[OPEN-ILS-DEV] Evergreen search discussion

Mon Oct 26 08:25:22 EDT 2015

While search speed and retrieval order does need to be improved, we do get 
complaints from users about how searches are displayed. The long list of 
titles can be frustrating. While improving retrieval order will improve 
this, there may still be instances where the search target may be buried 
down the list for valid reasons -- in a subject search, for example. Having 
a more condensed way to display titles to minimize scrolling might be good 
(facets do make this better).

I would also like to see the search cap handled differently. It currently 
stops at 10,000 and doesn't give the user any indication that it did so. 
Informing the user that their results are capped and either giving them a 
way to retrieve additional titles or suggesting they search again, with 
filters and more information. I wouldn't stop that initial search (like OCLC 
does); but, I would let the user know that they may need to search again to 
find what they need. With a database the size of PINES, users do hit that 
10,000 threshold.

When we were originally testing Evergreen there was a "did you mean" 
functionality. It was a free add on and we got what we paid for since the 
suggestions were profane and not safe for work.  It was a source of much 
amusement at the time.

Elaine

J. Elaine Hardy
PINES & Collaborative Projects Manager
Georgia Public Library Service
1800 Century Place, Ste 150
Atlanta, Ga. 30345-4304

404.235.7128
404.235.7201, fax
ehardy at georgialibraries.org
www.georgialibraries.org
www.georgialibraries.org/pines

-----Original Message-----
From: Open-ils-dev [mailto:open-ils-dev-bounces at list.georgialibraries.org] 
On Behalf Of McCanna, Terran
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2015 5:15 PM
To: Evergreen Development Discussion List 
<open-ils-dev at list.georgialibraries.org>
Subject: Re: [OPEN-ILS-DEV] Evergreen search discussion

We are definitely interested in all aspects of Evergreen search. 
Unfortunately, I will not be able to attend the hack-a-way in Boston, but 
Chris Sharp will be there. Any ideas to improve search speed would be 
extremely welcome for us, and the 'did you mean?' functionality is something 
that is frequently requested.

Terran McCanna
PINES Program Manager
Georgia Public Library Service
1800 Century Place, Suite 150
Atlanta, GA 30345
404-235-7138
tmccanna at georgialibraries.org
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kathy Lussier" <klussier at masslnc.org>
To: open-ils-dev at list.georgialibraries.org
Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2015 3:37:19 PM
Subject: [OPEN-ILS-DEV] Evergreen search discussion

Hi all,

I've added a topic to the hack-a-way agenda to discuss Evergreen search.
However, I wanted to raise the topic here on the list first since the 
discussion may require some forethought and because I imagine there are 
people interested in this discussion who won't be attending the hack-a-way.

In discussing our development priorities for the year, MassLNC decided to 
focus on making improvements to search in Evergreen. We view  search as one 
of the most important pieces of the ILS, if not the most important. It's 
what allows our users to find those resources we spend so much time 
cataloging so that they can then place holds on them, check them out from 
the library, or access them in some other way.

There are some specific development projects we identified as
possibilities: Did you Mean? functionality, working auto-suggest, improved 
speed, etc. However, rather than tacking these improvements on to the 
existing search, we thought it might be a good time for the community to 
step back, take a big-picture look at how we're doing search, and determine 
if we should continue down this path, if we need to make major underlying 
changes for our current path to be more performant/effective, or if we 
should consider moving to something else to handle Evergreen search.

Would it be worthwhile to move to something like Solr or Elasticsearch or 
something other thing to handle Evergreen searches? If not, are there 
changes we should do to better utilize improvements full-text search that 
have been made to recent versions of PostgreSQL? I don't have the answers to 
these questions, but I think it's worthwhile for the community to identify 
what we expect of Evergreen search and to do a thorough analysis of 
available options to determine what will best help us attain those goals.

Over the past few months, the folks at MassLNC have started a discussion of 
what our overall goals for search are. From these discussions, we have 
created a vision for what we would like to see in Evergreen search
- http://masslnc.org/search_vision .

 From this search vision, we then identified specific areas of improvements 
/ new features that would help Evergreen reach this vision.
We also identified areas where we already are doing well and will want to 
maintain - http://masslnc.org/node/3164.

I'm sure there are some areas where others may disagree with our ideas, but 
I'm guessing there are other areas where we'll get broad community consensus 
around some of these search priorities.

I don't think we're in a position where we can choose a direction at the 
hack-a-way, but maybe we can do the following:

* At the hack-a-way,  can we have a discussion to see if there is interest 
in this project? We might also be able to identify some viable options that 
could be explored at the hack-a-way.
* After the hack-a-way, the community could work on setting and prioritizing 
high-level goals for search in the Evergreen catalog.
Ideally, we would have these search goals ready by the end of the calendar 
year. I would be willing to help facilitate this process.
* After the goals are identified, we explore available options to see which 
will the best to help us attain those goals. It would be great if we had the 
ability to do some prototypes during this phase, but this would depend on 
people having the time / resources to do those prototypes.
* Ideally, by the time we meet again at the conference hackfest in April, 
we'll be in a position where we can set a direction for search and then move 
forward with development.

I'm sure the process won't be as simple as what I outlined above, and all of 
you may have better ideas on the best ways to evaluate our options. But I'm 
hoping this email helps us kick off a conversation that ultimately leads to 
fast and relevant search in Evergreen.

Thanks!
Kathy

--
Kathy Lussier
Project Coordinator
Massachusetts Library Network Cooperative
(508) 343-0128
klussier at masslnc.org
Twitter:http://www.twitter.com/kmlussier