Skip to main content
HB
Hiram BarskyProduct Designer + AI
Finding the Data Is Half the Job
Enterprise search rebuilt around whether you can trust a result, rather than how relevant it is.

Finding the Data Is Half the Job

By Hiram Barsky5 min read
Enterprise UXProduct DesignSearch

An analyst searches for revenue and gets forty results. The search worked. The next twenty minutes — deciding which table to trust — is the part nobody designed.

Enterprise search gets measured on relevance. Did the right rows come back, how fast, ranked how well. By that measure the system I was asked to look at worked fine.

It was still costing people their afternoons.

Forty Results Is Not an Answer

An analyst searches revenue and gets forty results back. Then the real work starts. Which table is current. Which one was deprecated but never deleted. Which one the finance team actually uses. Which one has the definition of revenue this question needs.

That is twenty minutes of asking colleagues, opening tables, and eventually picking one on a hunch. The search took half a second. The decision took the rest of the morning.

The problem — forty results, and no way to tell which table is current
Forty results, all plausible, none of them saying which table is current. The search worked — that's the problem.
Lineage on the result itself — where a table came from, when it refreshed, what depends on it
Lineage moved onto the result row: where the table came from, when it last refreshed, what depends on it.

Trust Is a Design Problem, Not a Data Problem

The instinct is to fix this upstream — better governance, cleaner catalogues, someone to deprecate old tables properly. Worth doing, and it never finishes. Meanwhile the analyst still has forty results.

The design answer is different: put the trust signals on the result, where the decision is being made. How fresh is it. Who owns it. How many people query it. Is it certified. Does it look abandoned.

None of that's new information. It exists in the metadata already. It was just kept somewhere the person deciding never looked.

Early concepts for the enterprise search result row
Early result-row concepts, from the pass where I was still designing consumer search with enterprise paint on it.

The Question Behind the Question

Every search interface assumes the user's question is "where is it". Often the real question is "which of these should I believe". Those need different screens.

If your users routinely find something and then go and ask a human whether to trust it, that conversation is a missing feature, not a cultural quirk.

What I built, the two calls that changed it, and what I got wrong are in the DAE Search case study.

Related UX Design Articles

You Don't Replace Excel by Being Better Than Excel

A bank was running multi-million-dollar loan deals in spreadsheets. The software that replaces that has to lose to Excel on flexibility and win on the thing Excel can't do at all.

Enterprise UXFintech UX
Read More →

The Work Is Deleting, Not Generating

AI made producing screens almost free. That moved the bottleneck from making things to deciding which ones to throw away — and no model will do that part for you.

AIProduct Design
Read More →

When Trust Is the Product, It Can't Be a Feature

Getting two strangers to agree to meet at a park is easy. Getting them to feel fine about it's the entire product — and it's not something you bolt on near the end.

Product DesignTrust & Safety
Read More →

Comments

Comments are read before they're published, so yours won't appear straight away.

Comments aren't switched on yet.