Well, the use case is rather simple. It is not a use case but more auser experience.
If I have a list of values I can facet on, for example : A B C D E And I click on B, does it make sense for the user to display B C E after the selection ? Just because items in B are C and E items as well? As A user I chose B because I'm interested in B items. I do not care if they are also C and E items. Technically this is correct, but functional wise, the user doesn't care because it is not what they searched for. In this case they were searching for a Cardiologists. Do I care that a cardiologist is also a family doctor? No. So I also do not want to see this as a facet value presented to me in frontend logic. In the item details you can show that the cardiologist is also a family doctor. That is fine, but not as an availbale facet option, if you just chose an speciality you want to filter on. Does it make sense? On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 3:31 PM, lee carroll <lee.a.carr...@googlemail.com>wrote: > Hi Dennis, > > I think maybe I just disagree. Your not showing facet counts for > cardiologists and Family Doctors independently. The Family Doctor > count will be all Family Doctors who are also Cardiologists. > > This allows users to further filter Cardiologists who are also family > Doctors. (this could be of use to them ??) > > If your front end app implements the filtering as a list of fq=xxx > then that would make for consistent results ? > > I don't see how not showing that some cardiologists are also Family > Doctors is a better user experience... But again you might have a very > specific use case? > > On 22 June 2011 13:44, Dennis de Boer <datdeb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Lee, > > > > since I have the same problem, I might as well try to answer this > question. > > > > You want this behaviour to make things clear for your users. If they > select > > cardiologists, does it make sense to also show family doctors as a > > facetvalue to the user. > > The same thing goed for the facets that are related to family doctors. > They > > are returned as well, thus making it even moren unclear for the end-user. > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 2:27 PM, lee carroll > > <lee.a.carr...@googlemail.com>wrote: > > > >> Hi Bill, > >> > >> >So that part works. Then when I output the facet, I need a different > >> >behavior than the default. I need > >> >The facet to only output the value that matches (scored) - NOT ALL > VALUES > >> >in the multiValued field. > >> > >> >I think it makes sense? > >> > >> Why do you need this ? If your use case is faceted navigation then not > >> showing > >> all the facet terms which match your query would be mis-leading to your > >> users. > >> The fact is your data indicates Ben the cardiologist is also a GP etc. > >> Is it not valid for > >> your users to be able to further filter on cardiologists who are also > >> specialists in x other disciplines ? If the specialisms are mutually > >> exclusive then your data will reflect this. > >> > >> The fact is x number of cardiologists match and x number of GP's match > etc > >> > >> I may be missing the point here as you have not said why you need to do > >> this ? > >> > >> cheers lee c > >> > >> > >> On 22 June 2011 09:34, Michael Kuhlmann <s...@kuli.org> wrote: > >> > Am 22.06.2011 09:49, schrieb Bill Bell: > >> >> You can type q=cardiology and match on cardiologist. If stemming did > not > >> >> work you can just add a synonym: > >> >> > >> >> cardiology,cardiologist > >> > > >> > Okay, synonyms are the only way I can think of a realistic match. > >> > > >> > Stemming won't work on a facet field; you wouldn't get "Cardiologist: > 3" > >> > as the result but "cardiolog: 3" or something like that instead. > >> > > >> > Normally, you use declare facet field explicitly for facetting, and > not > >> > for searching, exactly because stemming and tokenizing on facet fields > >> > don't make sense. > >> > > >> > And the short answer is: No, that's not possible. > >> > > >> > -Kuli > >> > > >> > > >
