Is there an easy way to search for a user name when that name is also a common word? As an example only, Book? I don't know the member number, and what I want to find out is this member's post history.
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
#5500
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I think your best bet is to find a post of theirs and then use the search by member number feature to get a listing.
You can search on their name, but it'll only show up in the search results if someone used the name (i.e., in replying to them).
I think.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Go to Google and enter this search:
dagonee hatrack "Member ratings are not currently permitted on this message board"
replace dagonee with the member name. That should bring up the profile, which gets you the member number.
[ May 07, 2005, 02:44 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
What they said, too. 'Cept I think you have to shorten Dag's, since the Google limit (I believe) is 10 words.
You can also e-mail me, since I have an almost-complete list.
--Pop
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Dag! That's so cool!!!
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Pop, it worked. I don't know if it's cutting any off when it searched, but the only thing it returned is my profile.
Bob, the Goo-Fu is strong in this one.
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
Also depends on how common the name is. For instance, with "Book" instead of "Dagonee" I get 838 hits.
Try "Profile for <name>" hatrack "member ratings are not currently permitted" instead. With that I got only one hit for "book."
--Pop
Posted by Goody Scrivener (Member # 6742) on :
Tried the Google search with <name> member "member ratings are currently not permitted" Came up with two hits, one of which appears to be Battle School (because the result was for <rank> <name>) and the other is definitely not the person I'm looking at. when I expand results to "include the similar results that were omitted", I get 14 total, all of which have the <name> entry in the Interests field. Tried it using the sender's email and got nothing.
Here's the deal. I got an email from someone trying to get me to join their forum. Since we dealt with this a few months back (that was my first search, to find the "email spam by members" thread from January), I first wanted to see who it was and how long they were a member, etc. before going any further with it. Not the same email address, website, or name as the last time around.
Now I've seen people with similar screen names, including a brand new version in the last week, but wasn't sure if I've seen THIS particular version as it appeared in the email I received. So before I started another "email spam" thread or resurrected the old thread, I wanted to check him/her/it out. And I'm not about to go to a strange site from an email without references.
edit: Bob, a search for screen name using "anywhere in message" will pull posts by that person even if nobody has used their name in a reply. I do it on myself all the time (don't ask). But the name in question is so common for this site that the search shuts down at 300 hits and none of them are posts by this member name (or atleast the name given in the email, I just realized that what he/she/it put in the email may not exactly be a registered member name, might be one of these variants that I'm thinking of)
[ May 07, 2005, 09:19 PM: Message edited by: Goody Scrivener ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I got the same e-mail. I am 100% positive that the sender is not registered under the name they claim to be, if at all.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I got that email, too. I was tempted to send it to Papa Janitor and see if they wanted to do anything.
By the way, I'm almost positive we were getting hit by a bot harvesting emails last week and the week before during those slowdowns. I recently got slammed with spam at this address, and I only use it here and at two other forums.
Dagonee
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
There's a thread about the spam e-mails on the other side, too. It's unfortunate, but not much I can do about it, as far as I know. Ketchupqueen (I think it was) mentioned what we (some nebulous group of Jatraqueros, perhaps) did last time -- apparently this is the same culprit.