On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 5:41 PM, Jo-Erlend Schinstad
> I don't think this is simply a technical issue. It's first and foremost a
> design issue. When I have opened a file, then you can know that the file is
> of some interest to me. The fact that I haven't open a file, doesn't prove
> that it isn't interesting, but you just can't know. I regard Zeitgeist is a
> logger that enables applications to learn from my actions, not as a general
> indexer like Tracker. In order for the dash and lenses to be effective, I
> think it should primarily display files I've shown some interest in.
> Similarly, the web lens should only display sites I've actually visited, not
> intermingle results from Google, since I haven't shown any interested in all
> those other sites.
I was suggesting that when you search for files, then the results from
Zeitgeist would be retrieved and shown first as you have actively opened them
at some point. The more times you open it, it's importance should increase and
the dash should be able to take care of this fact.
Files which have never been opened arn't rated on relevancy scale.
They are just
kind of files which show up because the user wants files which match this name.
> Searching for the unknown is completely different from searching your
> personal history. The thing I like most about the current way the lenses
> work, is that no results are ever entirely irrelevant, since at some point,
> I've chosen to use them all. I'm very concerned that mixing these types of
> searches will introduce many false positives, which will reduce the user
> experience. Searching for things you've never used is obviously quite
> useful, and an interesting field that should be treated as a separate topic.
> Because of its nature, you'll want the ability to define a lot of parameters
> for such a search, and I'm not convinced that lenses are ready for that.
> These are some of the parameters that the lens would have to have in order
> to provide a good search for unused things:
> * ** *Name (duh)
> * ** *Time created (from and to)
> * ** *Time modified (from and to)
> * ** *Specific folder(s)
> * ** *How deep to search
> * ** *Specific servers (nfs, samba, ftp, etc)
> * ** *Size (to and from)
> * ** *User or group the file belongs to
> * ** *File type
> * ** *Whether or not to search file files content
> * ** *Source (did you download it from the web, received it in email, bit
> torrent, etc)
> These are only the parameters that immediately comes to mind. I'm sure there
> are many more. But already, this has become a fairly long list, and it's
> likely that you'd want the ability to store that search. From my
> perspective, it seems that forcing these types of searches into the dash
> will both reduce the quality of results from my log, and reduce the ability
> to search for things I've never used. For that reason, I would recommend
> that the dash be used only to search for things that are known to be
> interesting because it's been used, and that a more powerful desktop search
> engine be developed separately. Obviously, this application would be able to
> use the same data sources that are used in the dash, but would provide much
> greater level of detail. Then the dash could use stored searches from that
> app as a source, because then you have defined an interest, so it's no
> longer random data, and the results will still be relevant.
> Does it make sense to you?
> Jo-Erlend Schinstad
> ubuntu-desktop mailing list
ubuntu-desktop mailing list