[HN Gopher] Falsehoods Programmers Believe About Search (2019) ___________________________________________________________________ Falsehoods Programmers Believe About Search (2019) Author : ddtaylor Score : 44 points Date : 2022-05-29 18:05 UTC (4 hours ago) (HTM) web link (opensourceconnections.com) (TXT) w3m dump (opensourceconnections.com) | flappyeagle wrote: | What's a facet in this context | djbusby wrote: | Filters. | | Faceted search is a technique that involves augmenting | traditional search techniques with a faceted navigation system, | allowing users to narrow down search results by applying | multiple filters based on faceted classification of the items | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faceted_search | henning wrote: | These lists are a great way to produce a big list of strawmen | that most programmers don't actually believe. | | They should have picked statements that are often true or true in | certain situations so that they are "false" in the sense that | they are not always true, drawing zero distinction between | "mostly true/situationally true" and "completely false" in a | field where the answer to most questions about system design is | "it depends". | Buttons840 wrote: | I think the name implies some frustration with stupid technical | limitations many systems have. "What do you mean my password | can't contain special characters? What are you doing? What do | you mean my first name can't be more than 15 characters?" Stuff | like that. | nzgrover wrote: | "Falsehoods Programmers Believe" posts considered harmful. | draw_down wrote: | bryanrasmussen wrote: | I think I believe this | | "Search can be added as a well performing feature to your | existing product with reasonable effort" | | if you append | | ", as long as your existing product is one that would benefit | from having search added to it." | | to the end of it | cgrealy wrote: | Very much depends on what "reasonable effort" looks like. | | If product management think it's "just point lucene at the | DB.. maybe a sprint or two", then you're in for an | interesting conversation.... | Pulcinella wrote: | Some of them definitely are more like "Falsehoods the | client/marketing/sales believe about search." e.g. "Search can | be added as a well performing feature to your existing product | quickly." Have definitely gotten questions about "why can't you | just quickly add search" based on this falsehood before. | dang wrote: | Discussed at the time: | | _Falsehoods Programmers Believe About Search_ - | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20039891 - May 2019 (179 | comments) | tootie wrote: | You definitely can add search pretty easily and without a lot of | thought and get something perfectly usable. As with anything, you | can spend an arbitrary amount of time optimizing for specific use | cases. It's like how complicated is a contact form? Does it have | 3 fields and send an email? Or does have 30 cascading fields | prefilled on user behavior and synced to a CRM? | binarymax wrote: | Fun to see this here again. Love the controversy and discussion | this brings. I wrote it in a good humor and I still giggle at the | some of reactionary responses. "How dare you call this a | falsehoods list" and so forth. | | Anyway things are getting better now. More people got into search | and info retrieval since I dropped this list. And there's a great | growing community out there of people who find and adore the | problem space. For those who enjoy reading, I'm glad you do! For | the people who don't, ... :) | | Happy searchin'! | SoftTalker wrote: | I wonder if there's a corresponding list of "falsehoods users | believe about how search works" | | When I use a search engine, I know I am often choosing my search | terms based on suppositions about how the search engine works, | but if I'm honest, I really have no idea. It usually devolves to | trial and error until I find results that are close to what I | wanted. | mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote: | My roommate's hamster had a porn addiction in his teens. That | hamster really learned how to use a search engine. | | Some notes I found scribbled in his cage: | | 1. Never use the onsite search function. It's broken, | undocumented, limited. Use google or ddg with 'site:...' | | 2. Learn all the search operators like intitle, inurl, etc. | | 3. Try different search engines. Sometimes one engine happens | not to have indexed what you're looking for yet | | 4. Search for the text in UI elements of websites. E.g if you'm | looking for a movie made in a particular year, go to IMDB and | look at the part of a movie page that says the year, then | search for that particular string like this: 'site:imdb.com | "Made in: 1996"' you can turn almost any recurring element of a | website into a tag this way. | | 5. Most of the above tips work best if you have a specific site | to search use 'site:...' So, divide and conquer. Find the | site(s) that will probably contain what you want and only then | search for the thing. | johnny22 wrote: | i know the feeling. I have trouble getting results I need | sometimes, while my colleague doesn't, because he types in full | sentences and i try to hone on specific terms :( | draw_down wrote: ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-05-29 23:00 UTC)