New record search functionality visible on beta

LegacyUser

Lundgren said: We are testing some new search functionality on http://beta.familysearch.org/search

If you feel so inclined, please feel free to check it out.

It has been up for about a month now, we are getting closer to releasing it.

LegacyUser

Gordon Collett said: At first glance, I don't really see any thing different. Sorry for being obtuse.

Could you list out some of the new improvements?

LegacyUser

Juli said: It's basically broken.

I put in a search, it came up with a multi-step sign-in screen (the second step was to opt out of emails from FS), and then -- after a full minute -- it finally came up with some search results.

I clicked Reset, filled out a different search, and clicked Update. First the results went blank, then the same two-step sign-in came up again, and then finally the results populated -- with my previous search.

Lather, rinse, repeat: it refuses to do any search besides my first one, and asks about email Every Single Effing Time.

LegacyUser

Lundgren said: A few bread crumbs:
-Look for different results for searches.
-Add more than one fathers/mothers/other persons in your search.
-Export search results

LegacyUser

Lundgren said: You appear to be having problems with the beta site rather than the search itself...

What browser/OS are you using?

Make sure you are not trying to use the beta site in the same browser session at the same time as the normal site. (If using chome, use different profiles)

LegacyUser

Juli said: Firefox, Win10. The only other FS thing I had open was GetSat.

It's still flaky, and the behavior doesn't seem to have any relationship with anything I do or don't do, but I got a few more searches in, and I don't see any difference from (or improvement over) what I've been seeing in production of late.

For example: https://beta.familysearch.org/search/...

It's ignoring birthplace: there are several results in there that exactly match the input birthplace, letter-for-letter, but they're below eight results from elsewhere.

It's ignoring mother's surname: there's a result that matches the first five letters of the input exactly, and isn't far off on the rest, but it's the ninth result down. Everything above it has a completely different name.

About the only thing it isn't ignoring is the birth year, which is actually an improvement over production -- I did a search the other day with a zero-year range for the birthdate, and the first five results were outside it.

LegacyUser

Paul said: Lundgren

If it is intended this should become the production version, another step in the wrong direction when making "exact match" searches, I'm afraid.

The first screen shot shows a search in the production version, whereby only the result with the parents is (correctly) returned. However, in spite of them not being named, a further result is provided when using the beta version.

I had already noticed the production version had been modified to include results that were not truly "exact" (though can't say how long I've been noticing this) so hope this further change is not intentional.

To make my point 100% unambiguous, I would not wish to receive any results where I'd specified parents names if they do not appear in the source / record.

Production version:


Beta version:


BTW - have only recently purchased a new PC and have only loaded Chrome, as yet. A bit fiddly going between the two versions to test the comparisons!

LegacyUser

Lundgren said: Thank you. That was unexpected.

If you setup chrome to use two profiles, then you can use beta in one profile and the production system in the other. That, or you can use an incognito profile in one and your normal profile in the other. Then you can have both sites open at the same time.

Also, if you provide links to your search, they are easier for us to use than screenshots.

Thank you!

LegacyUser

Lundgren said: Removing the birthplace from the search you provided above results in ~2.6 million results. With it present, then there are 267. I think you mean that the smallest jurisdiction level in your search did not work as a filter. Is that correct? (That is intended, and should not be a change from production.)

If you can provide links for the differences on name/date for beta vs production, then it will be easier for us to follow.

I.E:
Beta from your search above: (279 results)
https://beta.familysearch.org/search/...

Prod from your search above:(0 results)
https://www.familysearch.org/search/r...

In the case of this search, beta returns 279 results, and prod returns 0. Which do you feel is more correct for your search?

LegacyUser

Juli said: Neither one is more correct than the other; they're just completely wrong in different ways.

If I put in a specific place, I want results from that specific place, not from vaguely nearby locations. If I was OK with vaguely nearby places, I'd omit the specifics. It would be fine to suggest those results from other places, but they had darn well come after the ones from the place I specified! Ignoring my input like this is an example of the unfortunate modern trend (for which I blame Google) of the computer trying -- and utterly failing -- to be smarter than its users.

Production fails on the search because of the mother's surname. For some reason, it doesn't think the (mis)indexed "Paulonkyn" has anything to do with the search input of "Paulovkin" -- even though there are only two letters different, and one of those is i versus y, which are equivalent even in English. The only reason the beta comes up with any results is that it completely ignores the surname, which is another smarter-than-thou move, and doesn't actually fix the underlying problem of a broken matching algorithm.

LegacyUser

Lundgren said: I understand your desired behavior for places. Right now, changing that to be essentially a filter is not on the back log.

I can also see the need for the surname to be more flexible. Name searching across various languages is certainly a place that we can improve and have a good impact for a large number of users.

Ironically, it seems that you are asking for the system to be smart for you with name searching and figure out what you and the record meant, but you want it to stop trying to do that for you with places.