kovarex wrote:I also thought it was a bug until it was explained to me by the guys who implemented it, because this is something they are used to in their software.
Factorio does not do any such explaining though. And personally i never understood why there were all those "odd" search results until i read the post by @DaveMcW because i've never encountered this particular search term parsing pattern.
posila wrote:It is quite powerfull, for example you can filter out everything but heat exchanger by just typing "hx" whearas "h x" would find also kovarex enrichment and explosive shells. I agree it is confusing if you don't know how it works.
Even though i bet there are some situations (large code bases maybe?) in which this sort of search behavior can be benefitial i don't think it is benefitial to most of factorio players.
The "powerful" behavior you describe honestly sounds to me like a sort of "dynamic shortcut" that works by remembering specific search words. I.e. if $some_person wants to find a "heat exchanger" for the first time
it is neither intuitive nor faster for that person to come up with a sequence of letters that happens to uniquely identify the result they want in the given set of item names (e.g. "hx"), and much faster to just type four letters "heat". So the system is only benefitial to the minority of users who take the time to remeber the optimal character sequence for items that they search for very often
Another drawback (imho) of the current system is that the false positives are mostly completely unrelated items. Examlple:
With "normal" search "heat" gets you "heat exchanger" and "heat pipe", two items directly related to each other.
With "sequential letters" (is there a proper name for this type of search?) if you were in a modded environment searching for your preferred term "hx" will find you "heat exchanger" but possibly also "sulfur hexaflouride" and "short logistic extender", both of which are probably completely unrelated to what you want to do at the time.
I would say, that we should have an option for this kind of search that should be off by default.
That would be the obvious "best of both" solution