It isn't a disagreement about the definition of "starting at". It is just that you assumed that the "start" being referred to was the start of the implied date range on the timeline of when the nodes to be searched were originally created. The "at" refers to dates on that timeline but the "start" in question is the start of the process of the search that is about to be done.
Perhaps I will change it to "starting with" as, reflecting upon it, that seems to be a more common usage when the period being started and the measurement being discussed are from separate timelines. Or perhaps I should restate "searching" to make it clearer. But then, "Start searching with <date>" sounds wrong... or maybe it is most correct despite sounding a bit awkward...
If you look up the history of Super Search, you can see that originally "oldest first" was not just the default order but the only supported order (due to a limitation in the MySQL optimizer). So nf=1 started out as how to override the order (but wasn't supported at first). Soon after nf=1 became supported, it also became the default. The radio buttons already sent either nf=1 or nf=0 so that was not changed. What was changed was what the absense of any "nf" parameter meant (which also changed the default state of those radio buttons on a freshly-loaded form).
Further, Super Search tries hard to shorten the short-cut URL to the point of removing optional parameters. So "nf=1", being the default, gets removed. "nf=0" cannot be removed.
As for "nf=1" giving "inconsistent results", you'd have to elaborate on that before I'd look into it further.
|