I know there are threads out there about making changes to the refinement panel and they have so far been very helpful but now I have a question that I need a bit more assistance with.
In the search results, would there be a way to add a filter to the refinement planel that would filter based on a tag I have used in a column in the libray?
For example, let's say I have three committees that meet every week and I have minutes for all of them. In my search results, I may want to look up a keyword discussed, but only interested in a certain committee. This would have already been identified in a column in the library.
How do i do this? I believe it has something to do with mapped properties but I need some steps from someone willing to help! TY :)
First you need to add a new mapped property in your search service application and map it to the crawled property that contains the field you want to filter by.
You can then refer to this mapped property when you edit you refinement panel on your search results page.
To do this, edit your search results page and then edit the refinement panel web part. Under Refinement section you need to edit the Filter Category Definition XML and then save your page.
Related
When I create a list, I have gotten into the habit of doing the following:
Change Title field name to Item
Give it the default value of View
Go to Advanced Settings
Allow management of content types > Yes
Click Save
Then in Settings, click on the Item type
Then click on the Item field and select Hidden
Then go back to Advanced Settings
Allow management of content types > No
Click Save
The result of this is that:
The Title field (now called Item) is hidden in the form
I have a column called Item, which has the link View in each row (which opens up the item)
I can’t remember why I started doing this (possibly one of the reasons outlined in this video), but the use case must have demanded it and I just kept doing it.
However, lately I have been having troubling thoughts about whether it negatively effects indexing or has any other undesired outcomes.
For example, I did a search in a list the other today, and in the drop down search results that were displayed, I just got multiple rows of the value View.
I also read just before posting this question that list items in the recycle bin will be identified by the value that was in the Title column. So if they all say View it will be impossible to differentiate one from the other.
So I just thought I would see if there is any authoritative, definitive best practice around the Title column, and ask if my convention is bad and if so what I should replace it with.
Thank You.
(Edit: I also hide the Title column in document libraries, as it doesn’t seem to serve a purpose, as clicking on the value in the Name column opens up the document anyway - therefore the ‘link’ action of the Title field is not required).
I have used the answer to Woody's question at
Is there a easy way to customize Acumatica build-in dropdown list? to customize several dropdown lists. Thank you for the guidance with that one. I want to further customize a different drop-down list based on the Class ID and the Status of an Acumatica Case. I am not sure at all how to achieve this. Can anyone provide advice please?
If you are able to write proper 'Search' BQL to get the result, you can use the PXSelector attribute. If you use 'Current' it will use the the current documents field value. So as per your case, you can use the current ClassID and Status to dynamically populate your selector.
Eg:
[PXSelector(typeof(Search<DiscountSequence.discountSequenceID,
Where<DiscountSequence.discountID, Equal<Current<DiscountSequence.discountID>>>>))]
Hope this helps.
I propose you to consider customizable selector, with which you can completely control all your data which will be displayed. Here is example of implementation.
I want to use google custom search for my wordpress setup. I need the custom search to be able to search the whole site or if a checkbox is ticked, only search within a certain category of the site.
Can anyone point me in the right direction with this?
You can have 2 custom search engines- one searching your whole site and another one searching the specific categories you mentioned. Based on whether the checkbox is checked or not, you can display the appropriate search box in your page. A demo of how to select specific sites or whole domains is shown in http://preciselyconcise.com/apis_and_installations/google_custom_search.php
In Microsoft Dynamics CRM 2011 you can create views using advanced find. Inside advanced find, you should define for a specific entity which columns you want to see in the result.
What I want to do is limit or hide specific columns that people can choose for the advanced find.
Any ideas?
Thanks!
Hi Rob,
Out of the box you can disable a column from being 'searched' --
listed in the filtering area of the advanced find.
However, all fields that a user can read are avail for selection in
the advanced find. The only method to change this would be custom
code in a 'plug-in'. Then with a plug-in just about anything is
possible as it is compiled code and you could filter out certain
columns from being available.
Alex Fagundes - www.PowerObjects.com
The comments by Alex Fagundes, with all due respect, are wrong. As ckeller suggested, you can limit the columns displayed to the user, and you certainly don't need a plug-in to do this (nor could you even if you wanted to, so far as I know).
In the client, all you have to do is navigate to the entity the advanced find view of which you want to change, click the "Customize" tab, click "System Views", click on the advanced find view, click "Add Columns", select/deselect the columns you do/don't want to see, then publish your changes.
You can also select/deselect columns of any appropriate related entity this way as well.
If you mean search columns (fields they can search by):
To limit the columns they see in an advanced find search, you have a fun job on your hands.
Go to Settings -> Customisations -> and choose the entity you want and list all the fields.
Double click on each field in turn and you will see a drop down menu called 'Searchable'. Set this to 'No' and the field is hidden from Advanced find searches (after you publish your changes).
Repeat this for all fields required.
If you mean fields they see in their results:
Follow the answer by #jamnap
The solution of Peter will only change the default view for advanced find. The user will still be able to add all columns and customize his own view.
Fields cannot be removed from "add column" in advanced find OOTB. This is what Alex Fagundes from PowerObjects has written.
We have a reporting web site and in the search screen most of the fields are comboboxes. We then AND all the fields together to get a filtered list of records. For example if i chose NY in the City dropdown and priority 1 in the priority dropdown and sales in the team dropdown, it would general something that looked like this (pseudo SQL)
Show me all record where City = 'NY' AND Priotity = '1' AND Team = 'Sales'
We now just added tagging to our records so to support searching by tag(s), we added an additional textbox to search by TAG where you can entered a comma seperated list.
Right now this is an autocomplete textbox which supports multiple entries.(similar to the Multiple Cities (local) example on this page.
When we rolled it out people had different expectation on how search would work when you entered multiple items in the text box. Would it:
Do an AND and only return records that had ALL of the tags listed.
Do an OR and return records that has ANY of the tags listed.
It turns out that we rolled out #1 but many people expected #2. Is this just basically preference or is there a default standard here in this example. Our only solution right now is to add a radio button next to the textbox to say ALL or ANY
If your users expect it to work one way then that's the way it should work.
This is a great example of why you should test early and often with actual users.
I'd say it is not basically preference, but expectations based on what users experience in other types of searches. The "OR" was probably expected by your users as use of tagging gets pretty close to being like a search engine searching on any word in a text and most search engines do an "OR" and then order the results according to how many terms (tags) were "hit".
If going all the way supporting AND and OR operators is not feasible right now, then I would indeed offer an "All" versus "Any" radio button and default it to "Any".