Rule No. 1: Don't assume people will use your search correctly

Rule No. 2: Display the results the way they asked for them anyway...

...but also within view should be:

a) the option to search again. Implementation: A "New search" link to the advanced search page does the job well -- a simple, succinct phrase that describe what users will get. I'm not a fan of introducing a new search interface above results (below maybe). As an unsuspecting user I often find that these throw me off momentarily as I try to determine whether my search was successful or not and if so, what happened to my results? Oh there they are down there.

b) options to refine the search. Implementation: You'll want a "Refine this search" link (which should be placed next to the "New search" link so the distinction is crystal clear) that takes users back to the advanced search page with the current search parameters filled in. It would be great to have a few quick-refine options, such as one-click widen/narrow the date range, one-click add/remove categories, so long as you can keep the implementation of those options slick and visually unobtrusive.

c) the ability to re-sort results by the parameters displayed (for example, by date in either direction, by newspaper section, alphabetically and alphabetically in reverse, etc.). Implementation: Results displayed as a table are probably going to call for some form of linked headers which use visual indicators (e.g. directional arrows) to clearly illustrate that this is the mechanism for re-sorting and to indicate in which direction that sorting is happening/will happen. Additionally, the column which is currently being used to sort results should be highlighted so this is easily recognized. If your results are being displayed in a Googlesque manner, with all info for each result grouped together in a single block or paragraph, you're probably going to want to go with the "Sort results by:" pulldown implementation. It's very straightforward, if a little clunky, and altogether not a bad method even for results displayed as tables.

d) alternate results. A great search tool will not only provide the results a user asks for, but also point out if there were "close match" results which had been ruled out. For example, let's say a user wants to read about Lost in Translation. This user initiates a search-request narrowed to the Movies section (sensible enough), but you had an in-depth Q&A with Sophia Coppola in your Entertainment section. This user may very much want to read that interview but won't find it unless you take the initiative and wave a flag over its existence. The trick, if your tool offers this functionality, is in how to best display these alternate results. Below a sampling of the initial results is one option and seems to be the most common (L.A. Times, Chicago Tribune, Newsday...) but involves a tradeoff, mainly that you can only display a limited number of the initial results without burying the alternates. You might try to come up with a narrow, right-side rail beside the initial results if there's room. You could maybe even just provide a single text link which succinctly explains that these alternate results exist right above the initial results.

When to use tables vs. grouped paragraphs to display results

Which type of results display you want to use is going to be dependent upon what type of information you're displaying. As a general rule, you want to use the grouped-paragraph display (think Google) whenever the information contained in each result is not visually or logically well-suited for tabular display and/or whenever results have no practical bearing on one another. ‘But results never have bearing on one another,' you're thinking. Technically no, in users' minds, yes. For example, people searching for news articles or photos are typically either searching for a specific item or looking for information about some topic, person or place. In either case, whether they want each individual search result, whether it fits their needs, is independent of whether any other search result fits their needs (unless they're just looking for the first item that meets their needs in which case they still aren't concerned with making comparisons.)

Compare that to users who are performing restaurant or events searches. Unless they're looking up a specific listing for an address, phone number, map, etc. (in which case they're probably going to enter a name that will pull up at most a few results), whether they want result X might very well depend on how it compares to results A through V. After all, they can only eat at one restaurant Friday night, only see one show afterwards. And they probably want to be able to view the side-by-side comparisons of various result parameters that tabular displays allow. It's much easier to distinguish a characteristic you would prefer, say $ instead of $$$, when that element is displayed in a nicely aligned column as opposed to hunting for that symbol amid all the other information in each grouped paragraph result.

Other tips & suggestions:

Don't bother numbering results.
The fact that an item is the No. 2 result on Site X for a particular search is not only quite obvious to anyone looking at the page, it doesn't provide any useful information about the result. It's really just wasting space and creating visual clutter. Some might argue that marketing/advertising-type parties have an interest in such data, but those users are highly atypical and nothing is stopping them from counting the positioning of any result they'd like to rank.

Did you mean...
I'm not sure how difficult the implementation would be, but Google's "Did you mean this word" functionality is awesome. Add it if you can.

Final note: Use it first
I've only really just scratched the surface of search design with this series. There is oh-so-much more to developing a great search tool, but the best piece of advice I can give you is to try using it yourself. Try to plan your whole weekend using your tool -- three things you've never done before, two restaurants you've never been to before. And it all has to be stuff you'd really want to do. (If you want to test the integrity of your information, go ahead and force yourself to follow through with the plan.) Then see how quickly you can find your three favorite places in town. Pick a topic and try to research it. Pick up a two-week-old newspaper and see if you can find a random article from it five different ways. Then have a few friends who've never seen it before do the exact same thing. It won't be a random sample but if they're good friends they'll be more likely to give you a hard time (all in good spirit of course) about any problems and they'll probably do it for free.

December 2, 2003

See also: The basics of search design, Placement recommendations, Quick-search interface, Advanced search interface