Provide more details - like what did you search for and what was in the field of the record that was found "incorrectly"..
My checkbox set is set to pull from a departments table. If I do a search for accounting in the primary 150 records table, with the checkboxes, I'll get 17 records back correctly, and 2 incorrectly. The 2 records won't have had the accounting checkbox ticked, but other choices will be ticked.
The 2 records won't have had the accounting checkbox ticked, but other choices will be ticked.
And those other choices are?
You should also check if there aren't any hidden values in the field: duplicate the field on the layout, format it as edit box, and make it tall enough to see the entire content.
The full list of departments are as follows:
Part of the problem seems to be related to the ID#'s. When tick Accounting in the checkbox, sometime I will get R+D in the search results with no Accounting ticked.
It looks like your field actually contains a list of numerical ID's, with the department names being the "second field" of the value list. Therefore, when you search for 3 it find all words that begin with 3 - including 33. You should search for =3 to restrict the find to whole words only.
>You should search for =3 to restrict the find to whole words only.
I'm not sure how this would work in my situation. I have a checkbox group with multiple "words" to check off. To do what you're saying I would have to turn off the checkbox-type and switch to edit-mode-type, then do the search, which doesn't seem practical.
LOL, is it practical now?
If you want to specify the search criteria by checking off values, you can - but then you need a script to take the checked values and prepend a = to each one.
This doesn't look good. When I go into find mode I see a checkbox group, and it seemed straight forward. Click a box to search for something. One could argue, that's how it was designed.
What you're saying is I must add some kind of secondary text field +script to make this work? This seems like a logic hole in a substancial program.
You don't actually NEED another field (though entering the criteria into a global one while in Browse mode could be convenient). You DO need a script, if you don't want to insert those = signs manually.
Alternatively, you could make sure that no single value is also the the starting string of another. I wouldn't go there, but it IS possible.