I seem to following right behind Justin this morning....

Last things first:

Not being aquainted with the expertise and software it takes to do this, perhaps I'm asking for the moon.

Not at all. As Justin points out, generic search features are already in the plan. My tendency to respond to the effect that we've already thought of something doesn't diminish the suggestions, it just means that I've been dreaming for years of the ultimate BBS and I have a wishlist a mile long. What's interesting is how many of the suggestions involve a new twist on a generic feature, like searching or polling. It tells me that my experience in general is much like every other BBS junkie's, and also that everybody has their own valuable perspective to add. I wish more software were developed with this kind of close collaboration with the people who have to use it. But then I guess a BBS is unique in that it can bootstrap its own evolution--here we are using the thing to talk about how to improve the thing. Kinda conceptually cool, isn't it?

I'm not sure we can ever completely automate the FAQ/archive process, because I'd expect it to take some human judgment to recognize when some new mystery is just a variation on an old mystery. Urban myths mutate and evolve. It may require a "Curator of Mysteries" to organize the info--a "masochist [who] wants to develop a set of categories". Any volunteers?

One problem with search engines is a lack of standardization of the search language. I notice you're using one common convention--"+egypt+helicopter"--where "+" signifies what "AND" does on other systems. What search language seems most natural to you?

--Robert