Consultation on the future of quick sesrch

[PeterJ]

Whilst I'm a big fan of the way quick search used to work (before the latest change) with it just being a very broad search looking at many aspects of the database (I would often find hidden gems this way), some people don't like having to scroll through results to find what they are looking for

I'm considering changing quick search to search for software title only. That would then allow the exact search results first as some have requested. It needs to something which can be built with standard PHP and SQL so we can maintain it without having to rely on others to fix problems.

It would really help if we had a range of opinions, and not just the normal users who express their views, so we can take a balanced and well thought out decision on this. Only 10 users completed the poll on sort order, and this is not a representative sample.

The data I'm producing on what people enter into quicksearch will help with the decision also.

I'm not making any knee jerk decisions on this. It needs to be fully planned.

The advanced search is overly complicated to change, and results will continue to be in alphabetical order as they currently are.

ElasticSearch may be an option in the long term future.

Peter

[akeley]

some people don't like having to scroll through results to find what they are looking for

firstworldproblems.jpg

Seriously though, sure it'd be nice to have weighed results from the quick search, but I'm not sure if it's worth the hassle. It does what it says on the tin after all - it's a "quick" search. If you want more precise replies you can go to the slow, sorry, advanced one.

And, as you say, the "other" results can be a source of interesting discoveries.

Changing it to software only would perhaps narrow the scope of results, but in more generic cases people would still have to scroll, or - shock, horror - go to page two anyway. or admit defeat and use the advanced option. Eg, I've just tried to search for "war"... By the way, this query has also returned results which do not seem to have anything to do with the word, like 10th Frame or Arpon.

So, I'm quite happy with things being as they were, but if you guys feel it's necessary to tweak it, it's fine too. As long as you don't outsource it to Big Brother Google...

[Morkin]

Despite probably being the person who initiated all this (sorry!) I don't actually mind...

For stuff like this I tend to follow the Homer Simpson motto of "If something is hard to do, then it's not worth doing...".. Basically, the worst thing is to put a lot of effort into trying to change something and it ending up generating criticism...

Anyway I've found the Advanced Search great - it tends to be very successful for me. Marginally off-topic (but still related to the question), the only (personal) small suggestion I'd make is that the highly useful "All games" option is right at the bottom of the 'Genre' list; if I didn't know it was there (from the message in the forum) I don't think I would've scrolled down that far.

[StooB]

The quick search just seems to be trying to be too helpful - would a user really not know whether they were looking for a title or a publisher or an author? A radio button or drop down menu after the search field to select a "Title", "Publisher" or "Author" search would be the simplest solution.

[PeterJ]

Thanks [mention]StooB[/mention],

That's really what advanced search is for, but I see what you mean. Thanks for the feedback. It will all go Into the melting pot of suggestions. Maybe three mutually exclusive search boxes at the top of the page to save the extra step of a drop-down.

[dfzx]

I don't use the search a great deal, and I'm not in a position to help out, but since Peter has specifically asked for more opinions I will chip in.

I don't think it is a first world problem. The search facility is the front door to ZXDB/SC. For most people new to the site that's where they will start, and it looks pretty crap if they type in something obvious and they don't get to see what they want, either because it's on page 2 or below the fold. The massive achievement which is ZXDB is rather lost if the search is so poor people go somewhere else. Searching for "jetpac" on both WoS.org and WoS.net sees the one you want top of the list.

I think making the quick search into "Find a game..." is a fairly obvious and reasonable simplification, and having even a modestly tuned query behind it, like the one Vampyre suggested, will surely yield the expected result the vast majority of the time. I don't think it's necessary to try to support all types of queries from that one search box.

I would also suggest putting the advanced search on a page of its own. That 24-field search panel is ugly and intimidating, and to be honest it's not at all clear that it's a search facility. It pushes the "Welcome to SC" message below the fold even on my vertical monitor. (And even with that search, putting "jetpac" into the title box sees the title appear 4th in the search result, so I'm not sure it's helping in that respect.)

The Quick Listing search is surely a bit of an obscure thing? It that used a great deal? It has pride of place right at the top of the front page, so maybe it's more used than I'd give it credit for. But I'm not sure I've ever used it.

So I'd suggest:

* Change "ZXDB QUICK SEARCH" to "SEARCH FOR A GAME";
* then a link underneath it "...or use our Advanced Search to search the whole of ZXDB".
* Put the advanced search on a page of its own, with the quick listing above it, much like the current front page.
* Bring the "Welcome" message to the top of the front page.

And finally, and slightly off topic, put a big, bold plug for the forums front and centre of the welcome text! The ZXDB interface may well be the engine of SC, but these forums, where we all chat happily about the thing which we have in common, is the jewel in the crown. Anyone who arrives at the SC home page, and who leaves without knowing how active and friendly these forums are, is a missed opportunity and a lost friend. Plug the forums on the front page as hard as it currently plugs ZXDB.

[catmeows]

Well, if only 10 people participated in pool then quicksearch Is probably good as it is I mean, there are 10e9 ways how to customize the quicksearch but all of them are just about bringing quicksearch closer to advanced search. What would be nice is sorting by Levehnstain distance if you are not doing it now.

[PeterJ]

Thanks for the constructive feedback [mention]dfzx[/mention],

Some of those changes we can make very quickly, which is great stuff.

[dfzx]

Well, if only 10 people participated in pool then quicksearch Is probably good as it is

Unless a lot of people arriving at the front page and using that facility are likely new visitors to the site?

Peter, do you have any data (or maybe a feeling) on what the target audience for that simple search box is?

[druellan]

Well, the current search already fragments the results in titles/groups/labels, so, I think the quicksearch might search on titles and aliases, and perhaps inspirations/licenses. The rest can be handled on individual lists, and perhaps convert the result page into tabs, so, it is more clear that you have other matches there.

[akeley]

I just wanted to add that most likely searches made by more "casual" users (who possibly could be upset by the fact they have to use the scroll wheel and actually scan more than one entry) are done from outside spectrumcomputing.co.uk, using normal search engines.

[dfzx]

I just wanted to add that most likely searches made by more "casual" users (who possibly could be upset by the fact they have to use the scroll wheel and actually scan more than one entry) are done from outside spectrumcomputing.co.uk, using normal search engines.

I do use it occasionally, mostly when someone here in the forums mentions a game I've not heard of, or not played in an age. I think that even if someone lands at SC after a Google search, they'd probably use it for subsequent searches since it's at the top of SC every page (unlike the advanced search).

[akeley]

It's much easier just to bang your query into SE of your choice (there are other options than google ) than click on a bookmark and use the search here. At least for a casual person who searches for a game once in a blue moon.

Personally, I use it because I have it added it as a custom search in my browser. But that's because I re-search a lot of Spectrum games.

Overall, I'm not against adding weighed results, just questioning if it's really worth the effort required. So far it's really about a few generic examples like "Elite", but we should also remember that there are not that many Atic Atacs or Knight Lores.

Btw, [mention]PeterJ[/mention], I thought that the other poll was perhaps a bit confusing. I was surprised why so many people voted for unordered results when "by year" seems much better choice. Maybe a poll asking "Would you like to see changes to Quick Search" or similar could be more conclusive.

[Einar Saukas]

Eg, I've just tried to search for "war"... By the way, this query has also returned results which do not seem to have anything to do with the word, like 10th Frame or Arpon.

It was a bug.

I just fixed it, try again.

[Einar Saukas]

Well, the current search already fragments the results in titles/groups/labels, so, I think the quicksearch might search on titles and aliases, and perhaps inspirations/licenses. The rest can be handled on individual lists, and perhaps convert the result page into tabs, so, it is more clear that you have other matches there.

Right now, quick search is only presenting games based on titles and aliases.

Although it also searches for groups, labels, magazines and licenses, this information is only presented at the bottom as links to them.

IMHO it's the best of both worlds. When you search for "Elite", you will only get a few games called "Elite", although if you were actually interested in Elite Systems you will also get a separate link called "Elite Systems" in the results page.

[PeterJ]

I don't think it is a first world problem. The search facility is the front door to ZXDB/SC. For most people new to the site that's where they will start, and it looks pretty crap if they type in something obvious and they don't get to see what they want, either because it's on page 2 or below the fold. The massive achievement which is ZXDB is rather lost if the search is so poor people go somewhere else. Searching for "jetpac" on both WoS.org and WoS.net sees the one you want top of the list.

[mention]dfzx[/mention],

Just to comment that the reason Jetpac appears at the top of the list on WoS is that they don't have any titles post the middle of 2013. If you search for JetPac on WoS only two results show, because the remainder are not in their dataset.

Try searching for Elite on WoS and look at the results.....

https://worldofspectrum.org/infoseek?q=Elite

WoS.NET does a better job.

[PeterJ]

[mention]Morkin[/mention],

I have moved 'All Games' up the list for you.

[akeley]

It was a bug.

I just fixed it, try again.

Nice, I thought it might be.

One annoying thing with such vague queries is that they generate super long pages, caused by the categories below the main results - try PET or WAR and you will scroll forever past LABEL or GROUPS just to get to the page number box. Perhaps these could be made clickable and "closed" by default.

[R-Tape]

Not sure if this is a related, new, bug:

If I search for an author, e.g. Peter Stieda.

The quick search gives 'unknown', and the advanced search finds him. It does the same with every author I've thought of.

Can we just go back to last week, and pretend that nobody raised the oblique vs isometric thread, and the search thread didn't happen? ж-)

[PeterJ]

Not sure if this is a related, new, bug:

If I search for an author, e.g. Peter Stieda.

The quick search gives 'unknown', and the advanced search finds him. It does the same with every author I've thought of.

Can we just go back to last week, and pretend that nobody raised the oblique vs isometric thread, and the search thread didn't happen? ж-)

Yes, thats the change [mention]Einar Saukas[/mention] made yesterday. You now need to click on the labels link at the bottom of the search results.

[R-Tape]

Yes, thats the change @Einar Saukas made yesterday. You now need to click on the labels link at the bottom of the search results.

Sorry I've not been able to keep track of all this. But if I search for "Bob Pape" in quicksearch, it gives nothing, surely it should give something?

[StooB]

Yes, thats the change @Einar Saukas made yesterday. You now need to click on the labels link at the bottom of the search results.

Sorry I've not been able to keep track of all this. But if I search for "Bob Pape" in quicksearch, it gives nothing, surely it should give something?

It does return Bob Pape but you have to scroll down past "No results returned" to the matching labels section.

[Einar Saukas]

IMHO the message "no results returned" should only appear when there are really no results!

[R-Tape]

IMHO the message "no results returned" should only appear when there are really no results!

Yes, but that's why the change shouldn't have been made so hastily. Right now, if I do a quick search for Hewson, I will see "UNKNOWN. No results returned. Please try searching for a different title!", and various labels boxes underneath that will confuse any newb, or non-newb.

In the space of a few days, the quick search has been spoiled, and now there is talk of adding more boxes to it. By the time I get home from work today, there may be more changes - all of which fail to fix something that wasn't broken (IMO).

I think it was fine (not perfect) before, and that we need to stop tinkering. If there is a large amount* of interest in making changes, they should happen slower and with more consultation.

*and I don't think that can be gauged by whoever is active on the forum that particular week. People may even post suggestions when they don't even use the search.

[PeterJ]

You are right in all you say [mention]R-Tape[/mention].