View Single Post
Old 04-14-2013, 03:28 AM   #46
DoctorOhh
US Navy, Retired
DoctorOhh ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DoctorOhh ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DoctorOhh ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DoctorOhh ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DoctorOhh ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DoctorOhh ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DoctorOhh ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DoctorOhh ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DoctorOhh ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DoctorOhh ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DoctorOhh ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
DoctorOhh's Avatar
 
Posts: 8,838
Karma: 12535517
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: North Carolina
Device: Nexus 7
Quote:
Originally Posted by chaley View Post
When you create a new VL you can click on a link to help construct a search from authors, tags, etc. I am considering adding saved searches to that list.
Sounds good. I recreated one VL by pulling up a saved search first then going into the Create VL menu and just adding a VL name.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chaley View Post
Question 1: is it worth the trouble? Probably, but every choice adds just that much more complexity.
I think it is. My current default VL that I created using the Create VL option uses a saved search in part of the string.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chaley View Post
Question 2: if added, then should the search text be populated with a reference to the saved search (search:"foo") or with the search that "foo" contains (e.g., author:bar or author:mumble)?
I would vote for the bare bones search. In case it makes a difference I have one saved search that contains a previous saved search. I tripped over converting the whole thing back to its original pieces.

Finished Library: not tags:"=working" and search:"=Main Library"
Main Library: not tags:"=Adult" or not tags:"=Non-Fiction"

Quote:
Originally Posted by chaley View Post
Populating with the search preserves the indirection, is both a good and bad thing. The good: the VL will follow changes to the search, which the user might expect when changing the search. The bad: the VL will follow changes to the search, which might confuse things if the user has forgotten that the search is referenced in the VL. Deleting the search will break the VL.
It never occurred to me that if I deleted or changed a saved search I might be breaking a VL. I vote for removing the coupling.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chaley View Post
I tend toward copying the underlying search string in order to avoid future mysteries if the saved search is changed or deleted, but can be easily convinced to do it the other way. Thoughts?
As long as the search within a search can be properly parsed (even though this basic thing kicked my ass I have to believe it is easy) then I'm all for decoupling Saved searches from VLs.
DoctorOhh is offline   Reply With Quote