how does zotero search dates

uwmstubbs

User asked me how zotero searches dates and I have no idea after having tried it out. Being a database person, I tend to assume that something labeled "date" is going to be a number, typically number of days, from some reference date. For example oracle uses the reference date 01-01-4712 years BCE.
In such a system sorting and searching dates is very easy but getting dates into such a system and dealing with missing or imprecise input is a major problem.

What is zotero doing with dates? Are they just text?
We have some references loaded and the behavior about searching is not going well. Dates are in different formats and different time granularities. Searches are not doing what is expected. Any tips?

adamsmith

Zotero parses dates and then stores them as ISO dates (2012-11-08) followed by their plain text values (e.g. Nov. 8 2012). This should make them sortable and searchable.
It would help if you could specify "not doing what is expected".

aurimas

Could you be more specific about what is not working? What are you searching for and what is (not) being returned?

Dates, when entered, are parsed (to the best of Zotero's abilities) and stored in YYYY-MM-DD hh:mm:ss format (to as much granularity as possible) along with the unparsed strings.

dstillman

stored in YYYY-MM-DD hh:mm:ss format

(No time, actually. Just the date.)

But yeah, not clear what uwmstubbs is looking for here.

aurimas

I probably saw Date Accessed values. My bad.

uwmstubbs

Thanks knowing how the date is stored is very helpful in learning how to use the feature.
Probably the confusion with date searching is what goes in the search box.
The operator choices are "is, is not, is before, is after, is in the last" and then there's the box. So are the dates that go in the box expected to be in that date format then? YYYY-MM-DD ?
(Just want to know how this is supposed to work.)
(BTW a between operator would be nice.)

adamsmith

The searches apply the same date parsing that Zotero applies on entry, so they're quite flexible:
2012-11-19
will work, as with
Nov 19, 2012
or
11/19/2012

you can create a between operator by adding a second search condition. That's easy enough to not make it worth it to deal with the GUI complexity of a dedicated operator.

uwmstubbs

That is amazing that the date format is so flexible! I see someone put a date of "ages ago" in there and it's not causing a problem. What would possibly help would be to be able to add the date field to the search output, making it less likely for the users to feel the search isn't correct if they can see the search field(s) in the output of the search.

uwmstubbs

Ok got the user to demo the issue. On my computer in zotero client
if I search for

date
is before
2005

I get 10 entries.
When the user does it they get nothing. No window pops up even.

aurimas

What window are you talking about? There is no window that should pop up between you entering the query and hitting Search and the results displaying. Is he/she searching in a group library, while you are searching in a local library?

adamsmith

provide an error report ID after that search. Note, though, that
by default advanced searches apply to "My Library" and "My Library" only - groups are not included.
Also, I'm not sure about what window pop-up you're talking. Search results for advanced searches are just displayed at the bottom of the search window.

uwmstubbs

Oh sorry my bad wording.
Yes it is a group library. So that explains it then that I had a
bunch of items in my library so it looked like it works.
I think it would be great to somehow convey to the user that fact.

Then the question would be how to get the group library to sync to
"my library" so that the search works.
The users are making it clear that a search is a major priority regarding this idea of a group bibliography.

adamsmith

you can use right-click --> saved search on groups to use advanced searches. It's a couple more clicks, but very much doable.
Quick searches always apply to the selected collection, including if that's a group library.

uwmstubbs

thanks. So is this "new saved search" supposed to create a
new sub directory called "untitled", "untitled 2" etc?
Somehow I'm getting that effect.

adamsmith

you can name it, too, but yes.

uwmstubbs

Well thanks for your help. I don't feel too optimistic about this being the only type of search for the group bibliography since it is creating more and more copies of the items. And that would tie searching to the ability to change things in the group; there could not be read-only access that including searching? Just to be clear then, it is said that there is no way to do a search of the group citations other than
right click on the group library name (not a sub collection) and do a saved search, right?
I'm finding that the group concept doesn't work the way I was thinking (which was basically there was a group bibliography and no individual ones and all operations would proceed on the group). What was the concept of the group? How was it intended to be used in conjunction with a lot of individual bibliographies?

adamsmith

Well thanks for your help. I don't feel too optimistic about this being the only type of search for the group bibliography since it is creating more and more copies of the items.

That's not correct. Items showing in saved searches aren't copies - there is still only one item - and you can just delete the saved search if you don't need it anymore.

And that would tie searching to the ability to change things in the group; there could not be read-only access that including searching?

That's currently true, but I don't see a reason it needs to be. Saved searches aren't synced, so even people without write access could be allowed to sync them.
@Dan - is there any reason this is disabled for users without editing rights?

Just to be clear then, it is said that there is no way to do a search of the group citations other than
right click on the group library name (not a sub collection) and do a saved search, right?

it's the only way to do an advanced search. You can use the quick search bar and as I say above it will search the currently selected collection, including if that's an entire group library.

This is not set in stone, though - it's basically a UI problem that needs solving, afaik there is no technical reason for this.

I'm finding that the group concept doesn't work the way I was thinking (which was basically there was a group bibliography and no individual ones and all operations would proceed on the group).

While this was designed to be pretty flexible, yes, that's generally the idea.

uwmstubbs

well the group thing has issues about interface consistency and behavior. There's a tendency for operations to default to the individual library, which is present whether one wants it or not. If the group library is highlighted it can be the target of some operations but not others like advanced searches. I think it would be a good idea interface wise to change that? Create an option to do advanced searches on group collections and have the output go to the window? I think that would really help along with in general trying to make it more obvious what the target of operations is. Somehow it is very easy to not understand if one is operating on the group or the individual library on the machine or the individual library in the web.

dstillman

Saved searches aren't synced, so even people without write access could be allowed to sync them.

Saved searches are synced, actually. That's why you can't add them to read-only groups.

But unsaved advanced search in groups should obviously be possible and is certainly planned. It just hasn't been implemented.