I admit to a bit of frustration. With the past several messages, I simply asked (or, more accurately, tried to ask) how to alter the way that Lucene ranks relevancy, and I asked whether the selective boost mechanism might do the trick. I admitted that I don't know (nor care to know) the theory behind how relevancy is computed.
So far I've been told to review the archives (which I've done), and then this (which I don't understand - see my embedded [==>]comments below). What's next? Seems that I'm getting a message: "Figure it out on your own, you dummy." Maybe I've gotten on the wrong list by mistake? Terry ----- Original Message ----- From: "Leo Galambos" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Lucene Users List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2003 11:56 AM Subject: Re: Computing Relevancy Differently > 1) Lucene uses the Vector model, if you want to use different model ==>I have no idea of what that means, nor what the alternative to the "Vector model" might be. >you must understand what you are doing ==>which I don't, as I've already stated several times. >and you must change similarity calculations. ==>which means what? Is that part of Lucene? >AFAIK you would set the normalization factor to a constant value (1.0 or so). ==>Does this mean not to use boost? > 2) you are trying to search for DATA, not INFORMATION. It is a big > difference. For your task, you could rather use simpler engine that is > based on RDBMS and B+. ==>I didn't know I was excluding one for the other. Do I interpret all this to mean Lucene can't be adjusted to do what I was asking? That it's too complicated? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
