This is easy to change but I'm not really convinced it's better, even though it is inconsistent.

It seems like new users should be able to find closed tasks and revisions by default, probably? That is, the current approach makes the default query the least confusing query. This may often be less useful than "open documents", but maybe avoids confusion.

In particular, I imagine a new user who wants to report a bug searching for it and missing it because it's already marked as resolved, then feeling confused that their search doesn't work.

I think there's also an argument for making "Search Current Application" find open and closed documents instead of replacing "Search All" with "Search Open".

We could also Search All + Search Open + Search All Current + Search Open Current.

It's not clear to me that consistency should overwhelm other concerns here.

Per conversation in T10589, I would like to echo @jhurwitz's request. In reality, both search for open & closed and open-only are use cases that exist. But in day-to-day work, even for QA, the very significant majority of use cases is for open only. In addition, w.r.t. the "closed tasks also" use case, the user behavior in response to "I didn't find what I looked for" is "refine my query" which is a natural human behavior that will cause these users to discover "oh, closed isn't checked". In addition, there is a visual cue when they see closed tasks that closed tasks look different, so the anticipated concern of "maybe the person searching will give up not seeing their closed item in the list" I believe is negligible (especially in face of the much more abundant concern of "omg there is so much closed stuff here...oh yeah, I need to ensure "open" is checked and "closed" is unchecked).

I would argue that cognitive load here is higher by checking both as opposed to checking one which feels much more intuitive given the frequency of "open only" use cases which, at least at our company across all departments, far outweight "open and closed" use cases.

Our interest / problems related to this persist. I haven't been vocal as I don't know what else to do other than to share my feedback, but I continue to hear negative feedback internally in our company regarding this issue, per the description above.

You've made it quite clear on multiple occasions Phabricator is a painful product to use for everyone at your company.

@chad I am trying to give constructive feedback to improve the product, including both the pain points and suggested improvements. I am not used to this kind of response to product feedback. It's unfortunate.

Your feedback is continually negative and tone deaf.

Users can customize their search (like I have below) or you can fork Phabricator to provide a different experience.

@chad thanks for sharing your perspective - I will try to share positive feedback as well. Hopefully that will allow the constructive feedback I have to be considered, as I have felt like the feedback and ideas I have shared have often been dismissed or had a very harsh response.

I'm sorry to hear you feel that my feedback is tone deaf. My intention has been to be constructive and helpful, providing ideas and sharing insight into what real users of phabricator (we have nearly 100 at our company) are experiencing. I genuinely want to help make the product better.

I do think that text communication can sometimes sound more harsh than it is intended. That's one reason why I offered to communicate verbally. I am actually interested in helping improve the product and be constructive and offer solutions; that's the reason I have been engaged here.

Regarding this task, thank you for the workaround - I do not believe it would address the core concern which is regarding the expectation of users on my team has been to see just open items, but I will share this as a workaround when folks bring it up.

Thanks, much appreciated! 👍🏻