Closed
Bug 602166
Opened 14 years ago
Closed 10 years ago
Recipient autocomplete: Implement dynamic prioritization of results for OS X and LDAP address books (popularityIndex/frequency/recency)
Categories
(Thunderbird :: Address Book, enhancement)
Thunderbird
Address Book
Tracking
(Not tracked)
RESOLVED
DUPLICATE
of bug 543114
People
(Reporter: musterstudent, Unassigned)
References
Details
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.2; en-US; rv:1.9.2.10) Gecko/20100914 Firefox/3.6.10
Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.2; en-US; rv:1.9.2.9) Gecko/20100915 Thunderbird/3.1.4
When composing a message and entering recipients, TB suggests them from the address book.
If multiple people have the same name (e.g. mayer, mueller, smith) as part of either the email address or the last/first name, TB always suggests the same address as recipient.
Often, the first recipient in the suggestion list is not the recipient you want to use.
To fasten the workflow, I propose a simple method which solves the problem:
The address book saves the frequency of message exchange to a particular email and makes recipient suggestions based on this data.
For example:
-I have two ppl. with the same last name in my address book.
-First, a data value "number of message exchange" is 0.
-If I continue to email those people, the value increases based on HOW OFTEN I email a specific person.
-If I compose a new email, the suggestion algorithms suggests the address I wrote MOST messages to.
Benefit: Time-saving message composing and suggestion parameters based on statistical evaluation of user behavior.
Please integrate this. It should not be too difficult.
Reproducible: Always
Steps to Reproduce:
1. Write an email to a person.
2. Have two persons with e.g. same last name in AB
Actual Results:
Wrong person gets suggested first to the "TO" field.
Expected Results:
The person with the highest number of messages composed to gets suggested first
None. All OS.
Comment 1•14 years ago
|
||
The local address books already do this - OS X and LDAP address books don't.
Reporter | ||
Comment 2•14 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #1)
> The local address books already do this - OS X and LDAP address books don't.
Since what (dev-)version?
Reporter | ||
Comment 3•14 years ago
|
||
It does not work with 3.1.8...
Updated•11 years ago
|
See Also: → autocompleteFrecency
Updated•11 years ago
|
Summary: Address Book should recommend recipients based on frequency of message exchange when multiple hits are found. → Autocomplete from address book should recommend recipients based on frequency of message exchange when multiple hits are found
See Bug 1058583 "Address Book Popularity Index needs to age", for a restatement of the address book recency and frequency issues, and resolves related issues and bugs looking at autocomplete sorting.
This new bug focuses on Aging the Address Book counts (what has been incorrectly identified as a "PopularityIndex", rather than establishing and managing data about recency and frequency. It turns a count into a workable "PopularityIndex" -- Aging an address book count reflects both recency and frequency.
Comment 5•10 years ago
|
||
This bug was invalid for local ABs because frequency aka popularityIndex is already implemented (albeit insufficiently). So what remains to be done here (per Mark's comment 1) is to implement some similar algorithm for OS X and LDAP ABs. Morphing accordingly and confirming to keep on radar.
Status: UNCONFIRMED → NEW
Ever confirmed: true
Summary: Autocomplete from address book should recommend recipients based on frequency of message exchange when multiple hits are found → Recipient autocomplete: Implement dynamic prioritization of results for OS X and LDAP address books (popularityIndex/frequency/recency)
Comment 6•10 years ago
|
||
Seems like thisis reasonably close to bug 543114 to be a duplicate
Comment 7•10 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Wayne Mery (:wsmwk) from comment #6)
> Seems like thisis reasonably close to bug 543114 to be a duplicate
Yep, thanks!
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 10 years ago
Resolution: --- → DUPLICATE
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•