Why? - CL search

I searched for Holmlea and found it OK and there is a note on it saying:-

Warning

This site is not taking any new bookings pending change of ownership"

I seem to remember that there was a promise to include non EHU in the options - at some time in the future......  It would be much appreciated - and I hope it comes sooner rather than later. 

Yes, Pippah, I would have thought that had you not ticked anything in the Search facility, It would only bring up sites that were non EHU simply because one had not ticked EHU, -  that would be it's default position, but No. It seems to have a mind of it's own. Thanks Alan, at least that's something. I hope the work they are doing on the App to improve the lot for non EHUers is reflected in the website too.

Most searches operate on a filter basis. Nothing ticked will show everything. A ticked option will filter results to show only those that fit the criteria - or at least that's how it should work. For non-EHU filter to work, the EHU filter needs to have an additional "NOT" included in the filter.

i.e. the search criteria needs to interrogate the EHU column of the database to see if there is either "blank" or NO, depending on how the database is configured.

There needs to be more work done on the search criteria generally. For every option that can be included in a search there should be an option to exclude as well. 

I'd find non ehu useful but I'd also like to be able to exclude AO  CLs. Ticking child friendly does not bring up all the sites as was suggested by a staff member a while ago. It just brings up CLs which have identified themselves as child friendly and not those which merely allow children. 

Needs a lot more work CC but I still find it better than the other club's online search page 

I suspect the underlying data may be a major contributor to incorrect results. Leaving aside data being entered incorrectly, the search results (almost certainly produced using Structured Query Language) will treat a blank entry differently from "yes", and "no". That should have been addressed when the field for something such as EHU was added to the existing data.

Another contributing factor is the semantics of the terms when the database was being designed.  For example "WC" and "WC with Shower" seems clear enough until some place has a shower and no WC!

I have sorted out worse in the past but am not volunteering!