Aglet

Learn from query spelling variants and correction mistakes

Spelling lessons should explain why a correction helped or misled, including the language and product context that mattered. Compare later variant searches with the original matrix, then improve one review practice that keeps literal intent and correction confidence visible. Keep the original wording available when the correction is uncertain.

Keep the lesson for the next incident

  1. Keep the original pair

    Record literal phrase, proposed correction, language, result overlap, accepted wording, and exclusions. Note whether the gap came from customer vocabulary or catalog naming. This preserves a useful example without making the correction rule broader than its evidence.

  2. Compare later variants

    Review new typos, valid uncommon terms, and brand names after the change. Look for a different family receiving the same correction or a useful literal query losing visibility. Preserve a working control and a misleading example.

  3. Refine one review question

    Require a positive correction, valid near miss, rejection path, and locale note before future approval. Assign ownership and revisit date. Define the observation that would show the question reduced accidental intent changes rather than merely increasing result count.

What to carry forward

The learning output links a spelling decision to later evidence and one repeatable correction review. Stop when another reviewer can test a useful typo and a valid near miss. Carry forward uncertainty where language or product naming still changes the meaning of an edit.

Technical background: GOV.UK developer documentation.

Keep the decision with the work.

Use a Work Item in Aglet to record the problem, the evidence you have, and the next decision. Add an owner and priority, then keep updates in the discussion so the next person can follow the reasoning.

Create an account See the product workflow