Open fsteeg opened 10 years ago
We should be able to take advantage of this for proper boolean search options. The customers might be satisfied with the common way for doing this, i.e.:
- AND: "karneval+köln"
- OR: "karneval köln"
- NOT: "karneval -köln" (as already implemented)
Sorry, I have to correct this. As customers want – and already have – a default AND search, it should look like this:
Thus, we just have to adjust the OR query.
I'm not sure what needs to be done here. Is this about UI? Because right now all of this works:
karneval AND köln
karneval OR köln
karneval AND NOT köln
Reassigning, as discussed offline, to clarify requirements by stakeholders.
This has been mentioned in multiple sections as high priority in the most recent mail by stakeholders (GC, 2015-12-10). From what I understand the main issue is that boolean operators work for the simple search but not for the advanced search. Will investigate support in advanced search.
@fsteeg Great you pick this up. Just thought about this, when looking at the Agenda for our tomorrow meeting. It would be great if you had an estimate for implementation tomorrow.
G.C. wrote on 2015-12-10:
Funktion der Operatoren im Suchschlitz: Wir votieren für die Angleichung der Booleschen Operatoren im Suchschlitz und in der Erweiterten Suche und für eine Trunkierungsmöglichkeit, die mit hoher Priorität bewertet werden. Sollte dies nicht bis März realisierbar sein, sollte im Suchschlitz nur die UND-Verknüpfung angeboten werden.
We won't implement this for now. I will ask what stakeholders mean by " sollte im Suchschlitz nur die UND-Verknüpfung angeboten werden".
I'd also mention that it would be a pity to lose this functionality in the simple search.
I just stumbled over this one. @fsteeg, please think about whether this might be implemented easier now with API 2.0.
From what I understand the main issue is that boolean operators work for the simple search but not for the advanced search.
AND, NOT and OR queries are already possible – although the system works quite counterintuive.
This is how I can make an AND query: http://lobid.org/nwbib/search?location=&q=karneval+k%C3%B6ln (= "karneval köln" in the query field) Also works: http://lobid.org/nwbib/search?location=&q=%2Bkarneval+%2Bk%C3%B6ln (= "+karneval +köln" in the search field)
This is how I can make an OR query: http://lobid.org/nwbib/search?location=&q=karneval%2Bk%C3%B6ln (= "karneval+köln" in the search field)
This is how I can make a NOT query: http://lobid.org/nwbib/search?location=&q=karneval+-k%C3%B6ln (= "karneval -köln" in the search field)
We should be able to take advantage of this for proper boolean search options. The customers might be satisfied with the common way for doing this, i.e.: