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
(MembershipLevel = Gold OR MembershipLevel = 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.
Old design proposal, not working on it yet and can be changed if we start working on it – https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0f9kMyQqlBsZ3FQOWRiMERRNkk/view?usp=sharing
Eric Meyers commented
Well in over 6 years of having various people ask for this, why has this not been implemented yet? This is such a basic feature that could be implemented in no time.
Eric Meyers commented
Please add, to the advanced search, the ability to do match operators per line. Example:
I want to do a search for Active Members in 5 states and email them an event. Today all I can do is an "Any" or an "All" advanced search, so would have to do 5 separate searches and save each one if I want to email them all. Instead have a normal search operator per line where we could set a requirement of active members only, then any of these additional states (or other parameters). It would make the advanced search much more functional and not require use to build kludgy workarounds like manual groups and the like.
Steve Smith commented
The provided top level "Match Any" "Match All" does not allow me to create an accurate search/email list for members. For instance, I can only select one Member Status to search on and I choose "Active" members. The list will not include any active members who are "Pending Renewal" yet they are still active members.
I would like to ability to create searches where I can use and or functions. All members who did xyz and abc or efg.
There are countless times where I wish we could do this. One example is I'd like to do "admin AND [active OR pending]"...
Marc Caruso commented
Why is there no ability to nest conditions in searches? This should be very simple for you to implement and would be very powerful. The current functionality requires multiple searches that force you to merge result sets. It's a pain in the butt.
Please consider allowing a mixture of AND and OR criteria in the advanced contact member searches. It would be nice if I could run something like:
(is MemberLevel1 OR MemberLevel2) AND (is Active)
Hayley Raymond commented
It would be very helpful if we could search using specific date ranges in the advanced search function. For example, it would be great if I could search for 'Renewal date last changed between April 1, 2019 and April 15, 2019' rather than just 'Renewal date last changed on or before/after, etc.'.
I am a new customer. I need this functionality.
Steven Reames commented
This is a fundamental search capability for most databases and clearly a high priority for users who've expressed their wishes. Why isn't this a priority for Wild Apricot?
Jillian Dubois commented
In advanced search, make it so some criteria can be "any" and some can be "all", within the same search.
Laura Stigler commented
In Advanced Search, when putting in more than one criterion, there should be the words "and" and "or" between each that could be checked. For instance, let's say my two criteria are 1) "Initial Contact"... is... "Museum" 2) "Notes" ...contain..."Museum". My desire would be to get a list of all non IWOC members who attended our talk at the Museum, but also there were few current IWOC members who attended that same talk. So I'd like one list that included all those people who were at the talk. Couldn't get it. But if an "and" were between those two criteria, that complete list would have been compiled. Hope I made myself clear!
Michael James commented
How about a real boolean search with a field sector that inserts the correct field name in the search. The IT people for the org will create these complex ones and then publish just a saved search, or a a report to the people that need to use it.
("Membership Level" -eq "Monthly" -or "Membership Level" -eq "Annual") -and "Member Status" -eq "Active")
Jon Carlson commented
Contact and member searches (particularly saved searches) need to be able to apply the "ANY"/"ALL" (i.e. "OR"/"AND") logic in a mixed way. For example, I might need to search for (Member Level of X OR Y) AND (Member Status is ACTIVE). That's just one simple example. Give me a way to group them and then connect the groups.
Possible way to present the concept - chain the searches. So build one search with ANY logic, then build another search with ANY logic, then chain the two with AND logic. Something along those lines.
Lynn Baumeister-Admin commented
There are several suggestions for vastly improving Advanced Search. E.g., checkboxes instead of radio buttons to allow for logic such as
(renewal preference = Paper AND (membership level = GOLD OR membership level = SILVER)
Why hasn't it been implemented yet
David Turner commented
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
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
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
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
Alternatively, you could provide a way to create a Search based upon a combination of existing saved Searches.