persist date and relevance choice/setting in facet search results. if a user selects a different choice, it should persist for future searches. requested in http://getsatisfaction.com/mozilla_messaging/topics/default_search_result_by_date
Thank you. Relevancy as the sort method in results is often not the is not the ideal sort method in many instances.
This is NOT duplicate of "Duplicate of this bug: 680168", because this one came first. However, the fact that duplicates are being entered is information to change the default to "date". I have used thunderbird almost as long as there has been a thiunderbird, use search constantly, and have NEVER had "relevance" produced results that are in fact more relevant. I was about to submit yet another duplicate. This has been in the system for almost 2 years. How long till someone takes the 5 seconds to fix it? One should not confuse the intent with the result. "date" produces at least a well defined and understandable result, which is often the desired order. Probably "recent" tends to be more relevant than any other test that can be mechanically applied. Which is to say, "date" produces a more relevant order than "relevant" does, most often. So how about listening to the users and setting the default the way they want it, its a 5 second fix. Alternatively, let it be "sticky" and remember the last setting. Or go all out and allow selection of default. Maybe a little checkbox for "make this the new default". But before wasting valuable time on that, perhaps there is no case for keeping "relevant" at all? How does it tell what is relevant? I doubt I could hand someone results more "relevant" to someone's intentions, and I can almost speak the language. This seems to be copying shopping carts, which don't have a useful relevance check either, they just put up what they make more money selling. Not invalid for commerce, but copying the poor design doesn't leave. any room for deciding what is relevant. If I search for "blue" what is relevant? color, sadness? Its nonsense because no one knows what it is doing except the guy who wrote some arbitrary relevance test. Generating a number is easier than generating a meaningful number. A better argument can be made for removing "relevant" altogether, because its not actually relevant :-).
(In reply to bill9 from comment #3) > This is NOT duplicate of "Duplicate of this bug: 680168", because this one > came first. I think you and Wayne are in agreement. The wording may be confusing, but it is saying that this Bug 663859 is the original report and that 680168 will be marked as resolved because it is a duplicate of this Bug report. Otherwise, I agree with the sentiment of your post. Relevancy makes sense when searching Google. When searching e-mails, the relevancy is often a sorted Dated (I prefer descending).