Transcript 'Highlights'

Mark McKenzie_1

I did a search using these keywords +"s j tatum" tat* and got the following….

For some reason the letter S and J are highlighted if they stand alone. The important item[s] are highlighted properly…

David A Wilson

@Mark McKenzie_1 Mark, this has been reported to the engineers. I would not expect this to happen

Mark McKenzie_1

@David A Wilson Don't recall seeing this behavior before, but I could have missed it…

Thanks

Mark

Mark McKenzie_1

@David A Wilson I think what has happened, just a guess, is that the highlight function has been changed so that highlights are applied to any keyword[s] in the search box. Be they as a standalone keyword or within a keyword phrase

For this search — +"nelson hays" +"nannie hays"

This is a portion of the results

You can see that any appearance in the transcript of the words nelson… hays… or nannie… are highlighted. Actually this can be helpful to avoid overlooking other Hays family members in the record. In this case there are several. But it can also cause some undesirable highlights to appear like the letters S and J in my first example.

Prior to this change I would typically build my keywords to purposely create this kind of highlighting e.g. +"nelson hays" +"nannie hays" hays

Now that I better understand how the highlights are applied I think this was an intentional change.

Here's one last example. Not the 'best' one, but it can give you an idea of what highlights may be applied that are not so 'useful'… Keyword Phrase — "thomas and frank"

Mark McKenzie_1

So now I'm confused as this FTS result doesn't follow the foregoing… This was the search — +"woodson hays"

The other two Hays' don't show any highlighting

So using different search terms +"woodson hays" hays

Results in this…

???????????????????

David A Wilson

@Mark McKenzie_1 The results in your latest post are exactly what I would expect. Your guess that it was an intentional change my be right but I have not heard back from the search team to verify that.