kosis

Okay, many thanks, Harshad. I understand that these intermittent anomalies happen. Things seem to be working now after the bulk recompression, and I’ve manually recompressed the ones the “Mark as uncompressed” didn’t get, so I’ll see whether the plugin behaves normally now.

Thank you again for getting back to my queries.

Thanks again for the response.

Over the weekend I went > Images and clicked on > Mark All Images as Uncompresssed, waited for the Uncompressed Images field to populate, then bulk recompressed all my images again.

With the “Automatically compress newly-added images” function still on, I then uploaded some new, uncompressed images as a test. They did indeed now appear in the Uncompressed Images field, and were indeed eventually compressed with a significant savings.

To answer your question: Before my bulk recompression procedure: No, newly uploaded images did not appear in the Uncompresssed Images field, but now they do. I do not know why. Nor do I know why all my images were previously labeled “compressed with 0 percent savings.” But I’m fine with it as long as it works, so you don’t need to try to troubleshoot that any further.

The issue I discovered after the bulk compression of all my images is that clicking on “Mark All Images as Uncompresssed” does *not* actually mark *all* images as uncompressed and does *not* include them in the bulk recompression.

After the bulk recompression finished, I found hundreds of images marked “This image is already compressed by another plugin” that were not recompressed by WPO but that have no visible function or button with which to mark them as “uncompressed,” so I’m having to recompress them all manually, which is, as you know enormously time intensive.

So my new questions:

(1) Are those intentionally *not* included under “mark all images as uncompressed”? They do, after all, belong to “all images” in the media library;

(2) If they are are not included in “all images,” how does the user know? Does WPO tell the user somewhere that they will not be included? I never saw any message like that.

(3) is there any way to find them and mark them all (bulk) as uncompressed so WPO will add them to the uncompressed field? This seems like a curious oversight. I don’t understand why “mark all images” does not really “mark all images.”

Perhaps your team could change the plugin’s behavior with this aspect?

Thanks again for your responses.

Many thanks for your swift reply; much appreciated. No plugin conflicts. — Newly uploaded images do indeed have active “Compress” or “Mark as uncompressed” buttons in the meta-box under the “Compress image” field, but I have always assumed that the “Automatically compress newly-added images” option (turned on) was compressing newly uploaded images automatically. Does one still have to click manually on the “Compress” button for a newly uploaded image even though that option is set to do it automatically? Perhaps I’m misunderstanding what that option really means. — In any case, all my previous images are still marked, to take an example, as “The file was compressed from 247.13 KB to 247.13 KB saving 0 percent using WP-Optimize,” and there is no option to compress it again or retry compression. That is, WP-Optimize is set to optimize automatically on upload, and all images are identified as “The file was compressed” but always with “saving 0 percent using WP-Optimize.”

FWIW my host told me yesterday that the slowdown was being caused by the unoptimized images, not the plugin version itself. So the version is apparently okay; my problem seems to be what I describe above. Thanks again.

Many thanks for the response. I had no problem locating and deleting the original images with that designation.

Suggestions (1) Have a small message that alerts user (or at least first-time user) that the list of “images that need to be scanned” may take a few moments to populate. I thought it had finished at 10 or 12, then suddenly it began to populate anew after I had clicked on “optimize” selected images.

(2) Provide a “stop” or “abort” button . . . if that is possible

Again, thanks for the response.

Is the identifying feature = “-updraft-pre-smush-original.jpg”?
Thanks.

Resolved: It seems the plugin “Speed Up–Lazy Load” was preventing the thumbnails from loading.

Now using “Rocket Lazy Load”; no problems.

Many thanks for the follow up on all these posts.

I’ll stick with Better Search; it’s performing fine with these parameters, and it does indeed have the other features. FWIW I tried out a simple google-site-search plugin, and the results were not as good as Better Search the way I currently have it configured. I’m guessing a lot of these things depend on what’s on the site to begin with and how it’s structured with titles and content and such.

So, thanks again. Much appreciated.

Ajay,

I just turned off the following parameter :

“Enable mySQL FULLTEXT searching”

Your warning is:
“Disabling this option will no longer give relevancy based results.”

That said, Better Search seems to return correct hits but fewer hits without one of the terms. Relevancy is less an issue, since I just want Better Search to return the correct pages. Visitors can determine relevancy depending on their own needs as they look at the returned pages.

Can you enlighten me a bit about this parameter? Again, relevancy is not an issue. Are there other problems with turning this off or things one ought to be aware of regarding how Better Search goes about its searches? Is this an acceptable compromise?

Thanks so much.

Thanks for the response.

Yes, it seems to be an imperfect world. I have tried playing with the weights for title and content, but it doesn’t seem to help much; I’ll try a few more combinations.

I’m just afraid visitors will be frustrated when, after searching for, e.g., 3 or even just 2 terms that occur together on a single page (but not as a “quoted string”), the search function performs essentially 3 (or 2) different searches. Perhaps those pages are among the hits, but it doesn’t help much if visitors have to search through, e.g., 78 hits to find 3 pages.

I know the WP admin search (search all pages) will search Marcus Herz (without quotes) and return pages with “Herzensleben” and “Vaumarcus” as well as the exact search terms, but at least they’re on the same page, so you get far fewer hits to sift through.

But again, an imperfect search world.
Thanks again for your help. Much appreciated.

32 hits for Marcus, 53 for Herz.

FYI https://www.carolineschelling.com/

Thanks for responding.
I just turned on Boolean Mode, and it helps:

With Boolean mode off, Better Search returns 249 hits for “Reliques of Ancient English Poetry” even though that exact string occurs only 4 times in the database.
With Boolean mode on, it returns precisely 4 of 4.

With Boolean mode off, Better Search returns 78 hits for “Marcus Herz” (in quotes), even though that exact string occurs only 3 times in the database.
With Boolean mode on, it returns precisely 3 of 3.

But even with Boolean mode on, it still returns 78 hits for Marcus Herz (without quotes) on many of which one of the terms does not occur at all, which I don’t quite understand.

If we could address that issue, I think I’d be set.

Thanks again.

Thanks for the response.

I’m searching both.

Searching “Marcus Herz” returns numerous hits without one of the terms, and the pages with exactly “Marcus Herz” (3 hits) only fairly late in the search results with relevance of only 19%, 17%, and 12%, though it seems they should be toward the beginning of the hits.

Searching Marcus Herz (without quotes) similarly returns numerous hits without one of the terms, and the pages with “Marcus Herz” again only late and with relevance of only 19%, 17%, and 12%.

I’m unsure why hits are returned not containing one of the terms, with or without quotes, and why, for example, “Reliques of Ancient English Poetry” (in quotes) returns pages with “Relevance: 66%” that do not contain even a single one of the terms.

Any ideas or suggestions?

Thanks for the swift response. Seems I’ll have to replace some entities, but your explanation helps. Thanks again.

Sorry, forgot to post the entity so it would not render:
Should read:
“Visitors, however, will always search ‘Müller,’ for example, instead of ‘Müller’ using the html entity for u with an Umlaut.”
And:
“but will it find ‘Müller’ as a search term if it has been rendered ‘Müller’ using the html entity for u with an Umlaut in the html markup?”

Thanks again. Much appreciated.