1203422 - Global search results: Implement option to always sort by Date not Relevance

Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 663859

(Thunderbird :: Search, defect)

Description

[hv]

User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Ubuntu; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/38.0
Build ID: 20150511103818

Steps to reproduce:

I use the quick filter




Actual results:

The results of the quick filter was sorted by relevance.



Expected results:

I want to change the default: Sort by date (descending) should be my default.

I guess there are many other people like me. There is even a plugin to get this:

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/thunderbird/addon/search-results-sort-by-date-no/

There must be a way to always sort by date without installing a plugin.

Prosa:

Why is sort by relevance the default?

I see no reason why relevance is the default.

Which data gets used to calculate the "relevance"?

Comment 1

[Thomas D. (:thomas8)]

Thanks. Terminology: You are talking about Global search (Ctrl+K), not quick filter (the filter bar on top of message list, available by quick filter button with magnifier icon).

I agree we should give users a choice which way of sorting results is better for them.
I have become sceptical against remembering last user choices (to prevent once-only choices spoiling the default experience), but in this case, it might work to just remember which sorting you picked last for the next search?

Comment 2

[hv]

Yes, Thomas D. I was talking about "Global search".

Sorting by relevance is great if it the result order matches the expectations.

My guess: The current result of the relevance computation does not match what most people expect.

My guess: In 95% of all searches you search for the last mail of a person.

If I search for "Malcolm" I search for the last mail of a person with this name.

I personally don't need a relevance score. For me it would be enough to order by
date descending.

Comment 3

[Wayne Mery (:wsmwk)]

> Sorting by relevance is great if it the result order matches the expectations.

And if you are doing historical mining, and the mail volume is great.

Would bug 663859 meet your needs?  (I rather doubt we would add a preference)