[Tagdb] vertical search, strong typing and multi-field queries

[Nitin Borwankar]

Otis,

You bring up an important point - that of a specialized search syntax 
labeled "advanced search".

I would posit that filling in multiple fields is far easier/less effort 
than using the "advanced" syntax which varies from site to site and the 
effort of learning that is clearly not justified unless you are planning 
to do many such searches. I fully understand why users don't want to use 
such an "advanced" search and would find even 2% a large number.

 Providing a special syntax that fits into one field ... people seem to 
believe that some how that's a useful thing.  One field on a horizontal 
search must of need be typeless. Overloading that with syntax to allow 
typed search .... why not provide a multi-field form as well ....

You mention 1 field != unstructured.  I have no position on what is 
structured or not -- I am talking very specifically about typed data 
underlying the search and don't want to fuzzy the discussion by 
replacing "typed" with "structured".

You mention general web search engines vs. services people really need - 
these are not "either or".
I really need Google and I use but don't really need a vertical podcast 
search on Odeo.

This is not about minimizing the importance of Google - Google is a very 
valuable search metaphor but *not the only one*.
The needs of vertical search are necessarily different and trying to 
provide a one-size fits all metaphor is futile, IMO.

About multiple field queries - let's look at the history of that --- 
relational databases have been around since the 80's.
One of the first "applications" on top of RDBMS's was QBF or 
Query-By-Forms which is a search with a multi-field query form as input.
These applications predate the Web, the Internet, Linux, the PC, 
windowing systems and even client-server architectures.

These application ran on mainframes with character terminals - 
back-office personnel - telephone support, reservations agents etc. in 
all service industries have been using these for the last 20 years or 
more. 

These users are not "technical" users, they are the people who answer 
the phones when you call your utility company to discuss your bill.

Now consider that to use Google one has to be minimally computer 
literate and has probably filled out more than one computer form to sign 
up for an Internet account, for an email account ...  One is able to 
fill out the To: and Subject: lines on email on a regular basis. 
Considering all this would you still suggest that multiple fields are 
"too hard" for the user ?

Nitin



ogjunk-tagdb at yahoo.com wrote:

>Copies/pasted that email again...
>
>General web search engine and a service that people _really_ need are different.  People may be willing to spend more time entering information in multiple fields there in order to get high quality results.  Because the former gives SO many results, it's hard to judge whether the top hits are really the best matches, and you get enough hits, that entering a "less structured" is ok.
>
>Also keep in mind that 1 field != unstructured.
>See Simpy for example: 
>http://www.simpy.com/simpy/FAQ.do#searchSyntax
>http://www.simpy.com/simpy/FAQ.do#searchFieldsLinks
>
>One input field, but many search fields, and many search operators == lots of search power.
>
>Or, create what most other services create - simple + advanced search, and monitor their use.  I think I recall reading something on Tim Bray's blog about only 2% of users using advanced search.... but that was several years ago.
>
>Otis
>
>----- Original Message ----
>From: Nitin Borwankar <nitin at borwankar.com>
>To: tagdb at lists.tagschema.com
>Sent: Thu 02 Feb 2006 01:50:52 PM EST
>Subject: [Tagdb] vertical search, strong typing amd multi-field queries
>
>Slightly unrelated to tags/folksonomy but only slightly.
>
>In my current consulting a recurring issue is that of search.
>(A tag bundle can be used as a filter to reduce search scope and then we 
>can do raw text or other searches.  But that is a separate topic .... )
>
>I'd like to ask the list about the current dogma about providing a 
>single search field with the belief that non-technical users find 
>multiple fields too complicated and they will "leave" -  this belief is 
>predominant in the major search engine companies.  There is also a UI 
>dogma that simplicity is better and this dogma often dominates common 
>sense approaches driven by the structure of underlying data.
>
>See www.simplyhired.com for an example of a site that has moved away ( 
>slightly ) from the single field dogma. 
>
>I find the single query field appropriate for horizontal search engines 
>like Google etc. where the query could be about anything.
>But what if I am at a site that has say book information - does it make 
>sense to provide a single field or does a set of fields 
>title/author/publisher/....
>make more sense?  When we have domain specialization for search i.e. 
>vertical search, is it automatic that we also have strong typing of 
>underlying data and hence multi-field search? Does a single field ( 
>typeless query ) make sense for a vertical search engine.
>
>
>Nitin Borwankar.
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Tagdb mailing list
>Tagdb at lists.tagschema.com
>http://lists.tagschema.com/mailman/listinfo/tagdb
>  
>