How about using a two-frame page as the link with a "rate this link" option shown as a one-line toolbar at the top of the page? Users could then rate the appropriateness of the link from "wrong" to "fantastic", which would allow automatic removal of incorrect links and an simple administration list of links considered "poor".
On 26/11/2007, Tom Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Thanks for the feedback ! > > Muddy boots is cool... > > TheyWorkForYou.com adds links to Hansard by matching Proper Names with > Wikipedia entries. > http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2007-11-21a.1190.1 > > The number false positives is acceptable and the wikipedia links are > miles better than the user-generated glossary with which the site was > launched. But it's still limited since it only parses for Capitalised > Phrases or ACRONYMS. > > Shifting to term extraction seemed an obvious route, but as I think > Muddy Boots shows, term extraction tends to throw up unacceptably > large number of 'false positive' terms- these result in crappy random > links and are user experience poison. > > However, you can minimise "false positive" terms by running the copy > through several different flavours of term extractor, and only using > terms thrown up by x or more of them (where x depends on your appetite > for false positives vs false negatives). > > So, why not throw the copy through several more term extractors then > only use the overlapping terms? > > - The BBC has at least one *excellent* term extractor in house which > adds extra metadata like 'this term is a person/place/topic'... would > be a lovely API to offer, hint hint... > - > Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please > visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. > Unofficial > list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ > -- Please email me back if you need any more help. Brian Butterworth http://www.ukfree.tv
