: Quick Search (and phrase searching) rely on the presence of keywords to function properly. Not keywording items will definitely limit the search capability of Ultra Recall (you can still use the Matches Wildcard operator in an Advanced Search to locate these items).

[slangmgh]

Originally posted by kevina
Currently if you remove the appropriate extension (in your case, you mention .rtf), the related type of linked/stored documents will not be processed for keywords. Note, however, that any attributes assigned to the item (ie. URL) will continue to be "keyworded".

Are the rtf items in question based on the Document template or the Text template? Items based on the Text template (including Appointments & Tasks) currently will always be keyworded, even when .rtf is removed from the "File extensions to keyword" option. Typically these items are not large enough to cause a perceptible delay for the keywording step, but we will likely change this to also honor the presence of .rtf in the above option in future version of Ultra Recall.

One note: Quick Search (and phrase searching) rely on the presence of keywords to function properly. Not keywording items will definitely limit the search capability of Ultra Recall (you can still use the Matches Wildcard operator in an Advanced Search to locate these items).

Thanks! The item is based on Text template, because the text full of DBCS char, so the keywords generated are useless to Quick Search.

[Jon Polish]

Originally posted by kevina
One note: Quick Search (and phrase searching) rely on the presence of keywords to function properly. Not keywording items will definitely limit the search capability of Ultra Recall (you can still use the Matches Wildcard operator in an Advanced Search to locate these items).

Does this mean that there is a way to perform a search and get hits for items that were not automatically keyworded? If so, could you please explain the way to accomplish this.

Thanks.

Jon

[kinook]

Originally posted by Jon Polish
Does this mean that there is a way to perform a search and get hits for items that were not automatically keyworded? If so, could you please explain the way to accomplish this.

See Extended Phrase Search
http://www.kinook.com/UR/Manual/phrasesearch.htm

[Jon Polish]

Originally posted by kinook
See Extended Phrase Search
http://www.kinook.com/UR/Manual/phrasesearch.htm

Thank you for the link, but this is not working for me. Mistakenly, I first tried searching for a single word in a non-keyworded database. This returned an error message which I took to mean required more criteria to search for. Am I correct in understanding that you cannot search like this for single words?

I then tried for multiple words. I knew the phrases were contained in the item text, yet I got zero hits. The search went very fast for 300+ items, which according to the instructions, should take a longer time.

I am using UR 3.0.2 on a XP SP2 machine. Is this feature broken?

Jon

[kinook]

Originally posted by Jon Polish
Thank you for the link, but this is not working for me. Mistakenly, I first tried searching for a single word in a non-keyworded database. This returned an error message which I took to mean required more criteria to search for. Am I correct in understanding that you cannot search like this for single words?

I was able to reproduce an error when phrase searching on a single word, which looks like a bug.

I then tried for multiple words. I knew the phrases were contained in the item text, yet I got zero hits. The search went very fast for 300+ items, which according to the instructions, should take a longer time.

I am using UR 3.0.2 on a XP SP2 machine. Is this feature broken?

It works ok here. For instance, searching in the Intro.urd sample for Item Text matches wildcard *information management* or *feature matrix* each find the matching item containing that text. Please ZIP and send or post a .urd file with an item or two that demonstrate the problem (copy/paste into a new DB). Thanks.

[Jon Polish]

Originally posted by kinook
It works ok here. For instance, searching in the Intro.urd sample for Item Text matches wildcard *information management* or *feature matrix* each find the matching item containing that text. Please ZIP and send or post a .urd file with an item or two that demonstrate the problem (copy/paste into a new DB). Thanks.

I have a folder in my database which contains text that was imported but not keyworded. I can confirm that the information has no keywords because the keyword count displays zero.

If I search on a phrase using the method you describe, shouldn't I get hits? I understand that you are confirming that searching for single words may be broken, but I come up with zero hits when searching for phrases. Anyway, I have attached a sample for your inspection. Thank you for your help.

Jon

[kinook]

Kevina's statement that "you can still use the Matches Wildcard operator in an Advanced Search to locate these items" is not entirely accurate, due to optimizations made to phrase searching in v3. You cannot currently search on Item Text for items that have no keywords (since it first excludes all items that don't have all of the specified keywords). You can search the values of other attributes that have not been keyworded.

In your case, you can locate all text items that have no keywords (perform a search on that, then select all search results) and re-sync (Item | Sync) to keyword the item text of those items and allow phrase searching to work.

Also, in your sample, the space at the end of the search phrase will prevent a match, since the actual phrase doesn't end with a space (but rather a hyphen). In the search, either remove the space or replace with a hyphen.

We'll investigate providing a way to perform an unoptimized phrase search so that the Item Text of non-keyworded items can be searched.

[Jon Polish]

Thank you for looking into this and to consider ways to implement such a search. I tried several permutations of the search phrase that did not include the space you referred to. No other attempt worked either. The last attempt (the one you saw) was simply a copy and paste operation to insure that my poor typing was not to blame.

The information about the space is good to know.

Have a good weekend.

Jon