paulmoons

Ugh. Firstly, thanks for your help @Stephen_C and @vitor. I wrote an entire explanation answering all your questions.. and even included screenshots but as I was thinking it through, I managed to solve the problem! And Alfred was not the culprit! I was right that parameters weren't being passed on, but it wasn't Alfred.. or my browser. In between these two, I use a tiny app called Velja to automagically select the right browser based on certain parameters. For the record, it's great and you should check it out if you don't know about it! Anyway, there's a setting in Velja that blocks "tracking parameters when opening links." This was stripping the &class, etc. from Alfred's URL! I have reached out to the maker of Velja and reported it as a bug. Thanks again for taking the time folks and sorry for wasting your time. 🫠

Yeah I agree. I've been messing about with this for the past hour and the results are very inconsistent. The best results I get are from my custom search engine directly from Firefox which produces completely clean results but I can't seem to get Alfred to do the same no matter what. https://www.google.com/search?q=%s&udm=14&tbs=li:1 Ironically, as soon as I add any sort of negative keyword tag, it works inconsistently. Note the %s replaces Alfred's {query} for those playing at home. @Stephen_C Thanks for your help and exploration!

Actually, I don't think your &udm=14 tag works either as the search results are much cleaner when they are run directly from Firefox. Something is not right.

Hmm.. the plot thickens. I've done some more experimenting and I still think there is a bug, but you're right, your removal tags are working. Here's the really strange part: Without the removal tags (thanks for reminding me to remove pinterest 😃) the &udm=14 tag doesn't seem to be passed along, no matter what combinations of spaces, etc. I try. Very strange. EDIT: Also, I don't think a second call to &tbs=li:1 works using your URL, further highlighting the issue of how Alfred passes on parameters to Google.

Thanks but there is an inherent problem with Alfred in this context. The URL you supplied, like my own, simply cannot work in Alfred. I'll say it again, Alfred passes on nothing after the query, hence the bug report.

I am trying to implement the following custom search URL but from what I can tell, Alfred refuses to pass on any code after the query, effectively resulting in a non-custom search. https://www.google.com/search?q={query}&udm=14&tbs=li:1 Any chance this can be fixed in a forthcoming version or am I failing to see a straightforward userland fix?

Doesn't work for me.

You lost me. 😅

Thank-you. Looks like I have found a workaround, although I still think using coloured dots to see tags by default is a much better solution!

@giovanni Ooo.. that's pretty cool. Thanks! I'll investigate further. If only I could get Alfred to default to using this workflow. Dumb Question: Could you run a regular search in Alfred and then when you notice multiples of the same file apply a keystroke to invoke the workflow and bring up the dots?

Hey there! Thanks for responding! I took a look at your extension and unfortunately I don't think it meets my use case. I'm trying to essentially see where a file is located instantly by using its tag. Searching via tag doesn't work because I want to see the tagged and untagged files, just want to instantly identify them visually. I could potentially use your workflow to always search with the "NOT <tag>" setting but this might be cumbersome? Wait. It's not a perfect solution but, having just looked through your links I noticed the alfred:ignore comment. In theory I could just use the alfred:ignore comment in place of my "archive" tag and therefore stop those files from turning up in the search results. Not ideal but it would make life easier. Hmm.. Thanks again for dropping by!

Nobody?

This. To make your idea workable, I think you would need a "reset to defaults" button that works as expected and then another "reset to almost defaults" setting. While I think this might work, it adds complexity and would be confusing as no other software tends to work this way. 🤷‍♂️

Why are we not funding this? I've started a new thread on this as I didn't see this one. I can't see a rational reason why this isn't implemented by default.. or at the very least be an option for default search results. Is there a good reason why this isn't implemented?

If the default contains no entry, resetting to default returns the field to no entry. Surely that makes more sense than what you are proposing?