On Fri, 6 Jul 2001, Gilles Detillieux wrote:
+ > http://wwwsearch.ox.ac.uk/scores.html
+
+ That's a great writeup, and I agree with your recommendations. We may want
+ to consider changing the defaults in upcoming releases.
Thanks for that Gilles. The people who were so keen to know how to ensure
their pages got a good score (don't they all 8-) never did offer to debate
the settings. As you think my suggestions are reasonable, I've just put
them in for tonights reindex. I'll report to the list if anything goes
dramatically wrong!
+ I do want to correct one inaccuracy in the document, though. You say:
<snip>
+ It actually doesn't tail off one per word, but rather the factor of 0-1000
+ indicates tens of percentages from the end of the document, so it doesn't
+ actually hit zero except maybe for the last word or so of large documents.
Thanks, I evidently misunderstood when the matter came up on the list. I
have just changed my wording to a paraphrase of yours.
+ I would tend to agree that this isn't a great idea, but I'm not sure I
+ should take that out for 3.1.6. Maybe another config attribute?
That sounds a solution. I guess you don't want to get too complicated but
perhaps it could be an integer pair giving the weighting for the first and
last word in the file with a linear ramp between them. He who wants to
bias towards the later words in the document is welcome to do so!
Could you allow a single integer for a flat weighting? If the default is
'1000 1' then any existing weighting effects will carry forward until the
option is invoked.
regards,
Malcolm.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://users.ox.ac.uk/~malcolm/
_______________________________________________
htdig-general mailing list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To unsubscribe, send a message to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> with a
subject of unsubscribe
FAQ: http://htdig.sourceforge.net/FAQ.html
