Search for content in message boards

Exact search in Old Search

Replies: 86

Re: Exact search in Old Search

Posted: 1301944460000
Classification: Query
Hi all,

I think I covered everything since I last posted in the below thread. Let me know if I missed anything, if I did it was unintentional. I'd suggest all of you take a look at the example exact searches of Trees I did for adamsfamily1 comparing old and new search. I think this is a case where the results of new search are better than those of old search. Please let me know if you agree/disagree. With that, though, let's focus on the results on this thread, but not look and feel.

Oh, and please excuse my typos. Spelling well is all for naught if you type as horribly as I do.

Thanks for the example. It shows the issue of fuzziness of names on old search because old search assumes that all results are equal (because it is exact), so it sorts alphabetically. Hopefully, we can address it.

The UI issues you mention (having to re-enter the info, exact choices, etc.) are not things we'll be addressing.


I was able to get the results for your example in old search two ways. They are not perfect, but they are workarounds. (This is not something that we'll be addressing in old search). Both workarounds are done in recognition that our search does a much better job of resolving locations below the county level in the US than it does in other countries.

The first way is to simply turn off exact search, your desired result should be at the top. (Richard Dent, birth year=1867, birth location=Westmorland, England). This returned your guy in 15 of the top 16 results with a bunch of partial matches thereafter.

The second is to use exact, but not put a location below the county level (i.e., don't type anything in the boxes, just use the dropdowns). (Richard Dent, birth year=1867, birth location=Westmorland, England). This returned 10 public trees and 2 private trees).

Please do me a favor on this and try the following on New Search. I think this is better because it allows you to define exactness on a per field basis. It certainly returned more true positives and fewer false positives (zero) than anything I tried on old search.

1) Go to new search
2) Go to advanced form
3) Enter the first and last name of the person for whom you are searching (I used Richard Dent)
4) Click the links under each to go from "Use default settings" to "Restrict to exact matches"
5) Add birth year and choose exactness (I did 1867 +/- 1 year), check the "Exact only" check box
5) Start typing "Westmorland, England". Be sure to select it from the typeahead, which helps us resolve the location better.
6) Click the link under location. If you chose from the typeahead, you should see choices to "Restrict to this place exactly" in addition to restrict to adjacent counties or country. I tried two searches one where I left at default, one where I chose to restrict to this place exactly (which is county).
7) Add keyword of Kendal, and choose exact
7) Uncheck all the check boxes except family trees
8) Execute the search
no exact (i.e., default) for location yields 16 results all which look relevant (your public trees are #1 & #3 your private but unhidden tree is #12)

using exact for location yields 14 results all which look relevant. The two ones that dropped out were the last two from the "no exact" search. They are your guy, but the researcher does not have Westmorland on the record

Can you give me a more specific example regarding death dates issue?

@adamsfamily1, frostfreedet, xandervan

We are looking at the FF4 issue, but I don't have an update for you yet. I will ask that we try to keep this thread focused on exact search, though)
SubjectAuthorDate Posted
tripthrutime 1301944460000 
adamsfamily1 1301954566000 
jdsakskcnhhyd 1302021829000 
AGHatchett3rd 1302024060000 
JimLivermoreN... 1302026384000 
AGHatchett3rd 1302036121000 
ludlowbaylive 1302044642000 
BobNY 1302061479000 
ludlowbaylive 1302061979000 
AGHatchett3rd 1302063066000 
per page

Find a board about a specific topic