Re: WordBreak Qestion (part 2)

This WebDNA talk-list message is from

1998

It keeps the original formatting. numero = 20222
interpreted = N
texte = >I was able to define the word breaks if I am using an AND search>(wagroup1datarq).Do you mean that using group1fieldwbrk= ,. actually works when using wagroup1datarq, but it does NOT work when using wogroup1datarq? Maybe using the wbrk parameter is not applicable to an OR search>However, I woud like, for example, for a customer to>be able to enter the words F-SERIES MUSTANG and the search to find all>items related to f-series (with dash) OR Mustang (I would be using>wogroup1datarq).If the wbrk parameter has a bug in it, or if it simply does not work with wo type searches, I don't think there's a solution to your problem -- unless you offer your visitors several search fields.By using several search fields and instructing visitors to enter only ONE word or phrase in each field -- then maybe you can use wsgroup#data to define each field value as a single string, and OR them together by *not* using the rq suffix after the data part of the search parameters. This is not as elegant a solution as a single search field, but it will probably work ...As an aside, I clearly understand that you *want* to provide an OR type search ... but do you think that most of your visitors will prefer an OR search, or would they be better served by an AND search?The reason I ask is because personally, I would never type F-SERIES MUSTANG into a single search field. I have enough knowledge of Ford motor vehicles to believe that there is no vehicle that would have both F-SERIES and MUSTANG in its database record. Therefore, I would expect to find zero matching records if I entered F-SERIES MUSTANG.On the other hand, I would *definitely* expect to be able to enter F-SERIES 4WD into a field and retrieve ONLY those records that have *both* F-SERIES and 4WD in them. After all, if I'm only interested in 4WD F-series trucks, I will have no desire to waste my time wading thru records for Explorers and 2WD pickups -- yet that's exactly what I would get with an OR type search.Maybe my personal preference in this situation is the result of more database experience than the average use, I don't know. What is your experience with your visitors? Are they more familiar with -- or do they expect -- OR type searches?Or do they more commonly expect to use an AND type search which finds only those records having *all* the search words?Sincerely,Ken Grome808-737-6499WebDNA Solutionsmailto:ken@webdna.nethttp://www.webdna.net Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:

Re: WordBreak Qestion (part 2) (Dave MacLeay 1998)
Re: WordBreak Qestion (part 2) (Kenneth Grome 1998)
WordBreak Qestion (part 2) (Mike Eberly 1998)

>I was able to define the word breaks if I am using an AND search>(wagroup1datarq).Do you mean that using group1fieldwbrk= ,. actually works when using wagroup1datarq, but it does NOT work when using wogroup1datarq? Maybe using the wbrk parameter is not applicable to an OR search>However, I woud like, for example, for a customer to>be able to enter the words F-SERIES MUSTANG and the search to find all>items related to f-series (with dash) OR Mustang (I would be using>wogroup1datarq).If the wbrk parameter has a bug in it, or if it simply does not work with wo type searches, I don't think there's a solution to your problem -- unless you offer your visitors several search fields.By using several search fields and instructing visitors to enter only ONE word or phrase in each field -- then maybe you can use wsgroup#data to define each field value as a single string, and OR them together by *not* using the rq suffix after the data part of the search parameters. This is not as elegant a solution as a single search field, but it will probably work ...As an aside, I clearly understand that you *want* to provide an OR type search ... but do you think that most of your visitors will prefer an OR search, or would they be better served by an AND search?The reason I ask is because personally, I would never type F-SERIES MUSTANG into a single search field. I have enough knowledge of Ford motor vehicles to believe that there is no vehicle that would have both F-SERIES and MUSTANG in its database record. Therefore, I would expect to find zero matching records if I entered F-SERIES MUSTANG.On the other hand, I would *definitely* expect to be able to enter F-SERIES 4WD into a field and retrieve ONLY those records that have *both* F-SERIES and 4WD in them. After all, if I'm only interested in 4WD F-series trucks, I will have no desire to waste my time wading thru records for Explorers and 2WD pickups -- yet that's exactly what I would get with an OR type search.Maybe my personal preference in this situation is the result of more database experience than the average use, I don't know. What is your experience with your visitors? Are they more familiar with -- or do they expect -- OR type searches?Or do they more commonly expect to use an AND type search which finds only those records having *all* the search words?Sincerely,Ken Grome808-737-6499WebDNA Solutionsmailto:ken@webdna.nethttp://www.webdna.net Kenneth Grome

DOWNLOAD WEBDNA NOW!

Re: WordBreak Qestion (part 2)

1998

Top Articles:

Related Readings: