Suggest: Add a third sort method to searches (Display by ranked book)

Page 1 of 1 (4 items)
This post has 3 Replies | 0 Followers

Posts 13428
Mark Barnes | Forum Activity | Posted: Wed, Apr 7 2010 6:42 AM | Locked

The key to searches is relevancy, particularly in a big library. Currently we can sort by book, or by rank. Both have advantages, but also significant disadvantages. The disadvantages are:

  • By book: If you have lots of results, it's simply not useable. You'll probably have pages and pages of slightly relevant results hogging the start of the list just because they're in resources beginning with the letter 'A' or 'B'.
  • By rank: Great, but often you'll know a book isn't relevant, even though lots of hits are returned from it. You'll probably have lots of results in Bibles appearing at the top of you list, for example - even though you may not want these.

So, here's my proposal for a solution:

  • Add a third method (Ranked book). This calculates a relevancy for each resource, not just each hit. The most relevant resources are displayed first, then hits within the resource are ordered according to relevancy.

In addition, two other oft-asked for changes would also be very useful:

  • Collapsible results for each resource (easily eliminating less relevant hits).
  • The ability to display all this hits in context, not just the first hit in each section with a x10 after it. Ideally this would be collapsible, too.

This is my personal Faithlife account. On 1 March 2022, I started working for Faithlife, and have a new 'official' user account. Posts on this account shouldn't be taken as official Faithlife views!

Posts 27849
Forum MVP
Dave Hooton | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Apr 7 2010 8:24 AM | Locked

Mark Barnes:

  • By book: If you have lots of results, it's simply not useable. You'll probably have pages and pages of slightly relevant results hogging the start of the list just because they're in resources beginning with the letter 'A' or 'B'.
  • By rank: Great, but often you'll know a book isn't relevant, even though lots of hits are returned from it. You'll probably have lots of results in Bibles appearing at the top of you list, for example - even though you may not want these.

I never had a use for Rank so I would be happy for it to be dropped.

Mark Barnes:

  • Add a third method (Ranked book). This calculates a relevancy for each resource, not just each hit. The most relevant resources are displayed first, then hits within the resource are ordered according to relevancy.

That would be an improvement.

Mark Barnes:

In addition, two other oft-asked for changes would also be very useful:

  • Collapsible results for each resource (easily eliminating less relevant hits).
  • The ability to display all this hits in context, not just the first hit in each section with a x10 after it. Ideally this would be collapsible, too.

The first is clearly advantageous but the second does not suit all cases:-

These are ranked results and it appears results in one section are equally ranked. The context of one hit is difficult to separate from that of another hit and the results as shown would be more useful (all 27 results for the indicated section are visible in the resource panel).

The 161 results for the next section (NASUEECB) are also in a list.

Dave
===

Windows 11 & Android 8

Posts 5637
Todd Phillips | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Apr 7 2010 9:16 AM | Locked

Mark Barnes:

So, here's my proposal for a solution:

  • Add a third method (Ranked book). This calculates a relevancy for each resource, not just each hit. The most relevant resources are displayed first, then hits within the resource are ordered according to relevancy.

This (and the collapsible results) was asked for in the private beta, and Bob had some comments on it, but it got lost in the rush to production.  Thanks for bringing it up again. I had hoped that all these requests were still on their plate, since they never said they wouldn't do them.

Dave Hooton:

I never had a use for Rank so I would be happy for it to be dropped.

Unlike Dave, I use the regular Ranked search all the time. I would prefer it not be dropped--although the ranking algorithm could be tweaked.  If you find it's returning the wrong kinds of books, limit your search to a collection. My "All but Bibles", "All except Bibles and Journals",  and ""All except Images" collections get good use when I find I'm getting too many hits in a certain type of resource.

Wiki Links: Enabling Logging / Detailed Search Help - MacBook Pro (2014), ThinkPad E570

Posts 27849
Forum MVP
Dave Hooton | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Apr 7 2010 9:33 PM | Locked

Todd Phillips:
Unlike Dave, I use the regular Ranked search all the time.

I think I would use it more as Mark is suggesting, where it is very simple to collapse results by book.

If all results are presented in context as suggested, then Ranked results will have to be collapsed (see my examples above). With the current presentation and restricting the search to a Collection there is a chance I might use it sometimeBig Smile

Dave
===

Windows 11 & Android 8

Page 1 of 1 (4 items) | RSS