Racquet Finder No Longer Allows Searches for String Pattern?

[gjoc]

Some time ago, in the original incarnation of Racquet Finder, one of the parameters that could be searched for was "string pattern."

It was kind of limited, in that you couldn't actually search for a particular number of strings. If I remember, the drop down menu choices for that option were just "open" or "dense."

Why was this functionality deleted, and what will it take to get it back?

It was a very useful option to have!

 

[TW Staff]

I don't think we ever had that option?

We've not made any changes to the searching parameters in a looong time.

Chris, TW.

 

[gjoc]

Hi Chris, thanks for your response.

The original one was at http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/RacquetFinder.html, and was there at least until 2005, though I'm not sure the database for it was still being updated, and the TW site apparently no longer had any link to it after 2001.

The later/current one was/is at http://www.racquetfinder.com/search.htm, and first showed up in early 2002.

The current one is far better in every respect, imho, except that it no longer allows any serching based on string pattern.

So why was that functionality dropped, and how can we get it back?

Ideally, they could fix it to where you could actually specify a number or numerical range of mains and/or crosses.

FYI, here's a screenshot/picture from 1999 of the original TW racquet finder:

 

[Craig Sheppard]

Man I posted a thread on this like 2-3 years ago asking them to add string pattern search... "we've got our best guys on it...." Chris is right they haven't updated it in a *loooooong* time. Please TW, help me eliminate all these daggone 18x20 rackets from my searches!!!!

 

[gjoc]

Please TW, help me eliminate all these daggone 18x20 rackets from my searches!!!!

LOL--Noooooooo!!! Those are the good ones!!!

 

[gjoc]

Hello?____

 

[TW Staff]

Sorry for the late reply. I've been away from the office this week.

It does not look like we can add string pattern to the search criteria at this time.

Chris, TW.

 

[gjoc]

Why was it removed?

Was it just an oversight, or did someone there actually think it was a bad idea to have that in there?