Better search result order

Maybe but it should be explicit word adjacency by 1.

I think either way works. I am nothing like an expert in this particular field; I just want my searches to bring up the results I want at the top. I think my basic preference is, as @glimfeather said, " to treat space as an word adjacency operator not as an implicit [AND].”

But that’s just a knee-jerk, uninformed bias. I’d have to see the results of this approach vs. changing the sort order of results to have a meaningful opinion. Could anyone lay out a bit more clearly what the different results might look like?

Of course, I assume changing the sort order is a vastly simpler solution to implement than to re-code the search function.

OK, I’ve changed the post title to hopefully reduce misunderstanding if anyone new comes in (for posterity: was “Please use default AND in search”).

1 Like

Specificity is better, though I, too, have had trouble figuring out exactly what the problem is here.

Another attempt: results should rank matches higher when they contain the search terms in closer proximity. Does that catch it?

1 Like

Yeah, I went with “vague but accurate” as a stopgap. The original title was based on a misunderstanding.

I really think a new feature request should be posted once the discussion settles (or maybe before). This one, you have to read too many comments to understand.

That’s probably closer, tho I’m not sure the request has fully solidified.

2 Likes

They were describing their own assessment of your suggestion, not describing your suggestion.

1 Like

Nobody’s disputing that. Calion said your suggestion sounded good to them, but lacking your experience they can’t clearly picture how the results would feel to them.

3 Likes

Yes. Basically, I don’t care what method is used as long as I get the results I want. If changing sort order will get that without major surgery, great! The question is, will it? I am wary of settling on a feature request that won’t actually be satisfactory in practice.