No Option To Sort Search Results
Why is there no option to sort the results of a search?
I do not understand how a website does not have an option to sort the results of a search, and that they have never updated the website in all these years to have one.
It is the most basic and foundational aspect of a search result since the 90's, and I am sorry to disparage familysearch, but is just beyond ridiculous to not have that option, and there is no excuse or justification to not have it.
Answers
-
@Jay59827 I totally agree with this, it is ridiculous. I submitted a Suggest an Idea
on the subject over a year ago, and I am pretty sure others have done so too, but no response or action has followed.
4 -
@Jay59827 and @MandyShaw1 - I agree with the need for a sort. On FindMyPast, eg, I will usually sort parish register entries by date because it's easier for me to think like that and because it brings the possible duplicates together.
However, I do wonder how useful a sorted list might be because of the undoubted tendency of FamilySearch to assume that "more is more" and produce a big list of answers. Even respected bloggers often praise results that give (say) 10 screens worth of answers when reality is that the enquirer will be punch drunk after the 3rd screen and start missing stuff.
So yes, but I fear that the size of the list of answers on FS might render a sort unwieldy. Of course, the correct next step (in my opinion) is perhaps to implement better search criteria and filtering first, before sorting
3 -
@Adrian Bruce1 but they only ever show a maximum of 5,000 entries, so if you saw the top 5,000 based on your ascending or descending sort that would be a really positive thing (and would encourage you to filter as needed). I know it's a bit more back-end processing, but people wouldn't need to do so many unproductive searches, which should counterbalance that a bit. Agreed this feature makes Find my Past much more usable.
1 -
flagged for moderator attention re checking status of the Ideas previously submitted on this subject
2 -
@Jay59827 Could you be specific about which search results you are referencing? A URL and the parameters you are using would be helpful, screenshots too. I want to be sure I understand what you are trying to filter.
Here are a couple FamilySearch articles about using search, these may help you focus your searches more effectively.
https://www.familysearch.org/en/help/helpcenter/article/search-tips-for-historical-records
https://www.familysearch.org/en/help/helpcenter/article/search-instructions-for-historical-records
0 -
@shecorwe /no/ FS search or find function lets you sort the search results, you are always stuck with the default order (by match score descending). Just try one and you'll see this. This question is not about filtering. The only workaround is currently to export the whole lot page by page (limited to 5,000 results), combine the exports into a spreadsheet, and sort that. Not really a solution.
2 -
Thank you @MandyShaw1, I would still like to see what @Jay59827 is having trouble with.
0 -
@shecorwe, I agree that FamilySearch has wonderful search filters like narrowing down by collection or residence.
I think the request, however, is being able to sort the search results with options like A to Z, chronologically, etc. That could really improve search efficiency. (Personally, I'd also love some toggles, like only showing results that haven't been attached to a profile yet, too.)
Let us know if I'm wrong on my interpretation of your post, though, @Jay59827.
5 -
AFAIK, FindMyPast is the only major with a sort option on most search results. Ancestry has recently added a sort option, but only in a very few places.
4 -
Regarding the suggestion:
It is the most basic and foundational aspect of a search result since the 90's
Interesting to hear that view, as I've been researching (with very productive results) since the mid-1980s and have never found the need to use spreadsheets in my work. So, in my "list of priorities" for the FamilySearch developers, I'm afraid this would appear way down the list.
Also, in line with the comment from @Áine.ní.Donnghaile, it appears the provision is not widespread at all.
Sorry about my personal lack of enthusiasm for this idea: perhaps if I could be made aware of the benefits I would experience from the use of spreadsheets I would revise my thoughts on the subject!
3 -
The ability to sort the results of a person or records search by increasing and decreasing date of birth or date of record.
Maybe I have been spoiled by Geneanet with this option and many more aspects as I am discovering now, but I thought it was a basic option for any search being done regardless of it being a genealogy related website/app, as it is just such a common, widely available, logical, and useful tool for anyone with any website that one is navigating through the results of a search.
I have just started using Familysearch this last month, and overall I am extremely disappointed with so many aspects of it, especially the unnecessary complexity and additional aspects of it. If it was not for the connection Familysearch has with France and their horrifically managed genealogy system, I would most likely never come back to use Familysearch unless absolutely necessary.
I understand a lot of people love Familysearch and swear by it, and it does have a immense amount of records and documentation to find for one's own research.
Sorry the negativity and rant, but I am overwhelmed with negative experiences so far with using and navigating Familysearch, but I know it is free and managed by mainly volunteers, so for that aspect, I can at least understand and accept why it is the way it is, but I do it begrudgingly.
0 -
Aine, there are a lot of genealogy/ancestry websites.
Paul, I do not know what you are talking about, as I have never said anything about spreadsheets.
-3 -
My sincere apologies for misunderstanding the issue you have raised. I believe my mind was focused on advice given in previous discussions involving similar (sorting) issues, whereby the suggestion was to export results to a spreadsheet. I accept you made no such reference yourself.
Regarding how other websites deal with the sorting of results, I have found only Find My Past comes close to presenting a list much in line with what you appear to be requesting here. Even then, the sort (in date order) seems to work far from perfectly. Maybe its something I'm doing wrong, but a search that returns several pages of results appears to have "multiple runs" of results in date order. For example, I get a list starting with the earliest date (say 1605) that continues chronologically through to (say) 1850, but there then follows further "batches" of results, again arranged chronologically, but I just don't see why I can't seem to get the one continuous list. Perhaps I am not utilising their filtering options correctly.
Regarding that last point (filtering) I actually believe this aspect works comparatively well in FamilySearch, so am inclined to reduce the span of my searches - to make them more "manageable" - by using the filters and in particular in reducing the date spans to shorter periods. I admit the system is far from perfect, but it works quite well (particularly in comparison with ancestry.com) providing you are willing to focus on shorter time periods, rather than, say, wanting one list comprising every "William Robinson" event that has been indexed on FamilySearch - worldwide and covering a five hundred year time period.
To summarise, again my apologies for misunderstanding your issue, but I do believe FamilySearch's search function can be used quite effectively (especially with the use of filters) and works far better (for me) than Ancestry and some other commercial websites.
Nevertheless, best wishes regarding the implementation of your suggestion.
3 -
@Jay59827 I certainly do not claim to be knowledgeable about ALL genealogy provider websites. I did refer to the "majors" and "as far as I know."
I wish you every success with your research.5 -
Interesting discussion. I mainly use the following websites in addition to FamilySearch:
My Heritage: No sorting of search results.
Ancestry: Sorting of most headers but only for the entries you can see on the page. It does not sort all 114,462 entries which really limits the usefulness of the sorting.
Norwegian National Archives: No sorting.
Google: No sorting.
New Family Search, the system that was the immediate predecessor to the redesign of FamilySearch that was released in 2012 did have some limited sorting as I recall. It never worked very well.
I would wonder whether this whole issue of sorting of search results is really dependent on the design of the results list. If a search gives 218,204 results but will only display 5000 of them, where are the rest of them stored?
I expect nowhere. I would assume that is part of the problem. If the search routine creates a temporary cache of the 5000 best results and then stops there to preserve memory storage and processing time, that would mean that every time a sort is performed, the program would have to pull all the results into a cache in order to test and reorder all the results just in case the sort moves the 218,204th result to being the 1st result. Even if that 218,204th result is really a pretty rotten result with a very low match score indicating hardly any connection to the search parameters.
In the past I would occasionally create a spreadsheet by exporting the search results so I could do some sorting but haven't found much need for that recently. I've found that using the various filters and adjusting search parameters is just as effecting in collating results I am looking for.
Personally I would rather that FamilySearch not spend resources on trying to design and implement a primitive, poorly functioning, resource intensive sort routine. They have much bigger issues to be working on. It would be much better for them to allow exporting all 5000 potential results of a search (with proper safeguards against data-harvesters) instead of limiting this to 100 results at a time so they can be imported into a full blown spreadsheet in order to make use of multi-level sorting and full blown data analysis.
I did check Geneanet since I've not peeked in on it for quite a while and am not all that impressed at first glance. The sorting is pretty primitive.
The only sorting I see is ascending or descending by first name, last name, and year. At least in this collection of birth, death, and marriage records. There is no ability to sort by place, spouse, or parents. It does, at least, sort all the results, not just the ones on the current page like Ancestry.
7 -
It's in my experience standard practice for the ordering of such a list (result set) to be done by the database engine itself at query time, with no need for the application to store the whole content of the result set anywhere, just to fetch and display page(s) of the result set as the user asks for them. Even the default ordering (match score descending) will presumably have to be done at query time in this way, so I don't really see the problem here. That's assuming the query is redone if a new sort is requested, rather than the existing fetched information being sorted (quicker, but obviously less accurate/informative). But I am no doubt making unwarranted assumptions about how the application works.
0 -
@MandyShaw1 - I think that I have similar concerns to @Gordon Collett. My concerns arise from the fact that I have had my expectation of how FamilySearch's software behaves, battered into submission on several occasions. It was made clear to me that all the insights I had from dealing with relational database systems, were close to valueless. It might be that all 218,204 (or whatever) entries are in a queue somewhere, as they would be in an RDBMS. But I have no confidence that is so.
3 -
I am sorry for all my negativity,I am only concerned about being able to sort chronologically, as it makes a huge difference when trying to backtrack a family lineage into the past and find missing connections within it. I am someone who favors simplicity over complexity, and a easy to navigate and use interface that I don't have to search in a browser to figure out how to use and navigate to where I want to be.
I have to ask that anyone who has been using Familysearch for a long time, to understand that your experience and comfort with Familysearch can blind you or mislead you from the experience a new user might encounter. Something becomes simple to the one who has much experience with it, and the comfort can make one defend it when possibly it does not deserve the defense of it. I know I am of a smaller minority with my medical issues when it comes interacting with certain things, so I am very much accepting that I am the issue, and not the website. I do ask to keep an open mind, and separate your personal thoughts and feelings when coming across another's issues with aspects of the website, as people have different preferences and expectations when using a website, and different reasons and ways in why and how they they research. If it is complimentary in why and how you perform your research, then that is only valid for you, and not anyone else.
My defense of the the sort option being a basic principle of a website, is within my own personal experience, and giving a few examples of major websites that don't have that option, is irrelevant to my argument, as that is less than one percent of the number of websites available to use on the internet. It being a widely used website holds no relevance to my argument, as I can list just as many widely used websites that do have the sort option, and once again, the popularity and widespread usage of a website is irrelevant to the matter I have brought up.
0 -
@Jay59827 the most productive way to raise your chronological sort feature request would undoubtedly be to Suggest an Idea here: https://community.familysearch.org/en/categories/suggest-an-idea.
1 -
@Jay59827 @MandyShaw1 @Adrian Bruce1 @Áine.ní.Donnghaile @Gordon Collett Thank you all for your comments. I would like to direct @Jay59827 to the feedback tab that is located on almost every FamilySearch page… Please leave your suggestions in this area so that we can better address your concerns. The FamilySearch community strives to be a place of genuine help and concern for each other in our personal search to find and connect our families. Please remember to speak with care and kindness. We appreciate all of the good work that each of you do to make FamilySearch a better place.
0 -
@betsy123 I thought we were supposed to use Feedback for bug reports, but Suggest an Idea for enhancement requests like this one?
3 -
@MandyShaw1 Thanks for this. I'm working too quickly this afternoon! Feedback can be used to report bugs but can also be used to express satisfaction or frustration about the use of FamilySearch. Suggest an Idea is used to propose brand new functions or features. I think it's maybe a grey area, but wanted to give @Jay59827 a place to voice his concerns.
0 -
@Adrian Bruce1 you got me started down a rabbit hole concerning FS' data storage architecture - I found some interesting articles, e.g. https://www.hpcwire.com/bigdatawire/2017/10/30/scalability-answers-found-nosql-family-tree/and https://diginomica.com/familysearch-branches-work-help-users-trace-family-trees. Looking into Cassandra a bit more closely, the sorting capabilities for its data do indeed sound considerably less flexible than those available in relational databases.
2 -
@MandyShaw1 - you beat me to it, quite considerably. Earlier today I'd got as far as searches highlighting NoSQL and Cassandra but then real life intervened. I am 99% certain that these were the concepts that I met years ago (in another FS Platform) when one of the FS techies posted in that version of the community but emphasising always that he was talking personally. IIRC I had tested the waters with some concepts that I knew were appropriate to Relational DBMSs - I duly got the push back of the explanation about (I am reasonably certain) NoSQL and Cassandra. This was absolutely fine by me - I have zero problem being proved wrong if what we get is the correct version! (I wouldn't swear that Cassandra was the software then but I'm pretty certain NoSQL (for obvious reasons) was)
1 -
@Jay59827 To help keep the FamilySearch Community welcoming and productive for everyone, we ask all
participants to communicate in a positive and respectful manner. Please avoid negative, harsh, or derogatory language when posting questions, comments, or feedback. Staying upbeat and constructive makes it easier for volunteers, moderators, and fellow researchers to understand your concerns and offer helpful support.If you’re feeling frustrated with a feature or record set, you’re always welcome to describe the issue clearly and directly — just frame it in a way that focuses on the problem rather than on people. Thoughtful, courteous communication helps ensure that discussions remain collaborative and that everyone feels comfortable participating.
Thank you for helping us maintain a friendly and supportive environment for all FamilySearch users. As mentioned above, if you have suggestions for improving the site, please submit using Suggest an Idea.
https://community.familysearch.org/en/discussion/171337/why-was-suggest-an-idea-changed?utm_source=community-search&utm_medium=organic-search&utm_term=suggest+an+idea
Your previous comments have been edited for tone and to comply with the Community Code of Conduct.
https://www.familysearch.org/en/help/helpcenter/article/community-code-of-conduct
This thread is now closed.
0
