[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1302?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Doron Cohen resolved LUCENE-1302.
---------------------------------
Resolution: Invalid
Lucene Fields: [Patch Available] (was: [Patch Available, New])
Okay I am convinced, thanks for bearing with me Hoss and Paul.
So I am closing this issue as "Invalid".
Just to summarize: "A match is a match is a match" (quoting Hoss) seem the key
concept:
I always thought of "match" as a saying (by the query) - "that document is
relevant for this query".
Seems to me now that a more accurate interpretation is: "that document is
*related* to this query",
where *positively related* would be *relevant* and *negatively related* would
be the opposite.
> explain should not mask negative scores
> ---------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-1302
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1302
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Query/Scoring
> Reporter: Doron Cohen
> Assignee: Doron Cohen
> Priority: Minor
> Fix For: 2.4
>
> Attachments: lucene-1302-explain-negative.patch
>
>
> Explanation.isMatch() returns false for 0 or negative scores.
> Hence negative scores are omitted from the explanation.
> This causes, when using e.g. BoostingTermQuery with negative boosts, a
> difference between the collected doc score and the score shown by explain().
> A word on the usage of this - BTQ with negative boosts is useful for
> "punishing" documents for containing a term. It also allows all sorts of
> tricks with multiplying query boost by the BTQ boost, so you get a positive
> score if both boosts have the same sign but negative otherwise. - I am sure
> there other uses as well.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
