Topics

locked New search available for testing

 

Hi All,

There's a new search page available for testing. It's not linked to on the site so you need to manually edit your URL. It's /search. So to see it for beta@, go to https://groups.io/g/beta/search

How it works: It combines two searches of the database. It searches thread subjects first and then it searches message bodies, and then combines those results, removing any messages from the results that are in threads already included. So, in the default Relevance sort, you'll see thread matches first and then individual message matches. If you switch to a date sort, we'll sort the results based on which direction you select, so threads and messages will be intermixed.

I believe this is how Discourse does their search. I haven't been able to uncover anything better.

The paint on the code's still wet, so to speak. Please let me know if you see any issues or have suggestions for improvements.

Thanks,
Mark

 

Mark,

On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 10:41 am, Mark Fletcher wrote:

in the default Relevance sort

Just checking that you haven't set the default back to "relevance." Right? 
--
J

It's dumb to buy smart water.

 

Right now the default for the search test is what I call relevance, where threads are listed first, then messages. Within that. The threads and messages are sorted by relevance.

Mark


On Friday, June 17, 2016, J_catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:

Mark,

On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 10:41 am, Mark Fletcher wrote:

in the default Relevance sort

Just checking that you haven't set the default back to "relevance." Right? 
--
J

It's dumb to buy smart water.

 

Ok. I guess I'm confused because previously, you'd changed the default from date to relevance; then, after some complaints and protest about that, back to date. I think I'll have to test it out to see what you mean.

Thanks.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 17, 2016, at 11:30 AM, Mark Fletcher <markf@corp.groups.io> wrote:

Right now the default for the search test is what I call relevance, where threads are listed first, then messages. Within that. The threads and messages are sorted by relevance.

Mark

On Friday, June 17, 2016, J_catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:

Mark,

On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 10:41 am, Mark Fletcher wrote:

in the default Relevance sort

Just checking that you haven't set the default back to "relevance." Right? 
--
J

It's dumb to buy smart water.


--
J

It's dumb to buy smart water.

Duane
 

I believe this is a test version of search, not live to the groups. That's why you have to "make" your own URL. Nothing should have changed in the existing search box on a group.

Duane

 

Duane,

Thanks, I did understand that. I'm just nervous that Mark may be planning to switch the default sort order back to "relevance" (although it apparently means something different now) and the test version is a test version of it.
--
J

It's dumb to buy smart water.

Maria
 

At first glance and after searching a few terms just a bit of feedback:

- If i enter the word "fig" it doesn't find anything on the new search test page but lots on the existing search that's live on beta

- If i click on date after my search results pull up, it would be great if the first choice were most recent to oldest ( the way it is now on beta)

Maria

 

The exact match search still doesn't function as I'd expect it to. Is it not normally expected for a search term within quotes to return only exact matches?

(I don't really understand what's going on. Does the test search function search the messages on the regular forum, but just use a different function? Can we substitute another group name for "beta" in the URL and try it out? I did that and tried my "differ by" search on my own group, and was presented with the same approximate results as before, including many messages just containing the word "difference." But perhaps we can't use the test search on any group besides beta?)

--
J

It's dumb to buy smart water.

Jennifer Christian
 

My IMMEDIATE impulse when seeing this new version of search (which is NEITHER sorted by thread NOR by date) was to try to do one of those two things.  

I searched the term "anonymous" and discovered MULTIPLE pages worth of hits.  112 hits.   And, the first item in the list appeared to be there because the word anonymous appeared three times in a very short message. by which I infer that the relevance algorithm has a numerator/denominator piece to it.  So I thoroughly vote AGAINST relevance as the first choice. 

Secondly, my main beef with Search remains the inability to jump nimbly around in the pages of results.  (Sorry if you guys have already beat this horse to death).   It is SO irritating to be required to page through the results, one at a time.  When I'm in date view, I often have a rough sense of how long ago the specific message that included the key word I'm searching for appeared.  So I want a way to jump mid-way through the pages (estimating where the date I want is likely to be) or jump all the way to the end. 

Smiling gratefully for progress, waiting semi-patiently for Anonymous group launch

Jennifer  


 

On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 04:21 pm, Jennifer Christian wrote:
So I thoroughly vote AGAINST relevance as the first choice. 

I, too, am still as thoroughly against that as I was the first time the "relevance" sort popped up. The dates in the results are jumping around all over the place: this year, then last year, then this year again, etc. I am worried about having to carry out the same arguments over again about this! I thought we convinced you last time around, Mark! A message list exists in chrono order. It's not a two-dimensional space. I find the search results very unexpected and think most members will, also. It seems unpredictable. Yada yada yada all over again! I will try to stifle myself about this now because I'd be repeating myself from the first time around. I am wondering how and why "relevance" is becoming the default again instead of "date."
--
J

It's dumb to buy smart water.

 

On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:46 PM, HR Tech via Groups.io <m.conway11@...> wrote:

At first glance and after searching a few terms just a bit of feedback:

- If i enter the word "fig" it doesn't find anything on the new search test page but lots on the existing search that's live on beta


That particular search is triggering a bug. Won't be able to get to it until Monday however.

Thanks,
Mark 

 

Hi All,

The new search results page is still in testing, which is one of the reasons why it isn't linked anywhere. There are bugs, natch, and things *will* change. I put it out there so that you all could give me feedback. This is meant to address the issue of different searches happening on different pages (thread searches vs message searches). It's using the same underlying search indexes (ie. the same data). Eventually when it goes live, it'll replace the thread and message searches that are there now.

Thanks,
Mark

On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 4:32 PM, Mark Fletcher <markf@corp.groups.io> wrote:
On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:46 PM, HR Tech via Groups.io <m.conway11@...> wrote:

At first glance and after searching a few terms just a bit of feedback:

- If i enter the word "fig" it doesn't find anything on the new search test page but lots on the existing search that's live on beta


That particular search is triggering a bug. Won't be able to get to it until Monday however.

Thanks,
Mark 


 

I tried searching for "JohnF" (I know there are better ways to search for a member, but I'm just testing).

It came up with a Relevance sort, OK.

I clicked Date, and it sorted from oldest to newest.

I clicked Date again, hoping it would sort from newest to oldest, but it just gave me blank results.

I could click Date again, and I got oldest to newest again. I can't seem to get newest to oldest on that search.

JohnF

 

Mark,

On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 04:41 pm, Mark Fletcher wrote:

This is meant to address the issue of different searches happening on different pages (thread searches vs message searches)

Why not simply have thread search return the identical results to message search, but possibly add a term for "appears in title" to the relevance function for thread search? (In fact, I'd add that for both. My druthers would be to make them both the same and have them both return identical results.)

I would "vote" against suddenly returning to the "relevance" function as the default, and I don't see what it has to do with fixing thread search. As far as I was concerned, those two kinds of searches could (should) always return the same results.

I also would fix search in general so that a search string in quotes returns only messages that contain the exact string.


Duane
 

I believe this is intended to replace the different results seen when searching in thread or message view since it returns both. It seems that this is very similar to the way it worked many months ago. (Adding a demarcation between the results might make that more obvious to the user.) Since it's only for testing, this is a good chance to see if it returns the expected results.

I'm not very familiar with Elasticsearch, which is what Mark is using here, but have been doing some reading on it. It appears that it can be a very efficient search engine, but the fine tuning can be difficult, depending on what queries are used and what results are expected. It defaults to relevance as it's primary result, so probably a lot easier to do the testing in that mode. Making date the default can obviously be done, but for testing purposes would only add to the coding and might complicate things. I think that date will be the default once it's working properly and the bugs are squished.

Duane

 

Duane and Mark,

On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 05:30 am, Duane wrote:

Making date the default can obviously be done, but for testing purposes would only add to the coding and might complicate things. I think that date will be the default once it's working properly and the bugs are squished

This is reassuring. I suppose, in that case, that the way to test this is to set the sort to "date" manually for now.

However, I still don't understand the perceived need for making results different *at all* between searching from thread view vs searching from message view. You're not "searching threads" or "searching messages."  In both cases, you are searching messages. You just happen to be viewing in thread view in one case. 

Am I misunderstanding this? Is there a way to actually "search a thread"? Can you select the thread and search only for results within that particular thread? If not, I say drop the distinction. It's a "distinction without a difference." I would return the same set of messages regardless of which view the user initiated the search from. If that means taking the user out of thread view to show the results (which is the only issue I can see), I don't see any problem with that.

I'm probably missing something.

--
J

It's dumb to buy smart water.

 

Re-reading the below from Mark, perhaps he does mean that searches from either thread view or message view will return the same results. I'm hoping that my understanding of this is now correct:

This is meant to address the issue of different searches happening on different pages (thread searches vs message searches). It's using the same underlying search indexes
--
J

It's dumb to buy smart water.

 

Mark,

Right now the default for the search test is what I call relevance,
I'd prefer that the result order be remembered per user.

Or at least per session so that when I modify the search target and re-search I don't suddenly pop back to some other order. I really don't like having each invocation of search impose someone else's idea of the "right" default result order.

where threads are listed first, then messages. Within that. The threads
and messages are sorted by relevance.
I like that. And how about message #? can it come before threads?

Searching for 2016 turned up no results, despite the fact that a) there is a message by that number, b) there is a thread with that in the subject, and c) many messages with that in the message body.

Or is that another instance of the "fig" bug, whatever that is?


Shal
https://groups.io/g/GroupManagersForum

 

Jennifer,

When I'm in date view, I often have a rough sense of how long ago the
specific message that included the key word I'm searching for appeared.
So I want a way to jump mid-way through the pages (estimating where the
date I want is likely to be) or jump all the way to the end.
Another way to do this, which I'd like to see, is an ability to impose filters on the search results.

For your example a start and/or end date filter would allow you to zero in on the time period of interest, or move around in the results by day, month or year rather than by message count.


Shal
https://groups.io/g/GroupManagersForum

 

LOL the "fig" bug. 
--
J

It's dumb to buy smart water.