Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-solr-user-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: (qmail 26357 invoked from network); 9 Apr 2010 02:05:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 9 Apr 2010 02:05:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 82750 invoked by uid 500); 9 Apr 2010 02:05:19 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-solr-user-archive@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 82707 invoked by uid 500); 9 Apr 2010 02:05:19 -0000 Mailing-List: contact solr-user-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list solr-user@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 82699 invoked by uid 99); 9 Apr 2010 02:05:19 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 09 Apr 2010 02:05:19 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.9 required=10.0 tests=AWL,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of goksron@gmail.com designates 209.85.221.184 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.221.184] (HELO mail-qy0-f184.google.com) (209.85.221.184) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 09 Apr 2010 02:05:14 +0000 Received: by qyk14 with SMTP id 14so3029762qyk.14 for ; Thu, 08 Apr 2010 19:04:53 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:received:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=iKUyCdS8OsbgoG/KNXADtXr0k+Mee4nS++MHTrJbqK4=; b=XsYW+RwFNQxxN+SEg0Mu3OKx2VSMTDwrgJFst/Xw1ALMEVNPFhaR+n4XLtUKbTzB0q 3TCfAdb166zChZsAn5faVxHQVXy1U0a3pkEGKn89dARWPwoiLAUNU9A2TIZrQJTH7Aiz PI2qmkJtgHh7iWsj8i8VpV57vSeHVEOFXL+g4= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=Ktt7eRU6ci5l2WxT0oWdQ8n4D079tZDW4Khxzunlw+sw3Ybue85NqdM9NEXwIKtEUq EpioEDGDeEclDvh7cw4YFIwTt9yidBYKd88SW7SQ21lKqcthSVCgI0Rt2a4fM069EH21 Y/uctLl6/HUbam2Qe6gkyqaE2PIVkU7Rg+O9E= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.234.6 with HTTP; Thu, 8 Apr 2010 19:04:52 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <3504767f1003180956l61c9effau366c7ec9287126a4@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2010 19:04:52 -0700 Received: by 10.229.81.81 with SMTP id w17mr1401027qck.4.1270778693113; Thu, 08 Apr 2010 19:04:53 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Subject: Re: [search_dev] Re: Opinions on Facet+Fulltext behavior? From: Lance Norskog To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org, yonik@lucidimagination.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable This is how http://www.lucidimagination.com/search works. On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 2:54 PM, Yonik Seeley w= rote: > On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 5:44 PM, Mark Bennett wrote= : >> A while back I had asked about the proper behavior when combining fullte= xt >> search with Tags or Faceted filtering. =C2=A0Generally folks agree that >> Tags/Facets should further filter search search results. =C2=A0The searc= h text >> should be "sticky" when facets are clicked. >> >> The issue was whether selected Tag or Facet filters should remain in eff= ect >> when the search text is changed. =C2=A0Should search and tags be mutuall= y sticky? >> >> Almost universally folks seem to prefer option A, where search text and >> facets are "mutually sticky". > > That's my vote too. > Often, one is just refining the search terms, and if constraints are > cleared it can be a lot of work to go and select them all again. > > -Yonik > Apache Lucene Eurocon 2010 > 18-21 May 2010 | Prague > --=20 Lance Norskog goksron@gmail.com