Customer has multiple document types (with different templates) which are searched using one unique block/lot, so using a TEMPLATE search isn't feasible. 

I had a similar issue after upgrading to LF10 but using the desktop client. It seemed to be related to the search field being indexed but we found that the advanced/syntax search did return the correct results.

It seemed to correct it itself but we did ultimately remove the index from the field as it slowed performance.

See https://answers.laserfiche.com/questions/96209/Template-Search-101-Issue

All of the fields in the repository are not indexed... 

Hi Ali,

As I previously noted in the first copy of this post, it would help a lot to have a specific use case of why the customer needs to search in this manner, instead of simply 'they are insisting on it', especially since this change added oft-requested functionality already in the Client that you couldn't previously easily do in Web Access. We'll look into it given that it's a behavioral change, but as Brianna notes it'll actually be less work for them to simply not include those other fields in the first place. 

Justin,

These municipality users are accustomed to searching on ADDRESS, BLOCK, LOT, QUALIFIER on a daily basis. They want to see these fields and type whatever information they have, be it an ADDRESS or just a BLOCK/LOT. They don't want to add/remove independent search fields every time they perform a search (or even use the saved search feature) -- its just not very efficient as this would introduce extra clicks.

Bottom line is (and I totally agree with the customer), is that, this search change was introduced in WebAccess 10 and they feel as though its a step backwards in how they go about their daily business practices. Wherein, WebAccess v9 the individual field search worked in a much more efficient manner to them, as they could input (or not input) information in any field and get results.

So the customer (and I see their point), would like to rollback to WebAccess v9.

Thanks for the use case Ali, that helps clarify the request/user need here. We'll look into adding a way to force this behavior, perhaps an organization-wide attribute. 

Thank you... please keep me updated.

Ali

Has there been any movement on this?  We are in the process of upgrading to 10.1 and this has been identified as a major issues for our dev testing users.

I haven't heard any updates.... I really hope Laserfiche addresses this issue.

What is the status of this? This is something our users need.