4 ms·
Right. A good solution would be a bloom filter that ships in the extension of relevant terms.
by jewel 12y ago
Right. A good solution would be a bloom filter that ships in the extension of relevant terms.
- timr 12y agoWe thought about that, but we have a lot of content. Perhaps if we just limited the filter to something like method/class/module/gem names it would work, but even that would hit on so many searches that most would be coming back to us. We'd be restricting the utility of the feature without much gain. That said, we're open to suggestions on how to improve this. We're very respectful of privacy -- omniref is SSL-only, for example, and we don't save anything that could be traced back to a user or an IP.
- nilved 12y agoI don't think a product that depends on reading my search history is ready for release. That's a serious invasion of one's privacy and something that will make lots of people (I would hope most) not consider installing it. Perhaps there could be a way to opt-in specific searches (but is it much different from a bookmark with a keyword in that case?)
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- virtue3 12y agoWe understand what you're saying. But you'll have to excuse us if we're still not comfortable with giving you all our information and then having to trust just your word on what you do with the data.
- timr 12y agoSure, I get it. We'll add a preference in for disabling this, but in the meantime, you vote with your installs. My point is only that we haven't yet thought of a way of implementing this feature that is likely to satisfy you -- but again, we're open to suggestions.
- brazzledazzle 12y agoCan you proxy the searches through something like tor?