Hello Alexander, Theodoros and Ludmila, > > I also needed that in order to get the records without publication > > date (260__c), tried everything but didn't include the 'and', hence > > i didn't get the proper results. So, following your suggestion if i > > search for "and not year:$->~", I get the correct results! > > > > However, if i replace year (which indexes 260 $c) with 260__c I > > also get some strange results... That means "and not 260__c:$->~" > > does not work either... > > Can you reproduce it? Any ideas?
Now that I've just created the wondeful authorcount index (thanks, Ludmila!), I can confirm that, at least in our site, "authorcount:0" seems far more reliable than "and not author:$->~". Inspecting the results, I haven't seen any false positive for authorcount:0, and http://ddd.uab.cat/search?f=authorcount&p=0&sc=1 (5,466 hits) http://ddd.uab.cat/search?p=and+not+author%3A%24-%3E~&sc=1 (94 hits) So, we are without a generic expression to find missing values. And, as far as the librarians are concerned, this search is important. Any more ideas? Thanks, Ferran
