A while back I had asked about the proper behavior when combining fulltext
search with Tags or Faceted filtering. Generally folks agree that
Tags/Facets should further filter search search results. The search text
should be "sticky" when facets are clicked.
The issue was whether selected Tag or Facet filters should remain in effect
when the search text is changed. Should search and tags be mutually sticky?
Almost universally folks seem to prefer option A, where search text and
facets are "mutually sticky". I also chatted with Miles Kehoe and Avi
Rappoport, and they both came down on option A as well.
(option A) The previously selected Facets / Tags that are still used and are
displayed as selected.
Advantage: Symmetric behavior: both search text and tags are "sticky"
Disadvantage: Some users might not notice that are still active, and get no
results (or miss results). If they would just clear the tags, they would get
all the matching results. Workarounds to this scenario are explored below,
but none seem extremely clean.
(option B) Previously selected Facets / Tags are cleared
Advantages:
+ Easy to understand and explain
+ Relatively easy for advanced users to reselect tags (if available)
+ Still respects the top-to-bottom contextual scope flow (down = narrow
results, up = new)
Disadvantage:
- May not even have access to previously selected Tags or Facets. Since the
revised search text will bring back different docs, the set of displayed
facets or tags may be different, and if they don't all fit and the order
changed, some might disappear.
- Likely to frustrate Advanced Users, having to reselect a set of Facets /
Tags. There are 2 rationales here for this being the lesser of 2 evils:
1: Easier for advanced users to figure out what's going on
2: At least it's a bit easier to re-click facets or tags than to re-type
search text (when compared to other behaviors discussed below)
I'd like to catalog here all the ideas I've collected, though most aren't
applicable for my project: All of these have drawbacks related to either
increased UI complexity, inconsistent results, or visitor confusion. Some
items are listed for completeness but may be obviously horrible ideas.
* Keep tags and include "Narration" as an additional reminder.
"Your search for 'charger' with tag:Battery matched 57 questions"
This would be an enhancement to option A.
Issues: Still begs the question "how do I clear that tag?" (without
adding another UI element)
* Try to guess whether the modified text was replaced or just refined.
Issue: Can't guess with certainty, and radically different behavior, perhaps
even within one visitors' session.
* Neither search text nor tag selection are sticky at all, both are cleared
each time. Issue: Virtually all web sites that present search and tags in
the same activity area allow tags to filter text. Not doing this might make
a site look "stupid".
* Keep the tags, but if zero results, offer to rerun the search with tags
cleared.
Issue: This doesn't work if a few docs happen to match - they still didn't
get what they wanted and don't know why, and we don't realize they are
confused. Also potential for inconsistent behavior within one visitor's
session.
* Keep the tags, but if zero results, auto-rerun the search.
Issues: Similar uncertainty and inconsistencies to previous idea.
* Offer a "start new search" button that clears tags.
Issue: UI clutter. (not much, but undesirable on some sites)
* Put a checkbox under the search box that says "narrow results" or similar
wording.
Issue: UI clutter. (not much, but undesirable on some sites)
* Add a "pin" to the Tag selection box that makes them sticky.
Issues: UI clutter, possibly confusing.
* Different classes of Tags, some of which are sticky, and some are not.
Example: Amazon has the selected department remain, but drops other Facets
such as "Prime Shipping". Of course those are Facets, not Tags.
Issue: User-selectable tags are often considered equal, so this would
require revisiting that idea.
And it's not clear that this idea is "better" / less confusing than others,
likely more confusing.
* Put the advanced query text from the tags into the search box, like Google
and Mark Mail does.
Issues: Incredibly ugly for non-techie sites.
Google only does this when users are coming from the Advanced Search form
and have therefore demonstrated some comfort with advanced search.
Mark Mail's target audience is also rather sophisticated and "nerdy".
* Show both sets of results in different window panes. This at least
maintains the distinction between search and tag browse.
Issues: Extreme UI clutter.
--
Mark Bennett / New Idea Engineering, Inc. / mbenn...@ideaeng.com
Direct: 408-733-0387 / Main: 866-IDEA-ENG / Cell: 408-829-6513
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 4:43 AM, pcoupet <pcou...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> I prefers also behavior A. When the user edit its search terms, he is
> modifying his query and other search filters should not be changed silently.
>
>
> An option to make things visible to the user is to display all the search
> criteria in a well identified zone. The user will see there its search
> terms, a list of filters on other fields (date range, price range, size ...,
> selected facets). The user will be able to edit these criteria, delete
> filters (search on fields or facets) using a red cross in front of them) and
> do a research using a button in this zone.
> he can also simply drill down using facets as usual.
>
> One issue appears when the user edit fields and then click on a facet. In
> this case the logic is I think to redo a full search.
>
> Pascal
>
>
> --- In search_...@yahoogroups.com <search_dev%40yahoogroups.com>, Mark
> Bennett <mbennett.idea...@...> wrote:
> >
> > Most sites allow you to search for some text, and then click on Facets
> (or
> > Tags or Taxonomy branches) to drill down into your search.
> >
> > Most sites also show the search box in these search results, with the
> text
> > previously entered, so that you can edit it and resubmit. Perhaps you
> want
> > to add a word or change the spelling of a search term, etc.
> >
> > But what should happen to your previously selected Facets (or Tags, etc)
> ?
> >
> > Before you answer....
> > 1: It seems like even "the big guys" don't agree. Some large web sites
> > clear all previous tags when text is resubmitted, other sites keep these
> > other selections in place to filter the revised search. So it doesn't
> seem
> > like there's universal agreement.
> > 2: Let's assume that I do NOT want to put a "start new search" button or
> > checkbox in the search form. The goal is to find the most reasonable
> > DEFAULT behavior, and possibly not display those options.
> >
> > Examples: behavior A vs. B
> >
> > Both start the same:
> > 0: Assume a real-estate site.
> > 1: I type in "furnished apartment", and get 2,000 matches.
> > 2: Then I notice the "City" facet and click "Sunnyvale". Now I have just
> 50
> > furnished apartments, in Sunnyvale
> > 3: Then I edit my search text to add the word "garage", so the now the
> text
> > box is "furnished apartment garage", and submit the search.
> >
> > Scenario A:
> > The engine brings back furnished apartments with a garage, in Sunnyvale,
> and
> > I get only 10 results.
> >
> > Scenario B:
> > The engine brings back furnished apartments with a garage all over the
> Bay
> > Area, and I get 800 matches.
> > To limit the search to Sunnyvale, I must again click the City facet and
> > select it.
> >
> > There are strengths and weaknesses to both scenarios, but I don't wanna
> bias
> > anybody's answer. I'd love to hear your thoughts!
> >
> > --
> > Mark Bennett / New Idea Engineering, Inc. / mbenn...@...
>
> > Direct: 408-733-0387 / Main: 866-IDEA-ENG / Cell: 408-829-6513
> >
>
> __._,_.___
> Reply to
> sender<pcou...@yahoo.com?subject=re:+Opinions+on+Facet+Fulltext+behavior?>|
> Reply
> to
> group<search_...@yahoogroups.com?subject=re:+Opinions+on+Facet+Fulltext+behavior?>|
> Reply
> via web
> post<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/search_dev/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJwcDdxMHJmBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE3NTY5NTgyBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTAwNzE4MQRtc2dJZAM5MDEEc2VjA2Z0cgRzbGsDcnBseQRzdGltZQMxMjY5MDE2NTEx?act=reply&messageNum=901>|
> Start
> a New
> Topic<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/search_dev/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJmOXRydHVyBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE3NTY5NTgyBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTAwNzE4MQRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNudHBjBHN0aW1lAzEyNjkwMTY1MTE->
> Messages in this
> topic<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/search_dev/message/896;_ylc=X3oDMTMzcTRrcXJwBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE3NTY5NTgyBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTAwNzE4MQRtc2dJZAM5MDEEc2VjA2Z0cgRzbGsDdnRwYwRzdGltZQMxMjY5MDE2NTExBHRwY0lkAzg5Ng-->(
> 5)
> Recent Activity:
>
> - New
> Members<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/search_dev/members;_ylc=X3oDMTJncXU4c3RjBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE3NTY5NTgyBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTAwNzE4MQRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2bWJycwRzdGltZQMxMjY5MDE2NTEx?o=6>
> 2
>
> Visit Your
> Group<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/search_dev;_ylc=X3oDMTJmNDhycmNlBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE3NTY5NTgyBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTAwNzE4MQRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2Z2hwBHN0aW1lAzEyNjkwMTY1MTE->
> [image: Yahoo!
> Groups]<http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJlZDJ2czZoBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE3NTY5NTgyBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTAwNzE4MQRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNnZnAEc3RpbWUDMTI2OTAxNjUxMQ-->
> Switch to:
> Text-Only<search_dev-traditio...@yahoogroups.com?subject=change+delivery+format:+Traditional>,
> Daily
> Digest<search_dev-dig...@yahoogroups.com?subject=email+delivery:+Digest>•
> Unsubscribe <search_dev-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com?subject=unsubscribe> •
> Terms of Use <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>
> .
>
> __,_._,___
>
