New search ignores search criteria

PaulODonnell

I tried the new search and specified a birth year of 1810 and then checked +- 5 years. The search results showed individuals born in 1829, 1831, 1759, etc.

There were 500 pages of results. Who has time to search through all of those manually.

To make things better, apply the search criteria the entered by the end user.

genthusiast

This is old news for new Search. It never has used the dates entered as search limiting criteria (it uses a filtering model). Use date filters to narrow your results. Date filter tabs are visible on many of the filter options (bubbles/buttons at top of search results page).

Áine Ní Donnghaile

New Search is no longer new. New Search rolled out long before the New Person page.

genthusiast

Maybe it's new to Paul. In any case it never has done what he wishes it would. The Idea of it changing to apply date criteria to limiting results is counter to the implemented model - it likely won't happen - if it did then it would be 'new Search'.

@PaulODonnell if you would like help with the search - so that readers can understand further about filtering dates or resulting records - it would be best if you share your search criteria/URL. Then we can see what you mean - rather than responding without complete information (for example there are two FS record search engines - Search> Records menu and Search All Collections - it is not entirely clear which you are using and calling 'new').

Julia Szent-Györgyi

"Then checked +- 5 years" -- are you certain you were on FamilySearch?

Oh: he's using "All Collections Search", which is indeed fairly new, and doesn't offer filtering (that I can find). And indeed appears to completely and utterly ignore the exact/plus-or-minus checkboxes on birthdates.

I know there were more people surnamed Trnyik born in Szarvas in 1882 than just my great-grandmother. They may not have been indexed yet, which is fine, but in that case, why are you showing me all these other people who weren't born in the year that I asked for? Was that date input just for decorative purposes?

My suggestion is to use FS's older, separate searches instead of the newfangled all-in-one approach. Like most generalists, it's not very good at the details.

genthusiast

The filters are on the left-hand column for All Collections Search - just like/similar to old Search (on phone I tried and it filters by collection)... so is it new or old?

Julia Szent-Györgyi

The left-hand column only offers the equivalent of collection filters -- and very, very clunky ones at that. I tried "Historical Records - Birth, Marriage, and Death", and after half a dozen iterations of "scroll down and click 'more'", I've gotten to Australia. That's unusable. And there's absolutely nothing offered for date filtering.

genthusiast

@Julia Szent-Györgyi ...well old Search better catch up with its old self then... filtering by collection is better than nothing. The reason All Collections Search is useful is that it does search all collections - with a one push search button. But the old Search had some sub filter options - including Date filters - which made it more powerful (thus it needs to catch up with its old self).

@PaulODonnell Ah, there are actually 3 search engines (learned something new today). Try https://www.familysearch.org/search/discovery - see if that search - which does have filter bubbles at top -returns results you would like better.

PaulODonnell

Thanks for your replies. I was hoping to provide feedback to FS developers, do they monitor this site?

Ignoring search criteria should be considered a high priority bug.

I was searching for Lot Huestis born in 1810. I edited the search and checked +/- 5 years.

PaulODonnell

I should clarify my steps:

1. All Collections Search
2. Start New Search
3. Add search criteria: Lot Huestis, born 1810
4. Edit search
5. checked +/- 5 years
6. run search
7. Get incorrect results

Applying the search criteria will make the tool much better.

genthusiast

I see that the filter bubbles atop the search results have returned. Perhaps our complaining is being listened to.

Interestingly if you select the top matching result from the All Results for Lot Huestis - his Tree profile:

That it is not finding Birth records for example - probably means that there are not any matching the search criteria. So yes - the Search is attempting to cast a wider net (be helpful by returning scored records in rank of closest matching according to search criteria) and then allow you to use those filters to narrow your search to locate records...but I don't find any matching Birth records...which probably means there aren't any in the system for Lot.

But it did find his Tree Profile as the highest match - so is ranking properly (in my opinion).

Paul W

@PaulODonnell

I was hoping to provide feedback to FS developers, do they monitor this site?

Not that you would notice, except in the case of the New Person Page, which has a dedicated "Group" where issues are being responded to by a FamilySearch employee.

Generally, you have to rely on the advice of everyday FamilySearch users, although sometimes a site moderator will confirm your issue has been passed to the appropriate team for their attention.

Gordon Collett

To summarize, the main searches are:

• The Historical Records Search: https://www.familysearch.org/search/
• The Family Tree Search: https://www.familysearch.org/search/tree/name?from=search
• The Genealogies Search: https://www.familysearch.org/search/genealogies
• The Memories Search: https://www.familysearch.org/photos/find
• The FamilySearch Library Catalog Search: https://www.familysearch.org/search/catalog
• The Digitized Books Search: https://www.familysearch.org/library/books/
• The Image Only Search: https://www.familysearch.org/records/images/beta
• The All Collections Search: https://www.familysearch.org/search/all-collections/
• The Discovery Search: https://www.familysearch.org/search/discovery/

The All Collections Search combines the proceeding seven searches into one form. The Discovery Search has a different URL and adds fancier graphics on its start page but otherwise looks the same.

Advantage of the All Collections search: enter your search criteria once to get results from everything FamilySearch has.

Disadvantages of the All Collections search: 1) Already people complain about not being able to find the results they want because there are too many results. (This is exacerbated by the way dates are handled in all the search routines and by the fact that if there are no matches, the search engine helpfully serves up everything that in its opinion you might have meant.) 2) The results list contains wildly different types of results ranging from highly accurate original records to highly inaccurate obsolete Ancestral File records.

When going to the individual search categories, you have a big explanation of what you are searching, for example:

Is it really that great of an idea to throw everything at someone who may not understand what all these results are or where they came from? Is that worth the connivence of only typing search criteria once?

Regarding the filter bubbles, has anyone been paying attention well enough to see when they were added or if they were there all along? I see that they only appear if you select one of the sub-categories and leave the All Results list.

Julia Szent-Györgyi

OK, having done a little bit more poking at this thing, I think it's an implementation of a recurring suggestion: "allow me to re-use my inputs from Search Form A in Search Form B". It doesn't actually add a new search, really; it just takes three of the searches that have name fields -- Records, Tree, and Memories -- and puts the same inputs into each of them.

You don't get filters unless you choose one of those three sections. The combined results list is completely "take it or leave it", and it treats date inputs as mere decoration. The surname (ahem, sorry, FS continues to use "last name", grrr), on the other hand, is required, even if you choose a section where it normally isn't.

I'm not sure what's going on in the "Additional Resources" section: if I click on "Catalog", it completely uselessly puts the surname into the Catalog's never-actually-used Surnames field, giving a totally-unsurprising No Results, but when I click on "Image Only Records", it does not transfer the "Any Place" field into the Images search field, resulting in no actual search taking place.

One of the problems with the results display is that only "Historical Records" offers a count, making it look like everything on the list belongs in that category. (Another problem, not unique to the combined search, is that "Historical Records" is a false label: they're "Index Entries", which may or may not resemble something that appears on an image of an actual historical record somewhere.)

Given the inferior interface compared to the individual searches, and the totally-different criteria that I for one would have for each section, my answer to "is it worth the convenience" is a resounding no.

Gordon Collett

My overall impression is that this All Collections search is an experiment in progress and far from complete. This opinion is based on its appearance be so different from all the other search pages and the way it functions differently from the rest of them. It will be interesting to see what it turns into over the next year or if it just vanishes.

PaulODonnell

Thanks again for the informative replies, I learned a lot.

I think Gordon Collett summarized the subject well:

"My overall impression is that this All Collections search is an experiment in progress and far from complete."

I will lower my expectations.