Nitpicky, but in the help text you've got:
- word AND absurd => boolean search for either "word" or "absurd"
That should be "word OR absurd"
J.
···
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 3:05 PM, s.ross <cwdinfo@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mar 19, 2008, at 12:53 PM, Chad Perrin wrote:
> It looks excellent.
>
> + Description: The way the description has been added is great. The
> font
> is a touch small, and a way to unexpand it again after expanding
> might be
> nice, though I suppose the unexpand isn't really important.>> In the queue.
>
> + Cookies: Glad to hear it doesn't break without cookies now. Thank
> you.
> Even though I'm accepting cookies from the site, websites that fail
> without cookies bother me -- and I'm sure I'm not the only one.>> Point taken.
> + 25 results: Are you planning to add some functionality for seeing
> the
> rest of the results at some point, or just expect that people will
> refine
> their searches somehow if they don't get the results they wanted?>> Lower in the queue. I personally feel that the more people think
>> about their question, the better their answers will be. I'll
consider
>> pagination if people think it's important> + Logo: I like "{ zippy graphic omitted }". Don't take my
> preference in
> this for objective advice, though.>> I had to put a dig in
> + Help: In my opinion, the way you have the help text presented is
> excellent. Keep it.>> Thanks
> I tend to keep JavaScript turned on in my browser, but there are (of
> course) others who do not. The fact the Gemmy Gem Browser is unusable
> without JavaScript seems like an unnecessary limitation. This
> probably
> isn't the most important problem to fix, but you might consider it for
> the future, in case someone wants to use it from Lynx, or even write a
> command line script in Ruby that accesses results from GGB.>> This is exposed as a REST service, so anyone can do searches via
>> a simple HTTP protocol. Pretty cool, eh?
