The more I actually use Fibery day-to-day, the more tasks I complete, and the more “closed” entities I end up with. Yet they all still show up in my searches. This really limits the usefulness of search at times, whether in the Ctrl-K pop-up or in-line entity linking (this is even more of an issue due to Narrow texts in entity search pop-up make correct selection difficult. I’m not sure the best way to handle this. I know the “status” is a feature of the Workflow Extension. It seems important enough and often used enough that perhaps it deserves its own option in the search dialog, and one which could be persistent, i.e. I don’t have to check it on every search. It could instead be in Preferences for each user somewhere, I guess, but with an optional override on the search window (i.e. the setting controls the default state). Of course given the power and flexibility of Fibery, one could also imagine value in more general filtering based on the state of given fields, and being able to persist that. Honestly this seems like potential overkill to me though, or at least hard to imagine how to easily implement it (actually I just had some ideas, ask me for details if it seems important enough to discuss further). At the least I think starting with an ability to enable default filtering out of “closed” (or user-selectable status?) entities would be very helpful. Btw I know this has been talked about before elsewhere, but I couldn’t find a separate topic for it.

In doing a comparison of ClickUp and Fibery search functions today (Fibery won in a landslide, it’s shocking how bad ClickUp search is!), I again came upon the desire for the more general interpretation of this feature request. I even forgot that there had been further discussion in this topic about the possibility of extending the specific “filter based on workflow status” to the more general “filter based on contents/status of arbitrary fields”, and I came to the forum to make exactly that request. I typed it all up and everything, and then, after linking to this and other topics… I decided I should read the contents of this just to be sure I wasn’t making a duplicate. And more or less I was. :grinning_face_with_smiling_eyes: But, so that time is not wasted, I am coming here primarily to ask @mdubakov whether it seems better to edit the topic title and/or update the first post here so that it better describes the broader feature request, or if perhaps I should make the following into a new feature request. An interesting thought occurs to me here, which is that Fibery’s own nice integration with Discourse probably makes it less problematic that later replies in this thread have changed the possible scope of the request, in that you can just highlight the important bits and reference them to the internally-tracked feature/dev task(s). However at least for participants here who are voting on the request, I think the title and first post are still quite important and worth getting right. So for now what I’m going to do is summarize what I think is the best version of this idea/request, along with linking to all the search-related topics that I think relate in some way, with some notes on how they are similar or differ. This can be added to the first post if it makes sense to do so, or split-off into its own thread (as the length of it seems to suggest, now that I’m done writing and mocking it all up :laughing:). Request Summary - Search Filtering Based on Field Values I would like an additional filter function or filter “pane” to be added to the “Quick Search” popup to filter the search results based on the values/contents of particular fields. Essentially the user should be able to filter the text-based search results not just by which Database it appears in, but also by values of certain fields in that database. For example being able to quickly search for entities in the Bugs database that are Assigned to a particular person, or where the Creation Date is older than a specified date. View Filters are Not Enough Obviously this is possible in View Filters already, but having to create an entirely new View+Filter (or a temporary filter, or even use My Filters) is cumbersome, especially as the number of databases increases. “View proliferation” is a real problem, and becomes especially so when view filtering is the only way you are able to effectively find things quickly based on multiple criteria. To my knowledge there are no really clear solutions from the team for this “view proliferation” (besides perhaps using the new Blocks functions to embed a bunch of different views on a single page, but that’s not really a good solution IMO). I don’t see a major reason why the Search dialog could not be elegantly extended to allow this dynamically (especially given that filtering functionality is already in the back-end, it seems). Implementation and UI Suggestions This of course does not work with all field types (primarily Rich Text probably doesn’t apply), and it should not include all fields for filtering by default (across all databases) because that would be unwieldy. We also would need room in the search dialog for these extra options, without making the dialog too large or cluttered. There are several ways this could be handled, for example a “Filter” button at the top of the Search dialog that pops out another search pane to the right (next to database filtering), or even a dialog just like the Filters on Views (pop-up with existing filter creation UI). Given the existence of the Filter UI and functionality, if it could be added easily to the Search dialog unobtrusively then it might be a very nice, low-impact solution. However a different approach with a more significant overhaul of the UI is what came first to my mind, so I’ll outline that for what it’s worth. Note that re-using the Filter dialog as mentioned above may in fact be the superior solution, I’m not sure. I just had this in mind so I wanted to put it out for everyone to consider. First, I think the existing database filter arguably takes up too much room (vertically), especially when you have lots of databases. A Discourse-like dropdown list (with search) could address this same UI need in a much more compact way: [image] This is the dropdown that appears when you click on the text “All Categories” on the Fibery forum home page. Hopefully it is clear that, by default, what you are viewing in the forum is contents from “All Categories”. In the Categories dropdown you have a Search, and you have a (scrollable, if necessary) list of Categories. This is the exact same functionality as the current Database filter in Fibery, but it takes up a fraction of the space, and expands only as necessary. This leads to my second suggestion, which is that certain “important” fields (or perhaps I should say “globally relevant” fields?), primarily what used to be called “Extension” fields (Status and Assignee in particular) be available for filtering across all databases. This might also include Creation and Modification dates since they are universal to all Entities. But filtering on more database-specific fields might perhaps only be available when a specific Database is selected. So what would appear below this compact dropdown Database list by default might be: State Assignee Creation Date Modification Date And perhaps Files (a “has files?” checkbox), and maybe even Documents and Whiteboard (i.e. “has documents?”, etc.). But those 4 above at the least seem worth including by default for filtering across all Databases. Then if you pick a Database, an additional set of Fields show up below that for filtering. Now this could be just all fields in that Database (those that make sense anyway), scrollable and searchale like the Database list currently is. Or it might be better to let Admins “promote” individual fields to be “Visible in search filter”, e.g. a simple toggle like “Let non-creators add new options” in multi-selects. Either way it might look something like this: [fibery-search-dialog-filters-etc_mockup1] Now that looks like a powerful search function! :tada: (of course there should probably be separators on the right side, maybe with titles to make clear what are “global” filter fields, what are DB-specific, etc.) And note that, at least as far as I can see, you haven’t lost anything from the current design, in fact if you want to you could even show the Database filter selection (dropdown) open/expanded by default, to hint that that’s the place to start for filtering. Although you’d want some way to also show that there are other filterable fields. Maybe limit the height of the expanded (but vertically scrollable) Database list… Bonus points if you can figure out a way to use some sensible interpretation of the Filter(s) to Create new entities with those values. :grin: (i.e. obviously the creation/modification date wouldn’t be inherited, but perhaps any inheritable field value would be) Double bonus points if Database selection for filtering can allow multiple DBs. :wink: I feel like the idea of this connects more generally with a couple of newer UI/UX conventions that I think have been a real revelation for many, some of which Fibery has adopted, others which it hasn’t. In this case it’s turning Search into something of a “Super search”, with extra “powers”. Other examples of things that make it so much quicker to get real work done are / (slash) menus and “command palettes”. I’d love to see Fibery add the latter one day, but that’s a separate feature request. :grinning_face_with_smiling_eyes: Killing Multiple Birds with One Big Stone This feature would, I think, help address if not entirely obviate the need for: [image] Filter search results based on Field Values Ideas & Features The more I actually use Fibery day-to-day, the more tasks I complete, and the more “closed” entities I end up with. Yet they all still show up in my searches. This really limits the usefulness of search at times, whether in the Ctrl-K pop-up or in-line entity linking (this is even more of an issue due to Narrow texts in entity search pop-up make correct selection difficult. I’m not sure the best way to handle this. I know the “status” is a feature of the Workflow Extension. It seems important e… as well as the related: [image] [DONE] Seeing "Closed" Entities grayed out in Search Dialog Ideas & Features As my Fibery instance grows, and the number of entities also grow, it’s becoming harder to find things with the limited search functionality while we wait on better indexing of content, and filters in that dialog. One thing that would really help short-term is adding the excellent “graying” you guys do of Entities with a “closed” type of State. It would be very helpful to see when in the Search Dialog simply closed entities as “gray.” Often I want to link live tasks to other places, like comm… At least in the context of the main search. For auto-complete (e.g. entity link/reference picker) you’d still want some of those improvements. Obviously this change would be more work than those two, but the net benefits would be far greater I think, and worthwhile. Other (Somewhat) Related topics I don’t think either of these existing requests are quite the same, but my request might help address some of these needs too Search contents of field (different than filter by field contents/status): [image] [DONE] Add search by fields Ideas & Features Currently, it’s not possible to search by fields. For instance, we have a Hiring app with Candidates. Two fields: Email, Phone. We can’t use search by these fields. That is super uncomfortable. We have to add email to the card and use CMD+F to find the person. Search within collection (this seems probably more difficult to replicate with what I’m proposing above): [image] Search Scoping - "Search within Collection" Ideas & Features In an Entity View, it would be useful to have a button for each collection to open the Quick Search box but scoped to search only the entities within that collection. Use case: My Project type includes a collection of “Meeting Notes” entities, and I want to easily search all of my Meeting Notes entities, but only the ones related to this Project (i.e., those in this particular Collection). The general need is for more flexible ways to limit/scope a Search. I.e., In any View, it should be poss…

I’m glad you are brining up search as it’s such a huge piece when a Fibery instance grows with content, and we use a lot of the power of Fibery to build out our entities with links, etc. and as a result we have a ton of content in here I’d love to see more searchable. I would like to add my own very needed Index comments in search to this mix, here’s why I think it’s relevant: You are suggesting in your mock up the ability to choose among ALL an Entities’ fields within search. In reality, Comments are also a field! When I’ve communicated with the Notion support team about their on lack of ability to search comments because they aren’t indexed in Notion either, the will respond telling me that ALL fields in their pages are planned, similar to your suggestion to have things like formula fields, doc names, etc. searchable. @Eugene_Vabishchevich 's request for Add search by fields is related, as again, Comments are fields. We have a similar situation where we have to write in Rich Text boxes info that really should be in Comments, because you can’t search comments after the fact. This is also a great post that talks well about some of the need of search, including indexing comments: [image] Add search by fields Ideas & Features Agree the search needs some love. As I input more and more data in Fibery, not being able to search properly become a very big pain point, one that prevent me to use Fibery with my team, and still as a PoC for now. At minimum: full text search on all fields: will allow to search in email, url fields at least. Contrary to what stated here Add filter for "closed" entities in all searches (and/or other indicator of entity status) only name and rich text fields seems searchable filter types: mul… Thanks!

Yeah, I did link to those threads, I believe. I’m making a distinction here between the content that is indexed and the ways in which we can control/filter/limit/refine the search on what is indexed. I see a request to “index comments for search” as separate from, though complementary to, the request I made above. Both are important, both can be implemented separately. Although given the huge potential amount of info in comments, implementing filtering before comment indexing might be nice. :grin: Anyway, as a consolation prize I’ve just voted for your request to index contents of comments in search. :wink:

Filter by all fields is relatively hard to do, since search works in a different data storage (Elastic) and it does not index all fields. To make it work, we have to index ALL fields and I am not sure this is viable. We can index some fields, like State, Assignments, and 10 other popular fields and add filters for them. This is relatively easy to do, but still not super easy.

Thanks for the details, this is very good to know to set expectation (i.e. we should not expect all fields ever, or at least not soon). :grin: That said I do think indexing popular/common fields would be quite nice and helpful to filter on them. I also don’t want to lose sight of the importance of filtering closed issues in particular. Even if a more general/flexible “filter by common field values” feature were added, I think you’d need some way to preserve last-used or set defaults or something so that e.g. Closed could always be filtered (by default) for those who want that (me and it seems a number of others). That’s why I was unsure if my new post above constituted a different request… Both can be with the same, broader “filter by fields” feature, but “filter closed” could also be implemented on its own. Fibery’s philosophy of flexibility suggests the general implementation, of course. But again keeping in mind the need for good (or customizable) defaults. Another thought that comes to mind is to wonder why you can filter the contents of a Table or List by any arbitrary field, but you cannot do that with Search. OK, so Search is on indexed content, that makes sense. But it returns a list. You send that list to the “filter table” function and filter it after search perhaps? There is probably some technical reason this does not work, but it makes some sense to me. :wink:

One of the big issues I’ve been having is that I can’t search normal text fields which means I have to resort to adding a lot of information into the name via formula as a workaround. Having an expanded search that would index all free text fields would be a great addition. Further to @Oshyan last comment, I wonder if the filtering of more structured fields like date, single select and workflows could be added on later in the process to refine records returned by elasticsearch. I’m sure it doesn’t work that way but thought I ask.

Oh, one more thing that would be nice to filter on: views. I love that Views can show up in Fibery search (they don’t in ClickUp and it sucks!). But when you have a lot of Views, a lot of Entities, or both (usually the case), it is not so fast to search and jump to the view. At least not as fast as it could be. A simple filter not just for Databases but to limit scope to Views would be :heart_eyes:.

[image] Oshyan: Anyway, as a consolation prize I’ve just voted for your request to index contents of comments in search. :wink: Thank you! I am really hoping this can be implemented. I feel like of Fibery gets greater adoption a lot of teams who are used to using comments extensively will need it, too. I am not aware of any Dev Tool that does not leverage comments as a foundation of how you communicate and update around work in motion. Thanks again!

And just to add my 2 cents to the conversation about what to index in search, I would be happy to have the areas that involve more user-created content that you might forget where it is and could be helped by search: Text boxes, what you’re referring to here: [image] cannibalflea: I can’t search normal text fields Comments (obviously) References Attachments I think adding the more complex filters to search would be much less useful now than indexing more content. Thanks again!

[image] B_Sp: I think adding the more complex filters to search would be much less useful now than indexing more content. Can’t really agree there. I already find searching turns up more semi-related things than I would like (they’re related in a technical sense, they have the right word[s], but in the wrong place). Adding in comment indexing would significantly exacerbate that without a way to turn it off. I’m now working with a team who will be importing nearly 40,000 records all into a single database, so filtering by DB does not help narrow that down. Being able to specify what fields are being searched would be very helpful in this kind of situation and as mentioned it would also go some way to addressing your other request: Seeing “Closed” Entities grayed out in Search Dialog But I recognize that your particular workflow really would benefit from comments indexing. I guess my teams just don’t work as much that way, which is interesting. Or maybe it’s the type of work being done. :thinking:

Filter search results based on Field Values

Ideas & Features

mdubakov June 11, 2026, 1:19pm 37

Now you can filter by People fields and Created By field June 11, 2026 / Allow certain non-Admins to manage Users, Filter search results by People fields

Topic		Replies	Views
[DONE] Seeing "Closed" Entities grayed out in Search Dialog Ideas & Features search	19	2658	June 1, 2023
[✔️ DONE] Indexing Entity contents and Docs for Search Ideas & Features	23	2187	September 20, 2022
Killer search function that is a NATURAL fit for Fibery Ideas & Features	12	787	November 2, 2023
April 6, 2023 / Relation filters, breadcrumbs in search, back-references in Documents Changelog	31	1981	April 19, 2023
[DONE] Add search by fields Ideas & Features search	11	1382	October 10, 2024