I've just added a new category to the Links SQL demo site on here. I then copied a couple of links to my category, from other existing categories.

When I type one of those links into the search box on the site home page, my copy is found but the original copy in the existing category is not.

This mirrors a problem we are having with our own installation of Links SQL. When we copy links to additional categories, only the most recently created copy is found by the search. All other instances of that link don't get found.

Has anyone managed to find a fix for this yet?

Rob Schifreen
University of Brighton, UK
Using Links SQL at http://library.brighton.ac.uk

AFAIK, this isn't a bug.

The way that LSQL holds the data, is one primary entry in lsql_Links (i.e Title,URL, Description, and any other fields).

Then, in lsql_CatLinks you have the CategoryID and LinkID. These then match up the links to specific categories.

When you "copy" a link, all it is doing is making a new entry in lsql_CatLinks, with the same ID number, but a different category

Hope that helps.

Cheers

Andy (mod)
andy@ultranerds.co.uk

---

Want to give me something back for my help? Please see my Amazon Wish List
GLinks ULTRA Package | GLinks ULTRA Package PRO
Links SQL Plugins | Website Design and SEO | UltraNerds | ULTRAGLobals Plugin | Pre-Made Template Sets | FREE GLinks Plugins!

What Andy said was pretty much right on. I think the feature you would want is more of a "copy link", versus the current "symlink link." "copy link" would make a duplicate of the record (but then they'd be two separate records - editing one wouldn't affect the other), and "symlink link" would do what it currently does. I'll add this to our todo list :)

Adrian

I agree this would make a useful addition. In my case, I often add a link and then want to add several more which are very similar - if I could just copy the original and change it that would save lots of time and nuisance.

One of the problems with this is what do we do with the reviews (or anything that's associated with the link through a foreign key)? It would be best if both links would share the same reviews, but it would be messy.

Adrian

Yes I encountered that problem quite early on and decided that I would just have to allow different reviews for each link as it would be too difficult to link them. However, I have since thought that it might be nice to have a related links table. You could then use this in globals to select reviews for all related links rather than just that link and you could display related links on the detail page for a link.

I understand about the way that the data is stored. It's an efficient way to program. But it's no excuse not to do the search properly.