And and and

August 23 2006

This has been discussed a bit in the Lotus Partner Forum over the last few days, and it seems like a good thing to surface here.

In Notes "Hannover", the default search behavior will assume AND searches, as in a search entered as Thomas Gumz Lotus will search for Thomas AND Gumz AND Lotus.  In Notes 7 and prior, it would search for the literal "Thomas Gumz Lotus" string.  That search is still possible using quotes, but is no longer the default.  The search engine isn't changing, only the UI.  And of course, you can change it back...

Image:And and and

In the Partner Forum discussion there's been some angst about changing default behavior, and about the fact that true boolean logic requires the AND operators.  The reality is that since every search engine that people use every day (like google) does this assumed AND behavior, this is a place where Notes "Hannover" will be more in-line with user expectations than Notes is today.

Ed Brill | Highland Park, IL USA Category:  Notes and Domino 8  Add/View Comments [37]

Post a Comment

  1. 1  Don McNally http://dmcnally.blogspot.com | 8/23/2006 1:59:42 PM

    Yea! That has really tripped me up. I like that it will be an option as well so people can set it as they prefer.

  1. 2  Bruce Elgort http://www.TakingNotesPodcast.com | 8/23/2006 2:33:52 PM

    I prefer the new assumed "AND" approach. Will this also be the behavior for searches via the web for Domino apps?

  1. 3  Simon Barratt http://apps.fmc.com/blog.nsf | 8/23/2006 3:11:55 PM

    This is a good, common sense decision! I think it will make adhoc user searching more successful.

  1. 4  Dag Kvello  | 8/23/2006 3:25:56 PM

    Well, I don't like it. 15 wrongs don't make a right. Just because Google, Yahoo, Altavista etc. goes about this the wrong way, doesn't mean that Notes should.

    As the saying goes (as to Assumed AND).

    "Nevere Assume, You only make an "Ass" out of "u" and "me".

  1. 5  David Raciot  | 8/23/2006 3:43:41 PM

    Seems we have a choice of assumptions?

    a) assume the AND

    b) assume that the search window is using true boolean and force the entry of AND between terms.

    Hmmm, how many people know what boolean is?

    I vote for a).

  1. 6  Gavin Bollard http://dominogavin.blogspot.com/ | 8/23/2006 3:50:59 PM

    Great Ed, Thanks for the Heads up... We may need to change a couple of "help messages" on our systems.

    I can see the sense in this decision and I'm happy that the inverted commas can be used to mimic the old behaviour.

    Also - a big WELL DONE ! to IBM for having the sense to provide users with an option to override their decision. Something typical of IBM, but never even considered by their competitors.

  1. 7  Kevin Pettitt http://www.lotusguru.com | 8/23/2006 4:06:09 PM

    Ed, when you say "only the UI" will be changing, does that mean lotusscript code employing the FTSearch method will continue to require the same syntax, or are the options there changing/expanding in some way?

  1. 8  Thomas Schulte  | 8/23/2006 4:21:03 PM

    Ok we will have to retrain our users that use FTQuerys on a regular base.

    Uhh?? Which users?? What FTQuery?? Notes is able to do a FTSearch on a database??

    Most of our 600 or so users simply forget 2 hours after they were told that such a thing as FTSearch exists and how they could use it. So i vote YEs for the AND. And thank you IBM for being able to go back to old manners.

    You finally have made something right. *SMILE*

  1. 9  Gerry Murphy  | 8/23/2006 6:19:15 PM

    Good move.

    An example where the standard has been established elswhere, I agree that this is sensible so that the average user gets the results that they want.

    BTW, can the search field entry automatically carry over to the archive when a user switches from searching the current mail file onto the archive??.

    I really get annoyed as I know of several people, including myself, who only keep the last 45 days in their current mail file and are searching for a particular e-mail between the current and archive files. Having to copy and paste or re-enter the search criteria as one transfers to the archive strikes me as unnecessary.

    I've even educated my CEO to have a small current mail file and he has griped about the need to re-enter the search terms.

    Gerry

  1. 10  brian leonard  | 8/23/2006 7:09:11 PM

    I happen to have implemented this change in Hannover and wanted to add a few things.

    a) The programmatic use of FT search still works the same way so this won't change your applications that use that. I figured you could program the ANDs if that's what you really wanted.

    b) Your saved queries (more > load query) will have the same results.

    c) You can still use any of the advanced syntax if you capitalize all the letters of the word (ACCRUE!)

    d) if you don't want the ANDs between words, you can use quotes

    e) We added support for the + and - operators: big news if you were tired of typing NOT

  1. 11  Chris Whisonant http://cwhisonant.blogspot.com | 8/23/2006 7:29:11 PM

    Great! Now Notes will behave more like my Google Desktop search!! I use it to search my mail more than Notes because it fits my searching "lifestyle". Great move IBM, and thanks for making it a configurable option. If a company or admin doesn't like it, just change the Desktop Settings document on the server to default to the old behavior.

    The "assumed AND" should be the default. Thanks again!!

  1. 12  Henning Heinz  | 8/23/2006 7:31:18 PM

    Especially e) is great news for me as I am used to the "+" and "-" for searching. I hope that it will also be supported in the domino web engine.

  1. 13  David Bell  | 8/23/2006 7:33:06 PM

    But Google doesn't AND the search terms. It OR's them with higher hit rates bubbling to the top of the result set, which APPEARS to be doing an AND search. But it does include results that do not contain all terms.

    This has been discussed somewhere before, maybe an internal news forum.

  1. 14  Tim Rand  | 8/23/2006 8:36:30 PM

    This is one of the most vexing problems for my users searching within Notes. I'm happy to have the default change along with the option to revert the behavior back to the older mode. Great work. Seems simple, but these simple issues really bother users and are a constant source of users saying "See, Notes doesn't work again".

  1. 15  Charles Robinson http://cubert-codepoet.blogspot.com | 8/23/2006 8:54:47 PM

    Good job. Now if only I could get people to search instead of asking me to make every column in every view sortable.

  1. 16  Roland Reddekop  | 8/23/2006 9:52:40 PM

    The average user in my organization has no clue they need to use boolean logic for searches in Notes. We actually customized our domain search form (we call it Super Search) to allow regular Google-style web searches which are converted programmatically to Notes-style searches when submitted to the search fuction. However, I can't make this the default for searching their mail file. My users will appreciate the consistency of bringing basic Notes searches to their mail file. Boolean searches should be considered as an advanced search option.

  1. 17  Richard Schwartz http://www.rhs.com/poweroftheschwartz | 8/23/2006 10:17:39 PM

    @13 David, if Google ORs terms, please explain this:

    Search for Lotus Notes: 36,800,000 hits.

    Search for Lotus Notes IBM 11,700,000 hits.

    If it were an OR, the number of hits should have increased, not decreased, when an additional term was added.

  1. 18  Richard Schwartz http://www.rhs.com/poweroftheschwartz | 8/23/2006 10:28:13 PM

    As to the change, I'll just amplify what I've posted on the partner forum: I have no issue with the new functionality being available, but I do have an issue if the default behavior changes with no "in your face" notice to users who are accustomed to the old behavior. I would prefer to see either a visible toggle for the behavior right there on the search bar, or a pop-up warning that comes up the first time any user enters a search string whose behavior is different under the new scheme, and offers an option to continue with the new behavior or switch to the old behavior.

  1. 19  Chad Schelfhout http://www.chadsmiley.com | 8/23/2006 11:44:50 PM

    Great decision, less typing allways a plus. I like the + and - of @10, less typing again.

  1. 20  Ian Randall  | 8/24/2006 1:07:31 AM

    Teaching end users to use boolean search logic is like hearding cats. Even getting to understand the difference between and/or is hard work. We have gotten around this by providing a search form that composes a valid search query syntax for the end user.

    However, giving the option to use an assumed AND as well as the traditional way is a greate step forward. Good move IBM.

  1. 21  Ingo Erdmann  | 8/24/2006 1:40:06 AM

    This is great news.

    As users are so used to Google syntax, I have even been asked to report this "bug" in Notes FT search, as it doesn't find what they need although they know it's there.

  1. 22  schlusi  | 8/24/2006 2:09:09 AM

  1. 23  Mike Brown  | 8/24/2006 2:40:14 AM

    At last! This is only about six years overdue, but welcome all the same.

    Cheers,

    - Mike

  1. 24  Andrew Price http://www.healthspace.com | 8/24/2006 2:54:27 AM

    Great change!! Thx Lotus

    Now if only the spell checker would skip URLs ....

    :)

  1. 25  Darryl Miles  | 8/24/2006 5:41:03 AM

    Great (logical) decision. I'd like the ability to search my 'mail' and it would do my mail and my archives as well. From a user perspective...it's all just mail.

    Darryl

  1. 26  larry  | 8/24/2006 9:27:42 AM

    Google claims to default AND between search terms:

    { Link }

    Mike Golding has created a javascript solution to automatically insert the ANDs between searchterms.

    { Link }

    and

    { Link }

  1. 27  Norm Van Bergen http://www.symcor.com | 8/24/2006 10:06:48 AM

    Will this option be exposed in desktop policy settings documents?

  1. 28  Ed Brill http://www.edbrill.com | 8/24/2006 12:37:25 PM

    @27 Pretty sure yes.

  1. 29  Patrick  | 8/24/2006 1:33:44 PM

    In version 6, when I put in a string of words, I get no results. When I enclose the same string in quotes, I get the document containing that phrase. Are we sure Notes is defaulting to exact phrase?

  1. 30  brian leonard  | 8/24/2006 5:05:23 PM

    @18 Richard, I left out two more things related to your point.

    f) The "tooltip text" for the query entry and the text ("search:") tothe left of it tells you what mode you are in: something like: "web syntax search" or "notes syntax search"

    This is not quite as visible as you may want, but it does allow you check quickly what mode you are in if you sit down at someone else's computer.

    g) If, for whatever reason, you have your default to be the web search but every now and then want take things old-school (or once again sit at someone else's computer and don't want to change their setting), there is an escape: if you type forward slash (/) at the beginning of the query, it will skip the syntax translation of whatever follows.

  1. 31  Matt  | 8/25/2006 8:46:46 AM

    So Ed - when's the notes.net discussion forums going to switch over to using this search syntax? ;)

  1. 32  David Bell  | 8/25/2006 12:56:37 PM

    @17, @26 - I stand corrected. Apologies.

    As I had mentioned in that post, I had read another similar discussion, and obviously that had misinformation in it.

  1. 33  Paul  | 8/25/2006 1:57:51 PM

    Major kudos to whoever made this long-awaited decision!

    Maybe Notes designers now realize that every departure from what 95% of users do habitually (Web, Windows and, yes, some MS app UI conventions) puts another hurdle between their customers and productivity.

    Now...when my search results appear, will I be able to click a column heading to sort them by date or name? (Not in 6.5.5 client.)

  1. 34  David Bell  | 8/26/2006 8:56:31 PM

    @33 - with the "sort results by" option set to "keep current order (sortable)" I can sort by any of the other columns that allow sorting.

    I am using 7.0.1, but I'm pretty sure this has been available since before 7.0.

  1. 35  Paul  | 8/28/2006 9:49:35 AM

    @34 - Interesting, thanx. I don't see a "sort results by" option in 6.5.5. but maybe I don't know where to look. Be great if "keep current order (sortable)" is--or becomes--the default.

  1. 36  David Bell  | 8/29/2006 11:03:02 AM

    @35 - in the search panel, click on More to drop down additional options. "Sort results by" drop down list is on the right of these additional settings.

  1. 37  Dovid  | 9/1/2006 4:50:41 PM

    Wouldn't it be simple to put a little drop down instead of a tooltip? Makes it dead easy for user to tell the mode -- AND SWITCH IT! Don't bury it under MORE either, just make it small enough to be unobtrusive.

    As to .FTSearch, why not also give programmers the option, save some script wear-and-tear. Either Yet Another parameter flag to FTSearch, or an alternate function (.FTSearchSimplified? I hate calling it "web search")

    And finally, @9 was the best comment yet. Need to get some mechanism for searching across databases. Maybe something like the old R4 multiple database index?