Re: logical operators(and, or, nor, ...) for searching photos by combining tags in the "find bar"

[Simon Lindgren <simon n lindgren gmail com>]

IIRC, this has come up before, but without any real conclusion.

My view is (I believe) the same as yours, but perhaps for different
reasons. IMO, the logical thing would be to default to AND since it
feels like a "more filtering" filter should give a smaller result set.

This would also mean consistency with the first stage of a filter using
multiple tags, for example (alternative interpretation of the
functionality shown in parenthesis):
* With a blank filter all images are shown.
* Then filter on "Vacation". All vacation images are shown. (All visible
images which are not tagged "Vacation" are hidden)
* Then add a filter on "Dogs". All "Vacation" images with "Dogs" also in
them are shown. (All visible images which are not tagged "Dogs" are
hidden)

As you can see, the alternative definition is the same in all cases if
the action is AND. Perhaps there is a logical definition for OR-ing as
well, but I don't see it either.

I also think that double-clicking a tag and dragging it to the search
bar should do the same thing. OR is a pretty advanced feature in Normal
Users'® point of view (I think, I'm not a normal user ;-)).

Anyway, the issue with OR and multiple excludes just increases the
advantage of changing this, but perhaps this is too big a change in the
behaviour of the application?

mån 2011-12-05 klockan 14:56 +0100 skrev daniel:
> At the moment, when searching for photos by multiple tags, the searches 
> of the single tags are combined by "or". This works all right in the 
> "include" case, but in the "exclude" case I guess it should be "and" by 
> default.
> Meaning that if I look for a photo of an animal that is neither cat nor 
> dog, intuitively I would place the the tag "dog" and "cat" in the find 
> bar and set them both to exclude. But now this just gives my all my 
> photos, except of those showing a cat and a dog together. in other 
> words: my holiday in Spain and the photos of last Christmas!
> So the >> "not cat" or "not dog" << should be changed to >> "not cat" 
> and "not dog" <<.
> Right now I can´t think of a case where the "multiple exclude" search, 
> as it is, would give a desirable result, but i guess there might be 
> some, so maybe you should be able to chose.
> Am I at least kind of right??
> Thanks in advance
> Daniel
> _______________________________________________
> f-spot-list mailing list
> f-spot-list gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/f-spot-list


-- 
Simon Lindgren