Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Site stuff

Join our Innovation Panel to try new features early and help make Mumsnet better.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

New "Improved" search, more whinging.

42 replies

SoupDragon · 23/05/2022 14:16

On the "update" page you say this: We have upgraded our general Search function in the new platform so that it’s faster, returns more relevant results etc.

if it is returning "more relevant results" why do I get this rubbish when searching for the word "worms"? The results are completely and utterly irrelevant. This is not an isolated thing.

New "Improved" search, more whinging.
OP posts:
ArseInTheCoOpWindow · 23/05/2022 14:19

I tried to use it this morning. Set all the filters, but no search option. Gave up after 10 mins.

Andromachehadabadday · 23/05/2022 14:22

ArseInTheCoOpWindow · 23/05/2022 14:19

I tried to use it this morning. Set all the filters, but no search option. Gave up after 10 mins.

thats what I get. Pointless.

MNHQ
KatyMumsnet · 23/05/2022 15:15

Hi @SoupDragon the search function currently only searches thread titles and opening posts. I can see you've applied your username as a filter so I would expect that you haven't ever posted a title or opening post including the term 'worms' and this is showing the closest matches. If you think this is wrong then we can investigate further?

You may have posted replies including the term 'worms' but these aren't currently indexed in our search function. We are working on this at the moment though.

@ArseInTheCoOpWindow and @Andromachehadabadday - the filters are applied automatically to your search so you don't have to press search again. We are releasing a change to the mobile version so that there is an 'apply filters' button which will hopefully make it more clear in that instance.

Johnnysgirl · 23/05/2022 15:24

Thread titles and opening posts...
How utterly bizarre that you're still insisting this is an upgrade on advanced search. Baffling.

ArseInTheCoOpWindow · 23/05/2022 15:28

l don’t know if they applied automatically. Nothing seemed to change. But l couldn’t get rid of the drop down menu.

MNHQ
KatyMumsnet · 23/05/2022 15:58

@ArseInTheCoOpWindow we're releasing a change for this tomorrow - there will be a button 'apply filters' so hopefully it'll be clearer

Original poster
SoupDragon · 23/05/2022 16:31

the search function currently only searches thread titles and opening posts

how on earth is that fit for purpose or an improvement on the old search?? In no way does that give the "more relevant results" claimed.

OP posts:
Original poster
SoupDragon · 23/05/2022 16:33

I've seen many, many "disastrous" updates to MN in my time but I do think this one wins hands down.

OP posts:
Original poster
SoupDragon · 23/05/2022 16:43

I only selected my user name for the purposes of this. If there were no posts, it should have returned no results though, not given irrelevant ones.

OP posts:
MNHQ
KatyMumsnet · 23/05/2022 17:08

We are working on an advanced search feature that will search all posts so you'll have that functionality back soon.

The reason it's returned things like 'worst' and 'works' in this case is that we allow a typo tolerance, so if you typed 'womrs' we would still return 'worms'. We can look at tweaking this though so that cases like this don't return irrelevant results.

voldr · 23/05/2022 17:19

Can someone explain how exactly this counts as improved?

Johnnysgirl · 23/05/2022 17:28

Will it include the ability to search by poster, @KatyMumsnet ?

Antarcticant · 23/05/2022 17:45

we allow a typo tolerance, so if you typed 'womrs' we would still return 'worms'

@KatyMumsnet Please reconsider this - it's far faster to do a new search if you've realised you've made a typo and get nil return, than it is to go through weeding out irrelevant results.

Original poster
SoupDragon · 23/05/2022 18:22

KatyMumsnet · 23/05/2022 17:08

We are working on an advanced search feature that will search all posts so you'll have that functionality back soon.

The reason it's returned things like 'worst' and 'works' in this case is that we allow a typo tolerance, so if you typed 'womrs' we would still return 'worms'. We can look at tweaking this though so that cases like this don't return irrelevant results.

Working on something we already had in the old version? 😂😂

"Typo tolerance" is a waste of time IMO. It just returns rubbish results when you made no mistake at all (Google does this too with it's "did you mean to type...." nonsense)

OP posts:
Johnnysgirl · 24/05/2022 21:53

Oh honestly Hmm.
A search for Motherland is throwing up a whole slew of posts about Sutherland. What's the point of typo tolerance when it just means you have to wade through tons of unrelated crap?

kitchens4ever · 25/05/2022 00:12

unfortunately due to the ongoing issue with photos when I click on OPs photo on the first post above I still cant see the writing! How this can be inclusive I have no idea. Incredibly disappointing that MN are not responding to concerns that the site is now much harder for anyone with disabilities to use

MNHQ
KatyMumsnet · 25/05/2022 08:48

Hi, we're discussing the feedback regarding the typo tolerance so I'll update you once we've made a decision on that.

@kitchens4ever I'm afraid I can't understand what's happening from your description - are you able to share a screenshot of the issue? Then we can take a look at that. We are working on making the website more accessible but unfortunately, we can't make all the changes at once so it's an ongoing thing. We recently released a lot of changes to make the website more accessible for users who use screen readers for example.

Original poster
SoupDragon · 25/05/2022 09:02

I imagine it is the fact that the pictures are stupidly small.

OP posts:
kitchens4ever · 25/05/2022 20:45

@KatyMumsnet I have no idea how to do screen shots. Surely it is not hard to understand that the pictures are too small to read even if you click on them which should enlarge them. Lots of people are saying the same. Other people have posted screen shots. Please can you confirm that you understand the problem and have seen other peoples screen shots.

I dont think the new system should have been rolled out unless it was at least as accessible as the old system as it is a huge backward step to have changed things in a way that discriminates against those with disabilities. I think you should go back to the old system until you can make a new system accessible.

MNHQ
KatyMumsnet · 25/05/2022 22:09

@kitchens4ever apologies I didn’t understand that from your explanation but we are aware of the issue with small images and we’re currently trying to fix it.

On accessibility - the site is designed to meet Level AA Conformance as a minimum. It's been tested against various screen readers and assistive technologies using the WAVE accessibility tool. These are the type of things we took into consideration:

  • Used proper headings, h1, h2 etc
  • Utilised aria labelling where necessary (pop ups, dropdowns, hidden content etc)
  • Ensure colour contrasting meets AA requirements
  • Used image alternative text
  • Ensured all buttons/links have text labels
  • Removed tables from content
  • Layout is simple and consistent
  • Ensured all text is legible (style, size)
  • Ensured forms have labelling and highlighting where necessary
However it's clear that for some the site isn’t working as well as before and we're keen to make improvements.

Apart from the small images which is a problem we are trying to fix - what are the differences that have made the site less accessible for you?

kitchens4ever · 25/05/2022 22:54

@KatyMumsnet All the things the other posters have mentioned about accessibility but in particular the fact that there is so much more scrolling now as so little text can fit on a page as it is all centred on a narrow band in the middle rather than running the width of the screen.

Do you not already have a list of issues that people have posted about accessibility?

I would recommend you start a new post (not in site stuff) specifically asking everyone to feedback about how the new site meets or doesnt meet accessibility needs so you can ensure you are not discriminating against anyone with these changes. Thank you

MNHQ
KatyMumsnet · 26/05/2022 10:10

@kitchens4ever we're taking note of everything that's being reported about accessibility and we are looking into the issues raised.

Can I ask if you're using an iPad? The column width is the same as it was on the old website on desktop and mobile and never ran the width of the screen, but there are some issues with formatting on iPads which we are aware of and we're planning to fix.

We have a lot of feedback already about accessibility which we are taking on board and we are also running a lot of accessibility tests.

kitchens4ever · 26/05/2022 12:06

@KatyMumsnet i am on a desktop not a laptop. do you mean there should not be more scrolling with the new format as i find it far far more?

ShirleyPhallus · 26/05/2022 21:16

Johnnysgirl · 23/05/2022 17:28

Will it include the ability to search by poster, @KatyMumsnet ?

Didn’t see an answer to this so @KatyMumsnet can you confirm?

Babyboomtastic · 27/05/2022 00:52

We are working on an advanced search feature that will search all posts so you'll have that functionality back soon.

You don't need to 'work on it' you need to give us back what we had please. I believe your said last week that it would be back this week. Its not.

Seriously!