They don’t really explain how filters differ from advanced search in their mind, other than apparently assuming that advanced search must be on a separate page. IMO it’s a continuum.
Basically: the site has two separate search experiences: simple keyword, and keyword + filters, connected by a little dinky text link.
What they are arguing for is a single search experience that starts with a single text box, but then exposes filter options as part of the results UI. You don’t have to hit the “search” button again, instead you “apply filters.”
This is an example of “progressive disclosure,” where more powerful features of the software are revealed to the user as their try to do more complex tasks.
Honestly, I think this article is at least 5 years too late, though. The value of filters in the results page is so obvious that even Google has adopted it. While I’m sure there are still some “advanced search” pages hanging around out there on the web, no one builds site search that way anymore. They all provide filters now.
I also agree that my article is way too late and I did actually want to write about it 5 years ago.
I’m a little slow :D
In terms of Google, they still have a separate advanced search.
> [with] Advanced search […] every possible option is displayed even if they don’t have results.
Which dovetails into #3: it’s relatively easy to create queries with no results.
A filter would be not targeting a specific term, and would take no search terms, but would allow them to find the specific item they're wanting.
Intuitively, filters seem far superior to advanced search, as long as your search is good for one off items. I haven't ever really thought about this explicitly but now that I do, I always reach for:
1. very solid search for single items 2. very good filters
Some people think of advanced search as what they type into a box. Fair enough, naming things is hard.
I’m not sure how it’s a continuum - could you elaborate?