Searching Chinese characters with Wildcards stopped working
[Originally from https://community.familysearch.org/en/discussion/comment/573000]
Based on
we should be able to use an asterisk (*) for multiple characters or a question mark (?) for a single character.It worked before so I have several bookmarks, for example "searching for someone named 李段* whose father is 李爾*"
Unfortunately they stopped working since a few months ago. Now it says "No Results Found".
Also it looks like the wildcard stopped working with Chinese characters in general, not just for a specific character.
- Another bookmark for "李普* whose father is 李光*". It used to work and now return nothing as well. https://www.familysearch.org/search/tree/results?count=100&q.fatherGivenName=%E5%85%89%2A&q.fatherGivenName.exact=on&q.fatherSurname=%E6%9D%8E&q.fatherSurname.exact=on&q.givenName=%E6%99%AE%2A&q.givenName.exact=on&q.sex=Male&q.surname=%E6%9D%8E&q.surname.exact=on
- While searching for "伯*" it also returns "*伯". https://www.familysearch.org/search/tree/results?count=100&q.givenName=%E4%BC%AF%2A&q.givenName.exact=on&q.sex=Male&q.surname=%E6%9D%8E&q.surname.exact=on
Another pair of queries
- While searching with exact match it returns three results without wildcard. There should be 20+ rows. https://www.familysearch.org/search/tree/results?count=100&q.givenName=%2A%E7%B9%B9&q.givenName.exact=on&q.sex=Male&q.surname=%E6%9D%8E&q.surname.exact=on
- While searching without exact match it returns incorrect results since row 4. https://www.familysearch.org/search/tree/results?count=100&q.givenName=%2A%E7%B9%B9&q.sex=Male&q.surname=%E6%9D%8E
Anyone experience similar issues?
Respostas
-
A fix for this is underway. If it still doesn't work in a day or so, click the feedback button and let FamilySearch know.
0 -
-
I cleared cookies and disabled extensions, and now it stopped showing "Something Went Wrong" and it shows "No Results Found".
I removed the father part and it returns three exact match records, which means wildcard doesn't work.
If I remove exact match, it returns a lot of unrelated records.
Anyway, just want to update the thread and shows that still it doesn't work as expected.
0