Tengo la sensación de que vi otro post o tema sobre esto aquí recientemente, pero no consigo encontrarlo.
Cuando busco “feature” aquí, los resultados incluyen un enlace a la categoría Contribute > Feature.
Pero cuando busco “pr-welcome”, la etiqueta pr-welcome no aparece en los resultados.
Sería bueno que apareciera, ya que eso haría que las etiquetas fueran más fáciles de descubrir y sería una forma sencilla de navegar a una etiqueta concreta.
I think it does if you use pr-welcome instead of pr-welcome
Good point. Guess that solves the “quick way to navigate” use case. Would still like it to work without the # to increase discoverability.
Not sure it would be a good idea. Search is usually a tradeoff between relevancy, speed, index time/volume and query complexity ( aka special keywords/filters/options). Making tags part of the directly searchable keywords would hurt relevancy in some cases ( how do you rank a post containing pr-welcome in body versus a post tagged pr-welcome?) and probably hurt performance.
It’s easy to see a query and say this should be first and this second… but once you take all the cases in consideration it’s much harder.
How so? I’d say that a hit in a tag is almost always worth more than a hit in the post content.
Besides, if your argument applied to tags it would also apply to categories (which are apparently included in the search).
Really? What are a few dozen (or even a few hundred) tags in the sea of post content?
No estoy sugiriendo ningún cambio en la forma en que se determina la clasificación o la relevancia de los temas y las publicaciones. Eso podría merecer una investigación más profunda, pero no era eso lo que intentaba sugerir.
Solo quiero ver que la etiqueta pr-welcome se muestre debajo de “mostrar más” de la misma manera que se muestra el enlace a la categoría Contribute > Feature en la primera captura de pantalla.
Debería haber puesto flechas rojas grandes en la captura de pantalla para señalar esto más específicamente. Ahora estoy en el móvil, así que no puedo actualizarlas fácilmente en este momento, pero espero que eso ayude a aclarar de qué estoy hablando.
As I said it’s a tradeoff, it’s not because it has been done on one thing that we should do it for everything (opposite being true too).
If we follow your idea “tag > content”… content match versus tag match will always be low in results, so searching a term wich also happens to be a tag will be almost impossible.
That’s exactly the edge case because of which I said
But even that could be handled by making it so that hits in tags are treated the same as hits in content unless there is at least one search term that does not match a tag. Or you could simply treat tags as content, full stop.
As I said, tradeoffs. This kind of “if” is not free. For every query we now have to match against the full list of tags each word, where before we would just have to search for a #, totally different story.
And making it part of the searchable content, is just making it slower. The sooner you can reduce the list of potential results the faster it will be, so filtering on a tag with #tag and then adding a query will be probably much faster than full search on “tag query”.
Much of this conversation seems off-topic to me.
I updated the original post to better clarify what is being asked for here.
Adding tags to the “category hit” section is totally pr-welcome agree we should add it. We will need to be careful at ordering the tags list and culling it if it is too long. (Imagine 1000 tags called spam-1 spam-2 spam-3, though lovely, it could kill off that whole UI. So show popular spam tag first)
I agree with this, can you add it to your list @neil? Just show top X matching tags, ordered by tag frequency.
