Type in your suggestion - new feature or improvement idea

Add Boolean logic to Advanced Search

It would be nice to be able to search the member database (or any database really) by specifying criteria such as:

Renewal_Due on or after Sept. 16,2008

AND

(Membership_Level = Gold OR Membership_Level = Silver)

Right now, I think, I can only choose to AND (i.e., Match ALL) all the criteria or OR (i.e., Match ANY) all the criteria -- no mixing AND's and OR's. This is okay for very simple reports with only two criteria, but often not what is needed for reports with more than 2 filter criteria.

86 votes
Sign in
Check!
(thinking…)
Reset
or sign in with
  • facebook
  • google
    Password icon
    I agree to the terms of service
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    Kim Skimmons shared this idea  ·   ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    53 comments

    Sign in
    Check!
    (thinking…)
    Reset
    or sign in with
    • facebook
    • google
      Password icon
      I agree to the terms of service
      Signed in as (Sign out)
      Submitting...
      • David Turner commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        We should be able to create email lists which include 'and' and 'Or' (not just 'is' or 'is not'. E.g. Members who are in city x AND have the title Dr.

      • Daniel Frankel commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Please enhance the advanced search capability to include compound queries (re (x and (y or z)). Also, add more of the SQL to the query language.

      • Nancy Scanlan commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        I agree, let us combined Saved Searches. Would allow us to do a Boolean search divided into smaller steps. Could be easier for staff who are not clear on how to set up a single complicated Boolean search

      • John Barrett commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        I like Michael's idea of combining Saved Searches. It is a simple and easy to understand approach to enhancing the search capabilities. Another benefit is that it also allows you to leverage existing saved searches to build new ones rather than building new ones from scratch. It also lets you make changes to many saves searches by modifying only one. The one downside I foresee with this approach would be that someone changes one Saved Search not realizing that they will be changing the results of another. However, I still like this approach.

      • Michael Armata commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Alternatively, you could provide a way to create a Search based upon a combination of existing saved Searches.

      • Liz commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        There's a new topic that's similar to this one. It suggests that dropdowns should also allow multiple selected in search, which makes a lot of sense. E.g. If you have a dropdown for states, and you want to find members in set of specific states, you currently have to add a new criteria for every single state. https://forums.wildapricot.com/forums/308932-wishlist/suggestions/15719559-filter-for-multiple-items-within-a-single-advanced

      • Walt Bilofsky commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Advanced Search already works this way for multiple choice fields. Might that make it a fast implementation for radio button fields?

        Although - what would that do to our existing saved searches? Would WA have to convert them all? Could it be done automatically?

      • Liz commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        I concur that a partial solution would be to make searches on radio button fields allow multiple selected. Combo AND/OR searches could be added later if that's more complicated to implement.

      • Timothy Nott commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        A UX tweak to the proposal I would suggest would be to collapse nested groups when they are not being edited so that the entire query can more easily be read at a high level. The indentation is a good indicator, but when everything is in an editable state, it is more difficult to read.

      • Walt Bilofsky commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        One simple and helpful addition to this would be to change the radio button search criteria to multiple choice.

        For example, now the Membership Level criterion can be "is" or "is not" but only one level can be selected by the radio buttons.

        This should be changed to multiple choice so that we can select any number of membership levels in that one criterion.

        And the same for Record Status, Role, Member Status, etc.

        Of course, if and when this feature is implemented then it would provide a (more complicated) way to do the same thing. But this would make some searches cleaner.

        And if the full implementation isn't coming soon, maybe this could be done in the meantime?

      • Timothy Nott commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        I second Walt's ask: "One simple and very helpful fix would be to change the radio button search criteria to multiple choice."

        I would add the ability to create criteria groups so that we can mix AND/OR searches. Example:

        I want to find contacts where (membership level = individual OR membership level = family) AND (membership status = active OR membership status = lapsed)

        Bonus points for nested criteria groups

      • Walt Bilofsky commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        One simple and very helpful fix would be to change the radio button search criteria to multiple choice.

        For example, now the Membership Level criterion can be "is" or "is not" but only one level can be selected by the radio buttons.

        This should be changed to multiple choice so that we can select any number of membership levels in that one criterion.

        And the same for Record Status, Role, Member Status, etc.

      • Robert commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Has this been implemented yet and is it only available on certain plans?

      • Liz commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        The proposed solution to allow nested criteria would work well for our reporting needs.

        I also agree with Walt who posted previously. In advanced search, radio button fields should be treated the same as check boxes. Although the member has to choose only one radio button, admins should be able to specify a single search criterion to select several alternatives (any of selected, all, or none). The proposed solution would allow a workaround by nesting and then listing that criteria multiple times, but is inefficient for this purpose.

      ← Previous 1 3

      Feedback and Knowledge Base