Has the Search algorithm been tweaked?
If so, not for the better! There seems no reason why a 1915 census record should appear when searching for results relating to 1940. I have always defended the way FamilySearch does not exhibit this type of behaviour, so would be grateful if this could be referred to the engineers. I want to carry on defending them over accusations that unwanted results appear when a date range is specified, but can't if I'm going to find results like this.
Julia Szent-Györgyi ✭✭✭✭✭
My memory is unreliable as to how it previously worked (or didn't work), but what I clearly see in this example is that the parameters in the various boxes (birth, residence) are given a logical value of "or", not "and". The single result matches the "birth" box perfectly, so the fact that it has nothing whatsoever in common with the "residence" box is not considered relevant.0
N Tychonievich mod
@Paul W and others.
First, in response to @WillcoxME, when you click "Exact" at the bottom, it is enabling the Exact option for the various fields. It is not a way to say "match all my search terms exactly". Could perhaps be clearer, but I have not heard of any plans to change that.
The system did in fact honor the places marked as Exact is @Paul W's search--showing one result with a birth in England and residence in the United States and matching the exact given names field. The Exact option is not in place for dates--more on that in a second. Since you chose those places and a name to be exact searches, the system makes them the priority. It only returns items with all of your Exact search terms--regardless of what other information you entered.
Others have been concerned that the search is not honoring date ranges. Here in Community, I have responded to that concern with a promise to ask engineering about it. I did that. I posted in the Community discussion where the issue was raised that engineers say the search is treating date ranges as designed. I pushed back asking them to reconsider the design and they have agreed to review it. I know that is not a terribly satisfying answer, but that's the best I could get.2
Has the Search algorithm been tweaked?
In a word: No.
This is the usual exact search that isn't exact. @Paul W the irony is this is how FamilySearch historical record searches have worked as long as I've been here. This isn't new. How is it that you have never noticed before? You've been defending a fantasy.1
Perhaps I have just been fortunate till now, but whilst I carry out searches practically every day (literally!), this is the first time I can recall having encountered an issue similar to this. You will notice it is not the more common type of report, of getting thousands on results instead of the anticipated handful - just the one "hit" here, albeit one irrelevant to my search.
I just thought it worthwhile to try to get this simple example through to the engineers, so they could test for themselves what has been produced (as a result), against what they would expect their coding to produce.
Sadly, the engineers never come back to us here - otherwise, at least they could confirm that either: (a) they do see a genuine issue here, or (b) the algorithm is working as to their expectations.
No harm in at least trying to get them to carry out some further testing on the matter!0
I've been having the same issue, even when checking "exact" at the bottom as well. It is maddening.0
Thank you for your efforts in trying to resolve this issue. I was primarily trying to find a result relating to the US census in this particular search. I realise I could have just searched within that collection, but (in many other cases) would find it useful if I could omit results that do not lie strictly within the search parameters specified, so am hopeful the engineers will take a further look at the matter, after your highlighting this to them.
Thanks again for your help here and with other issues raised on this forum: especially the auto-standardization of placenames one!0
The Exact option is not in place for dates [... engineers] have agreed to review it.
Could we have an Exact check box against the date range? Or is that just too computationally costly? If this were an option, there would perhaps need to be an information link right beside it, explaining the caveats around the exact search.0