Allow Things United With Other Things to Share Search Keys
Hypertext-infused philosophy personal database software
Brought to you by:
jasonwinning
Menu
▾
▴
What do you think should happen if someone clicks a link matching that search key? The basic reason for not having duplicate search keys is that you can't be on 2 tabs at the same time or editing 2 records at the same time.
Since they're basically the same and there's a button right there to switch to the other linked thing, I don't really care which one it takes me to, but generally it would be more useful to go to the linked debate or whatever rather than the term.
In my opinion, the best solution would be to add a setting where you can make it stop requiring Term records to have a search key. Then you can leave the search key blank for the term record and set the search key in the debate record. Then when you click a link that matches the search key it will take you to the debate record rather than the term. As long as it goes to the record you want it to go to, I don't see any added benefit from the two records having the same search key. Actually I can think of one scenario: if 2 records are united and have the same search key, and then you decide to delete one of those records, that search key will still be entered in the other record (which would probably be the desired behavior). But, for me at least, that is a pretty rare scenario.
It might even be better by default to let Term records not have a search key. Other things don't force you to make a search key. If you want to make one you can make one, but why be forced to make one?
Originally the idea was to encourage users to use the search key feature; the main thing that distinguished term records from other records originally was that a search key was required. But now term records are usefully for other reasons (multiple glossaries, multiple senses) so I think you're right, and it no longer makes sense for them to require a search key.