You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
When we search for "Palestrina Masses", we don't get all 700 files which belong to the Palestrina Masses on the EDB. We get the 200 or so items which have the term 'Palestrina masses' in their metadata somewhere. We also get the collection called 'Palestrina Masses', but there is some discussion going on about whether or not this is sufficient. There are a couple ways we could deal with this which we discussed at the meeting on 07 April:
Make sure collections and composers always sort to the top of searches, so it is always clear that these bundles of pieces and masses are available.
Develop an easy way for 'important' collections to add a searchable token to their description to make sure they always show up in search. For instance, all Bach Chorales could have this term added to their description so they show up on a search for that (along with the collection). Note, that we wouldn't want to do this for all collections, as we wouldn't necessarily want all the files in "My Renaissance Collection" to show up when you search for "Renaissance".
Spinning off the last point, maybe a good idea is to have a way for admins to tag certain collections as 'musicologically relevant' - this way membership in one of these collections would become relevant in searches (which it currently is not for the reason stated in the above point). This way we could easily tag 'Bach Chorales', 'Du Fay Collecion', etc as being something worth searching on.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
When we search for "Palestrina Masses", we don't get all 700 files which belong to the Palestrina Masses on the EDB. We get the 200 or so items which have the term 'Palestrina masses' in their metadata somewhere. We also get the collection called 'Palestrina Masses', but there is some discussion going on about whether or not this is sufficient. There are a couple ways we could deal with this which we discussed at the meeting on 07 April:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: