[Jeroen van der Scheer]

When adding songs to my playlist, I only want to see songs which names exactly match what I type. Like in Google; using " ". Right now I get a lot of hits from songs which names contain all the words I type, even if they are in an other order. Seems like a smart search, but I prefer simple.   Is that possible?

[Jeroen van der Scheer]

When editing a playlist and searching for songs I get more results than expected; songs with my searchwords in different order are also shown. Can I use something like the " " in Google, so I only get exact matching songs?
Most simple solution would be as a space is also seen as a caracter.

[Zubersoft]

Adding support for literal searches is on my list of things to do when time allows.

Mike

[Jeroen van der Scheer]

If I remember correctly; searching used to be literal until sometime last year. So maybe its easy (and not time-consuming) to get it back.

[Zubersoft]

Some users prefer the approach now where I will match any words in the search field to any words in the song title (as I made those changes based on user feedback). So I will have to add an option for a literal search to keep all users happy. I don't want to revert the changes I made.

Mike

[Lawrie]

Some users prefer the approach now where I will match any words in the search field to any words in the song title <snip>

Yup, I'm definitely one of 'em.

[A4-teclados]

" prefer the approach now where I will match any words in the search field to any words in the song title".

major user of this. Here!

[BRX]

I also strongly favor the current behaviour. Please keep it as default. But of course I don't mind an implementation of "" literal searches.

[Geoff Bacon]

I prefer the current method of partial matches

This means that the displayed list diminishes as you get near the required song and you have the option to scroll or select sooner.
It also means you don't have to remember the exact text and that you can type something in the middle of a title ( or anywhere) as long at it is unique enough to identify what you want.

Geoff

[McAroni]

I also prefer the current method.

[GraemeJ]

I agree, the current search is far better than a literal search in most cases.

[Jeroen van der Scheer]

Seems I'm the only one who prefers literal search . Still hoping it will be implemented someday...

[samibe]

I like the current implementation. Sometimes it would be helpful to use " " to do a literal search. I would find a literal search helpful for the times I can't remember the first word of the title but I can remember other consecutive words in the title (or other field).

[GraemeJ]

I would find a literal search helpful for the times I can't remember the first word of the title but I can remember other consecutive words in the title (or other field).

Surely, that is the whole purpose of the current search method.  A literal search requires you to know, exactly, what you are looking for.