Qianlong not found with the search engine ?

N#1133

Because the reference numbers are not entered individually.

So you have to add the wildcard:

That's the way the search engine function works so not really a bug but the correct behavior.  You can't search for 22.201, 22.202…at all when reference numbers are entered this way.

Yo, this is the first time I've seen this!
But there's a line for each reference from 22,200 to 22,242. 

Maybe an improvement idea for the search engine to dig through each line to find the reference,

… just to keep the IT guys busy :)

The 22.200 to 22.242 are not in the year line references but in the year line comments.  

The search function does not look in the year line comments as it doesn't know reference callouts to just plain text.  If they are moved from the comments to the references the search works just fine.

Also, using the generic search works too (searches in year line comments too) but that's sloppy since it will also find coins that may have the number in the comments.

Well … not so bad to find my new Hartill#22.206 :)

I ythink we can close this topic.

Hello,

I moved the yearline references to the dedicated field instead of the comment field.

The search is now working as expected.

Nice!
Can this be automated by Mr. Robot?
“For all Chinese Empire coins, if there are multiple lines with an Hartill reference in the comment, put it in the reference field. But be careful, little robot, when there are multiple references for the same line, you must quote them all.”
For example, in the file

N#28089

a line includes Hartill#22.310-312 in the comment line, so you'll have to enter three references: 22.310, 22.311, and 22.312.

It's really difficult to automatize. The format of the references in the comment field is not consistent enough.