Aglet

Prioritize query spelling variants without changing intent

Spelling work competes with other search fixes according to the journeys it rescues and the harm a wrong correction creates. Compare no-result friction with false matches across representative terms. A suggestion or confirmation may be safer than a silent rewrite when intent is uncertain.

Decide where the work belongs

  1. Rank the search consequence

    Describe whether the literal form returns nothing, irrelevant products, or a usable result. Compare common typo, uncommon valid term, and brand phrase. Keep evidence about language and device input because the same characters can reflect different intent.

  2. Compare correction options

    Set literal fallback, suggested correction, synonym mapping, language-specific rule, and no change beside one another. Consider reversibility and whether a person can recover the original phrase. Do not trade a small convenience for broad product-family confusion.

  3. Choose the queue move

    Name the term family, scope, owner, and revisit evidence. Decide whether to investigate, run a narrow correction test, improve copy, or collect more examples. Preserve both positive and negative cases so a later rank is not based on correction success alone.

What to carry forward

Prioritize a spelling change where it rescues a meaningful query and the correction preserves intent across representative contexts. The queue decision should state scope and fallback. If a false match would be costly, prioritize an explicit suggestion or evidence request over an automatic rewrite.

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