Jump to content

The Case for "Related Listings" fields with Multiple Select capabilities

William Garcia

By William Garcia
in Feature requests

Recommended Posts

William Garcia Advanced Member

William Garcia

Posted
Posted

Hello, Alejandro.

 

I am trying to make a case for JReviews to give the “Related Listing” field type a multiple select functionality and for adding the “Click2Add” functionality to dependent field options.  These two items are the subject of requests/discussions in this forum: http://www.reviewsforjoomla.com/forum/index.php?topic=16047.0 and http://www.reviewsforjoomla.com/forum/index.php?topic=16146.msg67813#msg67813.

 

First and foremost, I will trust your discretion as to what priority to give these requests since I know that JReviews (being to me the best product of its kind) is always working on something new in order to make the product even better.  Having said that, I would hope that you will place these requests high on the priority list.  

 

My reason for this is made clear by the hypothetical scenario below and by the specific situation that I am encountering while testing the hypothetical in a development site (I will send you the link via a support ticket).

 

With your introduction of the powerful "Detail Page Widgets" (Thank You!!!), the potential for JReviews to be a great repository of information, with related listing, has been significantly increased.  The number of relationships that can be displayed is limitless, which means that we can deliver a greater amount of information and enhance the usability and experience for site visitors.  (This is why I petitioned for a additional widgets or a module - see: http://www.reviewsforjoomla.com/forum/index.php?topic=16107.0.

 

The concern is that there is a great likelihood that the wrong related listings will be displayed unless the relationship is established along the lines of actual “Related Listings” and not just “field options.”  

 

[Hypothetical]:

If I had a website that collects a significant amount of data with many attributes (e.g. a product website with detailed information about the maker, designer, seller, buyer, etc., as well as related documents, videos, events, etc., across a large geographical area, e.g. North America and Europe), there is a great likelihood that some of the entries (especially names) will be the same for many of the listings.  Namely, we may have the same city name for different states or countries, or the same name for individuals in the same industry or profession even within the same geographical area.

 

Let’s assume that I have set up a field (multiple select, Click2Add) for proper names (e.g. jr_nameofperson) and that I have a listing for an individual named John Smith who works out of New York who happens to be an expert in making "widgets."   I also have another listing for another expert John Smith who works out of Boston and who makes "nonwidgets."   Both are part of the “widgets” industry.  [The parents of the two John Smiths (widgetsmiths by trade) did not foresee how important their children were going to become in the widget industry and did not give them a middle name.  So they are plain John Smiths.]  The Smiths do not want to be called anything other than John Smith because they are attempting to trademark their respective names (good luck with that one).

 

Let’s also say that I need to reuse the field "jr_nameofperson" because it is the core part of all listings and is part of a field group that gets reused throughout the site in listings for Event, Products, Articles, Blogs, etc.  I can still add two distinguishable listings within the same category (provided that I configure this accordingly in the backend) one titled "John Smith - New York" and the other "John Smith - Boston" or something like that.

 

The problem lies with the related listings (products, events, articles, videos, etc.).  For example, lets say that there is a convention in Philadelphia to which the two John Smiths get invited (because they are preeminent in their respective fields of making widgets and nonwidgets).  Let’s also say that John Smith from New York accepts the invitation, but John Smith from Boston declines because the New Yorker is attending (they are fierce competitors, hate each other, and, although not true, they believe that the other is spying and trying to steal secrets and ideas.  They have even gone as far as accusing each other of trademark and patent infringement).  

 

Let's also say that I want to highlight that momentous Philadelphia convention and the New Yorker’s attendance by creating a listing in my site for an event that has a field named "jr_expertsattending" (I can't use "jr_nameofperson" because I use that field for main directory information and I am currently using it for the sponsor/organizer of the event).  Thus, I enter "John Smith" in "jr_expertsattending.”

 

In order to help my site visitors find the related listings of those experts who are attending, I go to the backend and in the "Events" listing type, I setup a "Detail Page Widget" to display "related listings" and I select the following control: "The specified field (above) matches the current listing field (below)."  And for "above," I use "jr_expertsattending" and for the "below," I use "jr_nameofperson."

 

In the "Experts" listing type, I also create a "Detail Page Widget" that shows related listings, such as products made by the experts, events attended, articles written, etc, etc.

 

Voila!!! The power of JReviews has been unleashed:  In the Events category, I see the event listing for the Philadelphia convention with the “Detail Page Widget” displaying the experts that are attending the convention.  In the directory of experts, I see the listing for John Smith from New York, showing the events that he attends, the products he makes, the articles he has written, etc.

 

But wait!!!! In the listing for the Philadelphia event, I see that two "John Smiths" are attending.  The New Yorker, who confirmed, and the Bostonian, who declined.  When I go to the Bostonian’s listing, I see all his related listings, as well as those related to the New Yorker and, the same when I go to the New Yorker’s listings.  

 

When the site visitors see this, they are perplexed (because they know about the rivalries).  When the Smiths learn about this, they become furious, thinking that I have conspired to create confusion and facilitate the other’s untrue and alleged attempts to infringe upon the other’s intellectual property rights.

 

I am forced to close the listings temporarily and to send out my apologies to both Smiths, which they gladly accept because they really know that I would never conspire with anyone to harm the other’s rights or reputation.  The event, in the meantime, is over while things get sorted out.

 

[End of Hypothetical]

 

While the above is clearly an exaggeration, it is real possibility.  As a caveat, I am not a programmer, thus, forgive my ignorance.  I was merely confronted with the issue in the link that I will provide in a ticket.  My lack of programming skills only serve to highlight the value of JReviews to anyone, even those in my position who lack programming knowledge.  

 

The solutions:

 

1. One possible solution would be for the “jr_expertsattending” field to be a “Related Listing” field with multiple select capabilities.  This listing would have only displayed, in the hypothetical, the experts who were really attending because their specific listings were selected.  That means that when a visitor browsed through the listing, the visitor would only see the listings that really related to the expert attending.  (A possible limitation of this solution is that it could leave out a lot of related listings that did not exactly match the search criteria).  

2. Another possible solution (in theory) is if the options of the “jr_expertsattending” field were able to display additional attributes related to the option that would allow the person entering the listing to distinguish between, say, John Smith in Boston and a John Smith in New York.  For example, there could be two field options named “John Smith” and when one is selected, additional information about that one could be displayed that would show that this is the John Smith from New York.  This would probably also require that the search that is conducted behind the scene be a search along the lines of a field options ID or number, not just the text that is entered.

 

Having made my pitch, it is entirely possible that the issue that I can see in the development site relates to internal problems with the installation that I have and not necessarily with the functions that I am using.  Please let me know.

 

Thank you for your consideration.

 

William

 

Link to comment
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...