I have terms that I have updated. If I browse to them using the letter navigation or search on term name, I get the updated version. However, if I search by keyword in the term definition I get an old version.

The way I have worked around this is deleting the old version from the glossary. This then deletes the new one two, so I add it back.

Strange.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

Can you give me an example?

If you update a DEFINITION, it should be the definition you see the next time you click on the term.

The term will be the same. The defintion will (should) be the new one.

I've just tested this using the frameless version of GID searching on homer. Click on "Homer Simpson" and note the word "Update-test" after the first sentence.

    -djr

P.S. I've just added an edit link directly to the frameless version so that I could make updates directly from it. This still works as it should, with the most recent edit being displayed.

I must not be reading your message correctly. Please elaborate.

Add a see also reference to the Homer definition. Call the see also "test".

Then search by term definitions and search for the word "test". Homer should come up, so click on it. It should show the new definition. Now edit the term and delete the see also reference to "test". Then do another definition keyword search on "test". This is what causes problems for me.

It is searching all the old records. If it finds your search-term in an old definition, it includes the word in the "found" list, even if the search-term no longer exists in the most recent definition.

This is usually not a big deal, since the words it finds will generally be related to the search-term you entered (your search-term was once in the word's definition). It is, in fact, identical to how Google handles searches through cached pages. On the other hand, I can imagine scenarios where this may cause problems.

One of the wish-list items is to allow you to remove all journal (old) records from the database using a button on the administration page. This will allow you to put in your edits, then go to the administration page and get rid of all the old records. Will this be an acceptable solution for your situation?

    -djr

I'll get that in the current development code.

re: "The value of keeping those old records around"...

They provide the basis of a future undo facility, and can currently be used to back out of any number of changes made by a rogue glossarist on the web.

The CSV download facilities added since the database was designed helps with the "bad glossarist" situation, but still will only let you go back to your last backup.

Journaling all edits permits a restore to the condition the database was in just before the rogue editor trashed it.

    -djr

By the way, I have found the conversion of the tool to a form management and distribution system to be a huge value. It beautiful to be able to manage form descriptions and link to example documents through a browser interface. It has made this task so easy. Our staff have found the searching functionality to be very helpful.

Hi. Thank you for the kind words.

It's always good to hear that your code is being used in a way that you never imagined.

I'm up to my eyeballs in a project right now, but the delete-journals function is on the list for the next release (barring any bug-fix releases).

I'll do this as soon as time permits. I'll post here so you get the notification.

    -djr

There you go. The release with the feature you needed, along with a bunch of other new features is now available on the D/L page as v1.4g.

You may now remove the extra records from the Admin page so they won't trigger the search facility.

See the version history for more about the other new features that have been added.

Let me know how it works out for you.

-djr