It took quite some time to find out that in order to find untranslated sentences in a certain language you have to choose
• Translations: EXCLUDE sentences having translations that match all the following criteria
• Language: ANY LANGUAGE
Not very intuitive IMHO ;-)
What about a simple NONE option in the LANGUAGE drop-down like above in
• Sentences - Show translations in:
You can also use the advanced search to find which sentences by a given member have no translations.
This is an adaptation of an older "native speaker's contribution" page, with links separated into "with translations" and "with no translations."
Click some of the "with no translations" links to see how this works.
Yes, I am doing this in the Advanced Search already...
But still, it would be more logical to say
• Search for all sentences with translations: NONE
than to say
• Search for all sentences and EXCLUDE all sentences with translations: ANY LANGUAGE
What's "intuitive" is often very subjective. What many people means by "intuitive" is actually "intuitive to me". For example, I'm a human being and not a machine so that's not really intuitive to me what "NONE" means in "Search for all sentences with translations: NONE"
To me YES / NO will be more intuitive than NONE. But since we're filtering translations, it does not really fit in the current form.
Actually, I personally can't see what is not intuitive in the sentence
"Exclude sentences having translations that match all the following criteria - Language: Any language"
Because that describes exactly what it does.
However, it's a known fact that the advanced search is a complicated feature and we are thinking about how we can make the search feature(s) more user-friendly in general. Therefore, your feedback is very much appreciated.
Well, what in my opinion would really be a big improvement, as well for simplicity as for extended usability, is a little restructuring of the advanced search.
Right now it is divided into three sections
These are essentially all for reducing the dataset to a filtered minimum for display but don’t give me a lot of choice what I really want to see.
Maybe I am missing out on some functionality because of ignorance but until now I could not achieve certain results that seem essential to me and should not take too much effort to be implemented.
So I would suggest a 4th section SHOW with the same feature set like the other sections give or take.
So if I e.g. wanted to have only sentences with audio displayed I could do this.
Right now I can only filter for base sentences that have/have not/any audio but the result still shows me all the direct/indirect links, whether THEY have audio or not.
I hope this makes sense.
It totally makes sense. Beside the feature you explain, many people have asked many options to be extended or added to the advanced search.
I could link to many GitHub tickets but it's not very relevant considering their numbers. However, the advanced search, and the search in general, is receiving attention from developers. gillux has been working hard on refactoring the code so the feature(s) can be improved in the future. All we can do for now is to be more patient until improvements arrive.
In the meanwhile, could you explain why the possibility of searching for sentences only if they have translations with audio would be helpful to you?
Well, e.g. if I wanted to listen to some audio only - for checking audio-to-text parity or whatever...- in a monster like sentence #2, I could display
e.g. only direct translations with audio. That would reduce the list from several hundreds of lines down to maybe ~10... - I can’t even tell because you loose track of counting lines with an active speaker symbol when scrolling through these endless lists ;-), and that would give me a much better (even visual) idea of how many translations with audio a given sentence has.
Imagine I were searching for a certain combination of words and got as a result 20 or 30 sentences. Only seeing direct links with audio (about 5 to 10% or even less) would let me correlate these results much easier than having to look at the other 95% of interlaced direct and indirect links without audio, which are polluting the visible result, and ruining the experience when just intending to listen to audio line by line.
Again - you are missing my point here.
It‘s not about which of the ‚inklusive‘ or ‚exclusive‘ approach is the better one or who‘s logical analysis is the superior or more commonly used one.
It‘s all about adding a simple missing NONE to the list in order to complete the set of options and hence filling a gap which would accommodate an easier workflow for those who‘s brains are wired that way.
It is not changing or cutting anything from your preferred method, it’s just simply complementing other people‘s workflow.
The whole point of my message is that "I personally prefer this" is irrelevant. Good job on understanding close to nothing. Read again. And check your Dunning-Kruger curve.
And here we go again - a pissed off little boy wields and brandishes his patronizing index finger...
Wasting 3 paragraphs on just drawing the attention to
• “I personally prefer this" is irrelevant.
is utterly “irrelevant” in itself in the context of a proposal to add an option to the search function. Your conduct is highly unproductive and totally beside the point.
So please, just refrain from polluting my messages with unnecessary digressions and ill-mannered personal attacks!
Even if you think they might be justified!
End of story