Including families in a saved search for an active learning project is optional.

Outline:

• Hook and takeaway: In Active Learning setups, including Families in a Saved Search is optional.

• Quick context: What a Saved Search is, and what Families refer to in Relativity.

• Pros of including Families: clearer organization, grouped context, smoother retrieval.

• Cons of including Families: potential noise, leaner searches, simpler maintenance.

• How to decide: a practical checklist and adapting to project goals.

• Practical tips: example scenarios, step-by-step pointers, testing ideas.

• Common mistakes to watch for and how to fix them.

• Wrap-up: a concise recap and a friendly nudge to tailor searches to your team’s workflow.

Is it necessary to include Families in a Saved Search for an Active Learning project? The short answer: No, optional. Let’s unpack what that means in real-world terms and how you can decide what fits your team.

What are we really talking about here?

In Relativity, a Saved Search is like a smart filter you save so your team doesn’t have to recreate it from scratch every time. It helps surface the documents you care about, faster. Families, in this context, are collections or groupings of documents—think bundles that share some tag, category, or relationship. They’re handy when you want to add a layer of organization to your results or provide reviewers with a bit of context before they dive in.

Active Learning, on the other hand, is all about efficiency. The system suggests the most relevant documents to review next, based on what’s already been reviewed and what the algorithm believes will move the project forward. If you picture your workflow as a relay race, Active Learning hands your team faster, smarter candidates for review. The Saved Search acts as the map that keeps the runners on track. Families can be an optional breadcrumb trail along that map.

Why you might choose to include Families

• Better context at a glance. When a Saved Search includes a Family, reviewers see groups of documents that belong together. That grouping can hint at why a set of items is worth prioritizing, or help someone understand the dataset’s structure without opening each item.

• Smoother retrieval for related items. If the project frequently needs to pull together documents that relate to a single matter, a Family tag or bundle can speed up that retrieval. It’s like having a labeled folder within the search results.

• Consistency across rounds. If your team runs repeated cycles and expects the same kinds of groupings to appear, Families can keep the outputs predictable. Reviewers know what to expect, which can reduce cognitive load.

• A natural way to reflect data organization. Some datasets come with inherent groupings—by custodian, by issue, by date range. Including Families in a Saved Search can mirror that structure, making the review flow feel intuitive.

Why you might skip Families

• Leaner searches can be quicker to run. If the dataset is large or if performance is a concern, a simpler Saved Search without Families may respond faster and reduce processing time.

• Less noise, fewer decisions. Sometimes the extra layer of grouping can overwhelm a reviewer who wants to focus on the top few items. Keeping the search lean can help them zero in on relevance first.

• Fewer maintenance headaches. If the Families are dynamic or poorly standardized, maintaining the consistency of those groupings in every Saved Search can become a mimicry of a moving target.

How to decide in practice

Here’s a practical, down-to-earth checklist you can use:

• What’s the goal of the study set? If the aim is to surface documents that clearly belong to a single matter or issue, a Family context might help. If the goal is to score relevance quickly across a broad range, keep it simple.

• How stable is the data structure? If Families reflect a stable taxonomy—like a fixed set of categories or consistent custodians—feel free to incorporate them. If the structure shifts often, it might be safer to skip for now.

• Who is reviewing? If reviewers benefit from quick orientation and see the grouping immediately, Families can be a plus. If reviewers prefer a clean, flat list, leaner searches could be better.

• Do guidelines for the project specify it? If the project setup or data governance plan emphasizes certain groupings, follow that guidance. If there’s no mandate, you have room to experiment.

• What about performance? Run quick test searches with and without Families. Compare response times and reviewer feedback. Small differences can add up across large scales.

Practical tips you can apply right away

• Start simple, then layer in complexity. Begin with a Saved Search that captures the core relevance signals. If you notice a need for grouping, add a Family component in a second iteration.

• Use Families for baseline organization. If your dataset already ships with clear families (for example, by matter or custodian), include them to preserve the natural structure reviewers expect.

• Pair with tags or categories. If you decide to skip Families, you can still guide reviewers by tagging items with relevant labels. It’s a lightweight alternative that preserves navigability without overloading the Saved Search.

• Test with a pilot batch. Run a small, controlled exercise where a couple of reviewers compare results with and without Families. Gather feedback on clarity, speed, and whether the grouping actually helps or hinders.

• Document the reasoning. A brief note in your project plan or log can prevent ambiguity later. For some teams, what worked in one phase won’t in the next; having a record helps you adjust intentionally.

Common pitfalls (and how to dodge them)

• Overloading a Saved Search with too many Tags or Families. It can slow things down and confuse reviewers. The cure is restraint—stick to the essentials and only add complexity when you know it adds value.

• Inconsistent Family definitions. If different teams or rounds define Families differently, you’ll get chaotic results. Establish a simple, shared rule set for what counts as a Family and stick to it.

• Blindly following a pattern. Don’t assume that what works in one project will automatically work in another. Always align with current goals, data, and workflows.

• Ignoring reviewer feedback. If reviewers repeatedly ask for fewer groupings, listen. Adjust the Saved Search to fit real-world use, not theoretical elegance.

A few real-world analogies to keep things grounded

• Think of a Saved Search like a shopping list. You want the items that truly matter, not every possible thing in the store. Families are the pantry sections—they group items that belong together, making it easier to grab everything you need for a given dish.

• Imagine you’re organizing a library. Saved Searches are your discovery paths; Families are the shelves that hold related titles. Both help a reader move through the space with purpose, but you don’t have to label every shelf if you don’t need that level of order.

What this means for you as a student or practitioner

If you’re exploring Relativity’s capabilities, remember this: decisions about including Families in a Saved Search aren’t about rigid rules. They’re about matching the tool to your workflow. If your goal is crisp, fast access to highly relevant items and your data structure is straightforward, a lean Saved Search without a heavy Family layer can be the sweet spot. If you’re dealing with a complex matter where context matters and reviewers benefit from seeing grouped items, adding Families can pay off.

Let me explain with a small mental model. Picture a kitchen. A Saved Search is your pantry—everything you need for a particular dish is within reach. Families are like labeled baskets inside that pantry—they help you grab all the onions at once when you’re making onion soup, or all the herbs when you’re seasoning. If you’re cooking an everyday meal, you might not bother with the baskets. If you’re prepping a feast with multiple courses, those baskets become incredibly handy. Your choice should reflect the scale and complexity of the task ahead.

Wrapping it up

No, you don’t have to include Families in every Saved Search for an Active Learning setup. The choice is really about the balance between organization and simplicity, between speed and context. Start with a clean slate, test the waters, and let feedback from reviewers guide you. Whether you opt for a lean search or a more richly organized one, the goal remains the same: surface the most relevant documents efficiently and make the review process as smooth as it can be.

If you’re navigating this landscape for the first time, you’ll find that small experiments pay off. Try one approach on a single project segment, compare outcomes, and let practical results steer the next move. After all, Relativity is a toolkit meant to adapt to your team’s rhythm, not a one-size-fits-all solution.

And if you want a quick recap: Saved Searches help you surface what matters; Families can add a layer of organization, but they’re not a requirement. Use them when they add value, skip them when they don’t, and always keep the reviewer experience at the center. With that mindset, you’ll be able to move through Active Learning tasks with confidence, clarity, and a touch of thoughtful pragmatism.