We always remove the facet filter when faceting: in other words, for a
good user experience, you generally want to show facets based on the
query excluding any restriction based on the facets.
So in your example (facet B selected), we would continue to show *all*
facets. Only if you performed a search using some other filter
(proximity, gender, etc), would we restrict the facet list.
-Mike
On 06/22/2011 09:42 AM, Dennis de Boer wrote:
Well, the use case is rather simple. It is not a use case but more auser
experience.
If I have a list of values I can facet on, for example :
A
B
C
D
E
And I click on B, does it make sense for the user to display
B
C
E
after the selection ? Just because items in B are C and E items as well?
As A user I chose B because I'm interested in B items. I do not care if they
are also C and E items.
Technically this is correct, but functional wise, the user doesn't care
because it is not what they searched for.
In this case they were searching for a Cardiologists. Do I care that a
cardiologist is also a family doctor? No. So I also do not want to see this
as a facet value presented to me in frontend logic.
In the item details you can show that the cardiologist is also a family
doctor. That is fine, but not as an availbale facet option, if you just
chose an speciality you want to filter on.
Does it make sense?
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 3:31 PM, lee carroll
<lee.a.carr...@googlemail.com>wrote:
Hi Dennis,
I think maybe I just disagree. Your not showing facet counts for
cardiologists and Family Doctors independently. The Family Doctor
count will be all Family Doctors who are also Cardiologists.
This allows users to further filter Cardiologists who are also family
Doctors. (this could be of use to them ??)
If your front end app implements the filtering as a list of fq=xxx
then that would make for consistent results ?
I don't see how not showing that some cardiologists are also Family
Doctors is a better user experience... But again you might have a very
specific use case?
On 22 June 2011 13:44, Dennis de Boer<datdeb...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Lee,
since I have the same problem, I might as well try to answer this
question.
You want this behaviour to make things clear for your users. If they
select
cardiologists, does it make sense to also show family doctors as a
facetvalue to the user.
The same thing goed for the facets that are related to family doctors.
They
are returned as well, thus making it even moren unclear for the end-user.
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 2:27 PM, lee carroll
<lee.a.carr...@googlemail.com>wrote:
Hi Bill,
So that part works. Then when I output the facet, I need a different
behavior than the default. I need
The facet to only output the value that matches (scored) - NOT ALL
VALUES
in the multiValued field.
I think it makes sense?
Why do you need this ? If your use case is faceted navigation then not
showing
all the facet terms which match your query would be mis-leading to your
users.
The fact is your data indicates Ben the cardiologist is also a GP etc.
Is it not valid for
your users to be able to further filter on cardiologists who are also
specialists in x other disciplines ? If the specialisms are mutually
exclusive then your data will reflect this.
The fact is x number of cardiologists match and x number of GP's match
etc
I may be missing the point here as you have not said why you need to do
this ?
cheers lee c
On 22 June 2011 09:34, Michael Kuhlmann<s...@kuli.org> wrote:
Am 22.06.2011 09:49, schrieb Bill Bell:
You can type q=cardiology and match on cardiologist. If stemming did
not
work you can just add a synonym:
cardiology,cardiologist
Okay, synonyms are the only way I can think of a realistic match.
Stemming won't work on a facet field; you wouldn't get "Cardiologist:
3"
as the result but "cardiolog: 3" or something like that instead.
Normally, you use declare facet field explicitly for facetting, and
not
for searching, exactly because stemming and tokenizing on facet fields
don't make sense.
And the short answer is: No, that's not possible.
-Kuli
