On Wed, 2007-06-27 at 09:06 -0400, Will Johnson wrote: > >one thing to keep in mind: it's typically not a good idea to have the > >constraint set of a facet change just because some other constraint was > >added to the query -- individual constraints might disappear because > >they no longer apply, but it can be very disconcerting to a user to > >when options hcange on them.... if i search on "ipod" a statistical > >analysis of prices might yeild facet ranges of $1-20, $20-60, $60-120, > >$120-$200 ... if i then click on "accessories" the statistics might > skew > >cheaper, so hte new ranges are $1-20, $20-30, $30-40, $40-70 ... and > now > >i'm a frustrated user, because i relaly wanted ot use the range $20-60 > >(that just happens to be my budget) and you offered it to me and then > you > >took it away ... i have to undo my selection or "accessories" then > click > >$20-60, and then click accessories to get what i wnat ... not very > nice. > > Many of the other engines I've work with in the past did this and it was > one of the most requested/implemented features we had with regard to > facets. That doesn't make it 'right' but it did tend to make product > managers and test users happy. The use case that often came up was the > ability to dynamically drill inside ranges. For instance my first > search for 'computer on a large ecommerce site might yield ranges of > 0-500, 500-1000, 1000-2000, 2000+, selecting 500-1000 might then yield > ranges of 500-600, 600-700 and so on. There are also many different > algorithms that can be employed: equal frequency per facet count, equal > sized ranges, rounded ranges, etc. I just had a conversation with our customer and they also want to have it like this - adjusting with a new facet constraint...
Cheers, Martin > > - will > -- Martin Grotzke http://www.javakaffee.de/blog/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
