This task breaks out an item from a discussion in T195927.

When users apply filters to the New Pages Feed, their selections are shown at the top of the feed after the word "Showing:", like so:

Currently, the logic is just that all selections (regardless of whether they are ANDs or ORs) are shown separated by commas.

In T195927, we are making the New Pages Feed filterable by ORES scores. That will add additional options to the filters, and include more complex AND and OR logic. The question arose about how to handle it, and the conversation from that task is copied below. This work is being broken out from T195927 because we will do the work in a separate patch.

Also keep in mind that "reviewed" status (in the PageTriage sense, not the AfC sense) is effectively ignored for Drafts, so we should probably not show that even if we're using it behind the scenes in the API call.

In T195927#4249525, @alexhollender wrote:

@MMiller_WMF

When model categories are selected, the selected categories should be listed next to the word "Showing" in the list's header. It would be great if @alexhollender could weigh in here on the logic of how to list the selected categories, taking into account the various possibilities for ANDs and ORs. This will be determined during the week of May 28.

• I wonder if the distinction you're bringing up is relatively nuanced (it took me a few minutes to wrap my head around), i.e. maybe we should be weary of over-solving here. Unless the filter menu said something like "only show results that match all of the following criteria" I think the OR logic is implied. I assume the AND logic gets intuited because people are familiar with the filter options, however maybe we shouldn't rely on that going forward.
• If I'm understanding this correctly, we don't currently make the distinction. If we did I believe the text for the following filter state would read: Showing (results that are): reviewed OR unreviewed OR nominated for deletion AND ARE orphans

• I do think it would be helpful to call out which categories the applied filters are part of primarily to help familiarize people with the new filter structure we're introducing. This might also alleviate any confusion related to what you've called out. Hoping something like this would do the trick:

In T195927#4249661, @MMiller_WMF wrote:

Okay, thanks @alexhollender. It sounds like you're saying that right now the feed doesn't capture that nuance at all, so although we would not be making the logic worse by adding ORES and copyvio to it, it would exacerbate any ambiguity that currently exists. @Samwilson @MusikAnimal -- what do you think about whether it is worthwhile and easy to make that line read more clearly, like in Alex's mockup (the second image in his post)?

In T195927#4249686, @MusikAnimal wrote:

I think what it says now is fine ("Showing: unreviewed, nominated for deletion, orphans"). Changing that to "Showing: awaiting review, B-class, C-class, Attack, Low copyvio" is just as easy to understand, to me, since there's no crossover of values for each filter. Alex's mockup works great too, also easy to understand. Structuring it in this way should be easy to implement.

In T195927#4249833, @MMiller_WMF wrote:

Thanks @MusikAnimal. Let's shoot for @alexhollender's version then, which I think will be a worthwhile investment in whatever the future of this feed becomes.