Hi Dennis, I think maybe I just disagree. Your not showing facet counts for cardiologists and Family Doctors independently. The Family Doctor count will be all Family Doctors who are also Cardiologists.
This allows users to further filter Cardiologists who are also family Doctors. (this could be of use to them ??) If your front end app implements the filtering as a list of fq=xxx then that would make for consistent results ? I don't see how not showing that some cardiologists are also Family Doctors is a better user experience... But again you might have a very specific use case? On 22 June 2011 13:44, Dennis de Boer <datdeb...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Lee, > > since I have the same problem, I might as well try to answer this question. > > You want this behaviour to make things clear for your users. If they select > cardiologists, does it make sense to also show family doctors as a > facetvalue to the user. > The same thing goed for the facets that are related to family doctors. They > are returned as well, thus making it even moren unclear for the end-user. > > > > On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 2:27 PM, lee carroll > <lee.a.carr...@googlemail.com>wrote: > >> Hi Bill, >> >> >So that part works. Then when I output the facet, I need a different >> >behavior than the default. I need >> >The facet to only output the value that matches (scored) - NOT ALL VALUES >> >in the multiValued field. >> >> >I think it makes sense? >> >> Why do you need this ? If your use case is faceted navigation then not >> showing >> all the facet terms which match your query would be mis-leading to your >> users. >> The fact is your data indicates Ben the cardiologist is also a GP etc. >> Is it not valid for >> your users to be able to further filter on cardiologists who are also >> specialists in x other disciplines ? If the specialisms are mutually >> exclusive then your data will reflect this. >> >> The fact is x number of cardiologists match and x number of GP's match etc >> >> I may be missing the point here as you have not said why you need to do >> this ? >> >> cheers lee c >> >> >> On 22 June 2011 09:34, Michael Kuhlmann <s...@kuli.org> wrote: >> > Am 22.06.2011 09:49, schrieb Bill Bell: >> >> You can type q=cardiology and match on cardiologist. If stemming did not >> >> work you can just add a synonym: >> >> >> >> cardiology,cardiologist >> > >> > Okay, synonyms are the only way I can think of a realistic match. >> > >> > Stemming won't work on a facet field; you wouldn't get "Cardiologist: 3" >> > as the result but "cardiolog: 3" or something like that instead. >> > >> > Normally, you use declare facet field explicitly for facetting, and not >> > for searching, exactly because stemming and tokenizing on facet fields >> > don't make sense. >> > >> > And the short answer is: No, that's not possible. >> > >> > -Kuli >> > >> >
