For someone that has many logins for a single URI (e.g. 100s of client Instagram accounts), it’s a huge pain to scroll through the list in the Chrome extension, which doesn’t have an option to sort by username or item name, only last used.
Then when using the search function, the query runs against every item available to the user.
The default in this context should definitely be to search against the current URI, with the option to search an entire Vault/Organisation.
You can combine multiple search terms to narrow things down, though.
Not sure what you mean – are you suggesting to add more words to the search? Because that just adds more results for me, not less
If you add a second word to the search, the items that contain both search terms should rise to the top of the search results (similar to a Google search). For example, if you type the following, then the instagram account for the client named “Clientname” should be at the top of the search results:
insta clientname
You can also use advanced search options, such as making the presence of one ore more search terms mandatory (in the examples below, the > character prefix is required at the start of the search string):
>+*insta* +clientname
or even some variation of the following (if you are still getting false positives):
>+login.uris:*insta* +login.username:clientname
If you provide more information about your scenario, I can help put together a search strategy that should work.
Thanks @grb, appreciate the response.
If you add a second word to the search, the items that contain both search terms should rise to the top of the search results (similar to a Google search). For example, if you type the following, then the instagram account for the client named “Clientname” should be at the top of the search results:
It definitely doesn’t work that for me. I’ve just tried a few different combinations of “instagram {exact-username}” and none of the combined searches brought the result to the top – some even pushed the result further down.
The situation is that there is no consistency in item naming, but the username and URI is obviously always going to be relevant – although sometimes a username will have @ at the front of it, and sometimes the URI will have a different slug.
From a usability point of view, I can’t teach an organisation to use advanced search options – it really needs to be simple to find the intended items, and that currently isn’t the case, and so this is a feature request to take a step towards better search functionality.
OK, thank you for clarifying your request. You may also wish to vote for the following Feature Request, which would provide a more general solution to the problem you’ve described:
Thank you @grb, I’ve voted for this request as well
Issue : I have hundreds of accounts in Bitwarden, a good part of them are related to the same @gmail account.
(you may have one password per account, you don’t have one email adress per account)
So, when I just want to login my @gmail account, I have to scroll down through all these account related to the same email adress and I never find my credentials at first sight… Scroll down, scroll up, actually reading credentials, then I find it.
The reason : the search bar only search for login/username. It never search any other element (name, note, or folder).
Then it sorts the results by alphabetical order of the entries name, and there’s no way to sort them otherwise.
Ease of use, less frustration, avoid disruptive manipulation and keep focusing on our actual task
Are there any related topics that may help explain the need and function of this feature ?
Don’t seems to
Are there any references to this feature or function on other platforms that may be helpful ?
Twitter. Any keyword in Twitter maybe related to an account, a hashtag, or media content.
Hi Pascal it’s a good practice to rename the Name field which gets prefilled with the base url if you use the safe prompt.
This way you can organize multiple accounts for the same service/website and only have to remember the site you use these credentials with. You then can see only your accounts, for that site with the ( changed) naming for a better overview in both the extension button or the context menu
While it does not change the way the search works (username / name fields) it is much easier and quicker to find the login you’re looking for
In addition Bitwarden’s search is more fully-featured than it appears at first glance. The way it’s designed, you can actually use SEO hacking tricks for your preferred items 
Besides that, Bitwarden supports account switching now. You may want to migrate those out so as to increase your security.
This is very difficult to enforce in a collaborative environment. I feel Bitwarden should be broadly appealing, not reserved for power users.
There’s no way we can train the average user to use advanced search functions.
@JoBert FYI, I merged some old threads to consolidate related/duplicated feature requests, and due to the way in which I merged the topics, some of the above comments are not in chronological order. Specifically, the comment that you have just responded to is almost 2 years old.
Oh apologies! Thanks for your hard work maintaining the forum.
This thread needs correction. What @grb said about basic search is false.
Using word1 word2 in the search bar of the bitwarden extension will not perform an AND search but an OR search. I.e. it will search for results which contain either word1 or word2.
Secondly, when using Full Text Search, only the first term is automatically using wildcards around it, so to get the desired behavior here, it would actually need to be:
`>+insta +clientname
to search for results containing “insta” AND “clientname”.
@bitwardnUser Welcome to the forum!
What i said is not “false” — only your interpretation of what I said is “false”. Nowhere did I say that using two search terms will perform a Boolean AND. By default, the search terms are combined using OR. However, the statement I had made was about the sort order of the search results:
Also, your statement about the wildcards is misleading, at best:
In my advanced search examples, I was searching for items containing terms like “instagram” or “www.instagram.com”, and a username exactly equal to “clientname” (not something like “clientname@example.com”).
On the other hand, your above advanced search example will find only vault items that contain the exact expression “insta” (excluding anything like “instagram”, “www.instagram.com”, etc.) and any string that has “clientname” as a substring (e.g., “thisclientname@example.com”). Here, I’m assuming that you intended for the “clientname” in your example to be rendered as “*clientname*” (tip: either add a ` character at the end of the expression, or escape the * character using \*).
Some examples are provided below
Without the “>” prefix (for advanced search mode), Bitwarden searches with implied wildcards prepended and appended to the search term (i.e., “*insta*”); in the search results shown below, we can see that there are login credentials for four different Instagram accounts — we will attempt to narrow this down to show only the account for “thisClient”.
When adding the “>” prefix (for advanced search mode), Bitwarden no longer searches with implied wildcard, and only finds items containing literal matches to the search term (i.e., “insta”):
Adding a “+” prefix to the search term makes it required:
The second term (“thisclient”) is now optional, because the search logic uses OR, unless a “+” as been prepended to the search term:
Adding explicit wildcards to the optional second search term (“thisclient”) would find items containing strings such as “thisclient@example.com” — but only if the vault item also contains the required search string “insta”:
In the search expression proposed by @bitwardnUser above, a “+” is prepended to the second search term making it required; here there are no vault items that contain an exact string “insta” and a substring “thisclient”, so the search results list is empty:
Here, the explicit wildcards for the second search term have been removed, in case they were not intended, after all; it is no surprise that there are still no vault items containing an exact string “insta” and an exact string “thisclient”:
Finally, we return to the original search expression from my October 2023 comment; as expected, this returns all vault items that contain “insta” as a substring (e.g., in “www.instagram.com”) and that also contain the exact string “thisclient”:
I stand corrected for the first point. And yes for the second one, I assumed putting the term inside backticks would format it as code, but apparently not.
It does, but it seems that you left out the closing backtick — here is the markdown sourcecode of your comment:
Secondly, when using Full Text Search, only the first term is automatically using wildcards around it, so to get the desired behavior here, it would actually need to be:
`>+insta +*clientname*
to search for results containing "insta" AND "clientname".
I can edit your post to add the second back-tick, if you wish.
For the second point, after looking at the screenshot examples that I posted, do you still disagree that the first term needs wildcards if doing an advanced search?