# Search: Permission Denied



## Talwyn (Dec 10, 2003)

Hi folks, just registered an account and already I've got the first problem: When I click on "SEARCH" in the top navigation, I am redirected to a page stating, that I don't have the rights to use this feature... Does anyone know what to do with this?

You see, I'd really use the search function on this issue but... 

thx in advance,

Talwyn


----------



## diaglo (Dec 10, 2003)

that is a community supporter feature. for a small donation you too can get the privilege.


----------



## Talwyn (Dec 10, 2003)

You're kidding, right?


----------



## diaglo (Dec 10, 2003)

no. i kid you not.


----------



## Talwyn (Dec 10, 2003)

Ok, thanks anyway. No search feature for /me. :/


----------



## BigFreekinGoblinoid (Dec 10, 2003)

what are you looking for? 

people are helpful here, and will find it for you if you ask.

Welcome!


----------



## Umbran (Dec 10, 2003)

Talwyn said:
			
		

> You're kidding, right?




The search feature is a pretty hefty thing, in terms of server resources.  If everyone were searching willy-nilly, we'd need a more powerful server, and that costs $$.  So, the function is reserved as a perk for those who are willing to contribute $$.


----------



## Femerus the Gnecro (Dec 11, 2003)

Talwyn said:
			
		

> You're kidding, right?




Once, long ago, before ENworld had several thousand users, 'search' was active for everyone.  Now, due to the ENormous amount of bandwidth the site and traffic produce, 'search' is for community supporter accounts only.  

It may seem harsh, but I guarantee that if you use this site for a few months, you'll be more than willing to pay money just to keep this fabulous community going.

-F

p.s. if you sign up for a community supporter account, you can choose your own custom user title too!  Nifty, eh?

edit:  oh yeah... welcome to the boards, Talwyn!


----------



## Michael Morris (Dec 11, 2003)

Femerus the Gnecro said:
			
		

> Once, long ago, before ENworld had several thousand users, 'search' was active for everyone.  Now, due to the ENormous amount of bandwidth the site and traffic produce, 'search' is for community supporter accounts only.
> 
> It may seem harsh, but I guarantee that if you use this site for a few months, you'll be more than willing to pay money just to keep this fabulous community going.
> 
> ...




It has also been discussed (and I support) making selectable styles a community supporter only feature.  Anyway the frequency of this question has increased too much since it removed from the announcement lines.  Gonna fix that.


----------



## Talwyn (Dec 11, 2003)

Well I most surely believe that you have good reason for making people pay for the search feature. One thing I would suggest is that you mention this community-supporter-thing on the error page that is displayed when one tries to search. That "permission denied" screen simply looked like a forum bug to me


----------



## BrooklynKnight (Dec 11, 2003)

Well now its mentioned on top of every forum, if you'd just scroll up. :-D.

So the permission denied thing is quite accurate.


----------



## Michael Morris (Dec 11, 2003)

Talwyn said:
			
		

> Well I most surely believe that you have good reason for making people pay for the search feature. One thing I would suggest is that you mention this community-supporter-thing on the error page that is displayed when one tries to search. That "permission denied" screen simply looked like a forum bug to me




The error screens are "hard coded" into VBulletin and can't be customized.  However, as you can see I've put the reason for the block onto the screens of the default forums (not *all* forums Art).

As others have stated, the search feature is blocked because it is very processor intensive.  If everyone could run searches, the server would crash under the weight.


----------



## BrooklynKnight (Dec 11, 2003)

the server needs to go on a diet!


----------



## Piratecat (Dec 11, 2003)

ArthurQ said:
			
		

> the server needs to go on a diet!




No, that's me.  *burrp*


----------



## BrooklynKnight (Dec 11, 2003)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> No, that's me. *burrp*



No, you need to be locked in a box with bad kitty litter and not let out for a month.


----------



## BrooklynKnight (Dec 11, 2003)

ArthurQ said:
			
		

> No, you need to be locked in a box with bad kitty litter and not let out for a month.



Apologies, my reply might have been of "dubious appropriateness".

theads about dieting belong in OT.


----------



## Henry (Dec 11, 2003)

Ah, the paradox lies thus: If the server goes on said "diet", the usefulness of said Search feature decreases, _C'est vrai, n'est ce pas?_ (My apologies to actual French speakers  )

What we need is someone who has absolutely no life, with no will to do anything outsided of breathe, read, and sleep, and who will search all the threads since January of 2002 to earmark all threads possessing no content of archivable merit, so as to weed them out.

For free.


----------



## MerakSpielman (Dec 11, 2003)

Henry: 
Make it a contest. The person who locates the most "no archivable merit" threads gets a prize. A lot of people will do the work, and you only have to pay one of them.


----------



## BSF (Dec 12, 2003)

Henry said:
			
		

> Ah, the paradox lies thus: If the server goes on said "diet", the usefulness of said Search feature decreases, _C'est vrai, n'est ce pas?_ (My apologies to actual French speakers  )
> 
> What we need is someone who has absolutely no life, with no will to do anything outsided of breathe, read, and sleep, and who will search all the threads since January of 2002 to earmark all threads possessing no content of archivable merit, so as to weed them out.
> 
> For free.




If Life is inversely proportional to post count, maybe we can ask Crothian.  

OK - No offense to Crothian or anything.  But seriously, what kind of criteria are you looking for in regards to no content threads?  Maybe we could get a small group of people together that would be willing to help a bit.


----------



## Chacal (Dec 12, 2003)

Henry said:
			
		

> _C'est vrai, n'est ce pas?_ (My apologies to actual French speakers  )



Apologies were not needed:  that was correct 


Chacal


----------



## Mark (Dec 12, 2003)

Henry said:
			
		

> What we need is someone who has absolutely no life, with no will to do anything outsided of breathe, read, and sleep, and who will search all the threads since January of 2002 to earmark all threads possessing no content of archivable merit, so as to weed them out.




_I can't determine if that is a subtle dig at me - or - at my stupendous DMing Advice thread..._ 




(You know I'm in there up to my elbows in those old threads anyway.  It's not like it would take a lot to make the call and drop kick some threads to the bin, I.E. Old threads where someone was simply asking for a link to yet an older thread.  I won't, however, catelog those I would feel like kicking for someone else to make the call simply because it would require about four time the amount of work.  Up to you folks if you want a super-mod on your hands...  )


----------

