Sorting repeating group with (advanced) filter x3

[another]

How we could sort this Search so that two intersecting lists with the most (max 3) matching items are listed first?

Thanks! Hope to not raise too much of WU

[mikeloc]

Hi there, @another… I’m not going to get into the WU thing, but one way (the only way?) to do what you described is to merge two or more filtered searches together. So, the first filtered search could check to see if the intersecting count is 3, and you could merge that filtered search with other filtered searches that check for counts that are less than 3.

Hope this helps.

Best…
Mike

[another]

Hi @mikeloc!

Have decided to go with the multiple advance searches, after reducing quite a bit WU recently.

Individual advance search works, and it shows to each user other matching users, but when two advanced searches are merged, then the first search is canceled, and only in this case users with less then 3 common words are shown to each user.

Any ideas why? Thanks!

Additionally if possible to sort by the number of common keywords between two users? From 3 to 1?

[mikeloc]

Try turning on the experimental parentheses feature (or enabling the new expression composer, but it’s buggy) and building the expression again… you need to make sure each :filtered operator applies only to its related search and not the expression as a whole.

Because the number of common keywords isn’t stored anywhere, the only way I can think of to “sort” by that number is to merge 3 filtered searches together… one where the count is 3 merged with one where the count is 2 merged with one where the count is 1.

[another]

Same as previusly with two merged advance searches, here with all the three, now it only displayes users with one common keyword.

[mikeloc]

Did you miss the first part of my reply about enabling the experimental parentheses feature or the new expression composer?

[another]

@mikeloc

:filtered operator applies only to its related search and not the expression as a whole.

How to accomplish this?

Is this a bug, or there is another way to create a separate expression?

[mikeloc]

Just keep building out the expression… it can be tricky to get it right if it doesn’t insert the breaks in the “right” places… you just have to play with it.

[another]

True to that @mikeloc! Have reached that stage with playing with it… It works, three advanced searches with “the experimental parentheses feature or the new expression composer” and the list is sorted first with 3 matching keywords, then 2 and then 1. Perfect!

Thanks @mikeloc!