Closed docuracy closed 1 month ago
Legacy artifact. Search was always against the whg index only. Now against whg + pub, so returning an “unindexed” record to a portal page is (more) feasible. That said, there is a conceptual and ux issue…when viewing an unlinked (un-attempted-linked) record in a portal page, one can be easily confused. Notwithstanding that our users are clever(!). For an as-yet unlinked Istanbul record with one source card, one might wonder where the others are. This issue follows from a basic shortcoming (?) of the pipeline: you can publish without the last link/accession step.
The issue of how to handle this dichotomy was never really thought out or discussed in depth in March. Previously Ruth had proposed a tabbed thng -- maybe a button -- something like:
One thing we can't do is show a 'pub' index result as linked, without its creator making that assertion in the accession step
[Moved from #273]:
All search results are from whg or pub. If from whg they are by definition a "parent." A search result for a parent with no children does not get a portal page link, and probably should - it currently gets a "place detail" link
For example, search for "Glasgow"...
view all
and view fewer
links with the modular More
/ Less
buttons already in use on the Portal page. Also standardise "Chronology" instead of "Timespans".No Linked Results
.Show/Hide Unlinked Results
button.place portal
and place detail
links with a Place Details
button which leads in all cases to a Portal page. I don't think the word "portal" conveys anything meaningful to a new user.
The place detail page is less pretty and considerably less informative about locations than the portal page. For unlinked places, why are we linking from search results to place detail rather than a single-source portal, @kgeographer ?