Super User is a question and answer site for computer enthusiasts and power users. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I was browsing through my Firefox search history to try and find a site I visited in the past. I found it by searching. However, I was more interested in finding out what I searched to find it, and when I went back to the date to manually go through a chronological view of the day, I did not see the original entry listed.

Search view: enter image description here

Chronological view:

Why does this entry appear when searching, but not when viewing chronologically? Is there something I can change that will allow me to view the surrounding history chronologically?

share|improve this question
up vote -1 down vote accepted

The reason is the hidden attribute for this visit is set to 1 in the places.sql database, under the moz_places table:

hidden attribute

Setting this attribute to 0 can make it visible in the chronological view.

share|improve this answer
This doesn't actually answer the first question, "Why does this entry appear when searching, but not when viewing chronologically?". It just provides a way to circumvent the issue, but it doesn't explain why this entry was marked as "hidden" in the first place. – TFM Apr 23 '13 at 20:50
@TFM The reason this entry does not appear chronologically is because the hidden attribute is set. It still appears when searching. This is simply how Firefox handles entries marked as 'hidden'. While I'm curious about that too, that wasn't my question. Surely this was not worthy of a downvote - it's not WRONG. – Darthfett Apr 23 '13 at 22:47
Since this behavior is standard, your "answer" could help others if you had come up with something more general. In this case, you're happy with tampering with the history database, which is something not all Firefox user should (and could) do. So your answer is too localized and with low quality. – TFM Apr 24 '13 at 3:49

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .