I generally disfavor this approach since I think it will lead to even more bikeshedding ("X option is important, please move it to the default list!"), but it's way easier to try than the mess I proposed in D11306#106055.

Overall:

• I think this worth trying, but I'm worried it won't be flexible enough to stick as a permanent solution. Specifically, my guess is that any partition we create of "basic" vs "advanced" fields will find lots of disagreement among users, and be something new for them to file feature requests about.
• This might not even be that easy, since, e.g., if you're viewing a query result which uses any of the "advanced" fields, we should expand them by default (i.e., never hide active filters). So it might require making the search engine significantly more aware of fields as first-class objects anyway. But maybe we could just cheat / hard-code that.

Oh, and to clarify, my crazy-complicated proposal is the same as this, except we would additionally have an "edit" option which let users drag fields from "Basic" to "Advanced" or vice versa, and reorder fields within either view. Hiding fields (dragging them to "advanced") wouldn't remove them completely, it would just put them behind a "click to see all fields" disclosure.

That would resolve "please move X to basic, it's really important!", but it's a lot more work for us, and a more complex UI for users. And it opens up all the concerns in T4103 ("I want this to be a 'basic' field for all users").

I don't have a quick and easy answer for this, except to say this doesn't feel like a long term solution. It could be maybe if it was very very basic (1-2 fields already open, maybe Projects and Text) and everything else is advanced. Basically, if we could get 90% of searches with 2 fields, then maybe, I'm not sure though we have that information.

Is this yoinkable for a Design direction? I can easily bang out a few mocks this week of various ideas. Short-term, I think we're wasting a lot of space. Long term, I want to make sure the experience is simple for new users, and powerful for people who have to sit in it all day.

(also, if you have examples from other sites you feel do this well, feel free to drop inspiration here).

T7251 is a suggestion of a UI I particularly like - the Product Studio (Microsoft's internal bug tracker) / "query builder" interface.

Perhaps simple is some refined elegant thing and "advanced" is this query builder?

Given a bit of thought to this, and a lot of research into competing products. In essence I think T4100 is the correct path, but with a slightly more expanded role - basically go all in.

Basic View: "Requery" based tokenizer/markup/search language. 1 input, search by any dimension, default open on any ApplicationSearch page. This does a few things:

• Easier to immediately see both the query and result set (space used is minimal).
• Easier to manipulate result set (is open by default, pro users get right to work).
• Maintains mantra of optimizing Phabricator for heavy users.

Advanced View: 24+ fields, better organized. By my spreadsheet most fields fall under 1 of 6 categories.

• Groups common types (Projects, Users, Time, Status, Order) to easier find what you need.
• Icons! To help guide users quickly.
• When using advanced form, "pro" form javascripts in the shortcuts for learning above.

To tie in some context:

• I'm making this problem slightly worse for some applications in connection with T7715/T8441, by adding more fields to many applications (everything automatically picks up "projects", "subscribers", "order", and "spaces" fields now if the app supports them, and not every application previously had them). So, in the short term, these UIs will be slightly more crowded.
• However, these changes also increase the level of abstraction/indirection on these fields, so we'll face a much lower barrier to building basic/advanced tabs, hide/show/sort preferences, or a "query builder" UI in the future.
• But none of that is likely to go anywhere before the redesign lands (T8099).

I want to have a query that list all the diff related to me, including author:me, review:me, subscribe:me. Currently the board doesn't support this query. I can only do author:me AND review:me AND subscribe:me.

Let me know if there is a way to create a board with OR query.

You can build a Dashboard Panel and embed multiple queries. There isn't current OR functionality.