-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
search ordering and pressing ENTER for page result #126
Comments
+1
…On Sun, Aug 19, 2018 at 10:13 AM Vanessa Sochat ***@***.***> wrote:
I think the ordering of the search might be organized in some fashion that
(might be) more akin to what the user is looking for, although I can't tell
you exactly what is right. But I can provide an example.
Just now, I did a search for "working memory." And probably the first
result, as the "strongest" match should have been working memory (concept).
But in fact the order was:
- Baddeley's model of working memory (theory)
- NCANDA Accuracy - Working Memory (battery)
- NCANDA Speed - Working Memory (battery)
- NIH Toolbox List Sorting Working Memory Test (task)
- Numerical Working Memory Task (task)
- RDoC Working Memory Matrix (theory)
- auditory working memory (concept)
- face working memory task (task)
- object working memory task (task)
- phonological working memory (concept)
- semantic working memory (concept)
- spatial working memory (concept)
- spatial working memory localizer task (task)
- patial working memory task (task)
- tactile working memory (concept)
- verbal working memory task (task)
- visual working memory (concept)
- *working memory (concept)*
- working memory fMRI task paradigm (task)
- working memory maintenance (concept)
- working memory retrieval (concept)
- working memory storage (concept)
- working memory updating (concept)
Notice that the "best" match was super far down the list! I think it's
just returning based on alphabetical order, but grouped by something else
first? I'm wondering if there is any way to put better logic into the
ordering.
The second issue would be that I should be able to type "working memory"
and then press enter to get an organized search summary view. That doesn't
work right now, so if I am a first year graduate student coming to this
interface, it's a bit hard or frustrating to use.
—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#126>, or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AA1KkCmIyZVyMGLmTz7UU-rGqRSneOxfks5uSZy-gaJpZM4WDCvY>
.
--
Russell A. Poldrack
Albert Ray Lang Professor of Psychology
Professor (by courtesy) of Computer Science
Bldg. 420, Jordan Hall
Stanford University
Stanford, CA 94305
[email protected]
http://www.poldracklab.org/
|
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
I think the ordering of the search might be organized in some fashion that (might be) more akin to what the user is looking for, although I can't tell you exactly what is right. But I can provide an example.
Just now, I did a search for "working memory." And probably the first result, as the "strongest" match should have been working memory (concept). But in fact the order was:
Notice that the "best" match was super far down the list! I think it's just returning based on alphabetical order, but grouped by something else first? I'm wondering if there is any way to put better logic into the ordering.
The second issue would be that I should be able to type "working memory" and then press enter to get an organized search summary view. That doesn't work right now, so if I am a first year graduate student coming to this interface, it's a bit hard or frustrating to use.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: