Re: [IUG] Strange Search Results

["Mark Huppert" <Mark dot Huppert at anu dot edu dot au>]

Bob

Elizabeth's point was that the advanced operators
should be invisible to the non nerd -
that vast majority of users who don't do "boolean".

But the way things are now, the reverse is true -- the masses
have to jump through hoops, while the system is made easy for
propeller heads.

The majority should not be forced to put quotes around particular
words. And most of them don't want to waste time hearing why.

Therefore, a new syntax is needed. 

regards

Mark

========================================
Mark Huppert
Library Web Development  &
Integrated Library Management System Coordinator
Division of Information
R.G. Menzies Building (#2)
The Australian National University
ACTON ACT 0200

T: +61 02 6125 2752 
F: +61 02 6125 4063
W: http://anulib.anu.edu.au/about/

CRICOS Provider #00120C
========================================


-----Original Message-----
From: innopac-bounces at innopacusers dot org
[mailto:innopac-bounces at innopacusers dot org]On Behalf Of Bob Duncan
Sent: Tuesday, 19 February 2008 12:42 PM
To: IUG INNOPAC List
Subject: Re: [IUG] Strange Search Results


On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 18:13:21 -0500 (EST)
  Elizabeth Thomsen <et at noblenet dot org> wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Feb 2008, Bob Duncan wrote:
>> >I'd be willing to give up all of these Boolean proximity operators because
>> >I think they are seldom used intentionally and fairly frequently mess up
>> >searches when these common words happen to occur in titles searched in
>> >keyword, but a better option would be to allow users to enter these using
>> >some special syntax.
>> 
>> Can't they already?  Or is surrounding the offending terms with 
>> quotes not what you had in mind?  (Negates the operators as such and 
>> deals with the colon as well.)
> 
> Yes, but we should put the burden on the power searcher who is
> intentionally using these common words as proximity operators, not someone
> who is just thinking of them as words in the title.  The student looking
> for a title like AFTER THE FALL has no way of knowing why he got no hits,
> wouldn't think that "AFTER" might have some special significance to the
> system and shouldn't have to diddle around with quotation marks or
> whatever just to find the title.

I'm in total agreement, but I was responding to "a better option would be to 
allow users to enter these using some special syntax";  just suggesting that a 
special syntax of sorts (quotes) already exists.  In order for any special 
syntax to be useful, the searcher would have to know to use it, no? Or do I 
misunderstand your original message?

Bob Duncan


~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~
Robert E. Duncan
Systems Librarian
David Bishop Skillman Library
Lafayette College
Easton, PA  18042
duncanr at lafayette dot edu
http://www.library.lafayette.edu/
--
This message was distributed through the Innovative Users Group INNOPAC list
Public replies:  INNOPAC at innopacusers dot org
Update your subscription options: http://innopacusers.org/mailman/listinfo/innopac