Change Details

Take this example: {F16434553, size=full} What it means is `("Human (not bot)" OR "Page edits" OR "Page creations" OR "Logged actions") AND "tag=#AWB"` but the Boolean relationship is not there, and therefore it misleading looks like all those combinations are being combined with the same logic (whether it is AND or OR), which is untrue. This is a design flaw. One way to fix it is to color code the tags. All tags that define the search scope (e.g. "Page edits" or "Page creations", etc.) can be in one color (say white), all that define other restrictions (e.g. tags, or "May have problems", etc.) in another color such as pink, and we can have multiple color groups corresponding to the multiple logical groups. Another approach is to separate the "Active Filters" section into two parts, each shown in a separate row: Search Scope (where conditions are always combined with OR), and Restrictions (where conditions are always combined with AND). Then "Page edits" and "Page creations" will go to the Search Scope section, and tags and other restrictions will fall under the second row. Alas we can even call them "Search Scope" and "Active filters" to reuse the existing label.

Take this example: {F16434553, size=full} What it means is `("Human (not bot)" OR "Page edits" OR "Page creations" OR "Logged actions") AND "tag=#AWB"` but the Boolean relationship is not there, and therefore it misleadingly looks like all those combinations are being combined with the same logic (whether it is AND or OR), which is untrue. This is a design flaw. One way to fix it is to color code the tags. All tags that define the search scope (e.g. "Page edits" or "Page creations", etc.) can be in one color (say white), all that define other restrictions (e.g. tags, or "May have problems", etc.) in another color such as pink, and we can have multiple color groups corresponding to the multiple logical groups. Another approach is to separate the "Active Filters" section into two parts, each shown in a separate row: Search Scope (where conditions are always combined with OR), and Restrictions (where conditions are always combined with AND). Then "Page edits" and "Page creations" will go to the Search Scope section, and tags and other restrictions will fall under the second row. Alas we can even call them "Search Scope" and "Active filters" to reuse the existing label.

Take this example: {F16434553, size=full} What it means is `("Human (not bot)" OR "Page edits" OR "Page creations" OR "Logged actions") AND "tag=#AWB"` but the Boolean relationship is not there, and therefore it misleadingly looks like all those combinations are being combined with the same logic (whether it is AND or OR), which is untrue. This is a design flaw. One way to fix it is to color code the tags. All tags that define the search scope (e.g. "Page edits" or "Page creations", etc.) can be in one color (say white), all that define other restrictions (e.g. tags, or "May have problems", etc.) in another color such as pink, and we can have multiple color groups corresponding to the multiple logical groups. Another approach is to separate the "Active Filters" section into two parts, each shown in a separate row: Search Scope (where conditions are always combined with OR), and Restrictions (where conditions are always combined with AND). Then "Page edits" and "Page creations" will go to the Search Scope section, and tags and other restrictions will fall under the second row. Alas we can even call them "Search Scope" and "Active filters" to reuse the existing label.