Has something changed with Places? BUG?

Browsing through the new Dashboard I noticed that my places have aggregated to just the city of Adelaide (South Australia) rather than individual suburbs. I’m not sure if this is different from previously, but there is definitely a difference in what is happening on the search.

Previously if I searched for Gardens it returned all photos with location “Novar Gardens” and “Fulham Gardens” etc. (both suburbs of Adelaide)

It looks like places are only searched if Place: is used, ie if I just enter “Fulham Gardens” no photos are returned. If I enter Place: “Fulham Gardens” I find them. Was this an intended change with the new search facility or unintended? Looks like a bug to me…

Also I notice that Places do a partial string search (eg Place: “Nov” will return all the “Novar Gardens” photos) but People and Title (and probably others) do not. Personally I’d love to see partial string search being the norm rather than having to wildcard but that may not be the general view. However, it is certainly working that way for Places at the moment.

Which search results view are you referring to? You should be able to see something in the Map results by just searching for the name (so not having to type in place:). Similar as for Folder & Albums.

You won’t however see them under All Photos anymore. This is because most of the time the location results is a bit obscure to most pictures, so if you look for example for: “King”, people got a set of “King County” pictures and without being able to reason as to why it was returned.

However, I did add an IN keyword that searches for all 3 containers as well (Folder, Album & Map), so you can for example do: Mark IN Adelaide.

I understand the logic behind removing places from the search results without specifying it (had the same issue searching for all my keyworded ‘Garden’ photos only to find all the locations picked up. So that is an improvement.

However, Nothing appears in the map results for “Fulham Gardens” but does for Place: “Fulham Gardens” so don’t think it is working quite as you expect.

Also, Marlene in “Fulham Gardens” works fine, but just IN “Fulham Gardens” doesn’t, which would be a possibly useful alternative.

IN “Port Vincent” kind of works but only finds 16 photos compared to 40 photos for Place: “Port Vincent”.

The option to use IN is good, but doesn’t seem to be working predictably at the moment.

Yes, currently a standalone IN Fulham Gardens doesn’t work if you don’t put anything in front of it. It also looks like Fulham has a peculiarity in the way that is returned that causes it not to show up in Maps.

This is a bug. Thanks for the report!

It looks like places with two words (and therefore “” “”) aren’t working for IN.

My example of:
IN “Port Vincent” kind of works but only finds 16 photos compared to 40 photos for Place: “Port Vincent”.

returns 16 photos because they are returned on a title search (ie ignoring the IN).

Can you give an example of the full query with IN that’s not working (including the content in front)?

My comment about “It looks like places with two words (and therefore “” “”) aren’t working for IN.” looks to be incorrect. As far as I can see IN is working as intended as long as you don’t try to use it standalone (ie without anything in front). Apologies for any confusion.

However, you said above: " Which search results view are you referring to? You should be able to see something in the Map results by just searching for the name (so not having to type in place: ). Similar as for Folder & Albums."

With places I’m getting the following behaviour:

Place: “Fulham Gardens” → 9 results for All Photos and for Map
“Fulham Gardens” → 0 results for All Photos and for Map
Which is also consistent for single word places:
Place: Houghton → 36 results for All Photos and for Map
Houghton → 0 results for All Photos and for Map

I can see that it would make sense to return these results only for Map and not for All Photos, but currently that doesn’t seem to be working.

Also as a side note I can see that IN works without needing wildcarding for partial place names, eg
Marlene in Houghton give 3 results, as also does Marlene in Hough.

Finally, is there any reason why the place name doesn’t appear in the Info area along with the GPS coordinates? It does display helpfully when scrolling photos (top bar) but would be helpful in the Info as well.