Chris Hostetter wrote:
For example, using the current scoring equation, if i do a search for
"Doug Cutting" and the results/scores i get back are...
      1:   0.9
      2:   0.3
      3:   0.21
      4:   0.21
      5:   0.1
...then there are at least two meaningful pieces of data I can glean:
   a) document #1 is significantly better then the other results
   b) document #3 and #4 are both equaly relevant to "Doug Cutting"

If I then do a search for "Chris Hostetter" and get back the following
results/scores...
      9:   0.9
      8:   0.3
      7:   0.21
      6:   0.21
      5:   0.1

...then I can assume the same corrisponding information is true about my
new search term (#9 is significantly better, and #7/#8 are equally as good)

However, I *cannot* say either of the following:
  x) document #9 is as relevant for "Chris Hostetter" as document #1 is
     relevant to "Doug Cutting"
  y) document #5 is equally relevant to both "Chris Hostetter" and
     "Doug Cutting"

That's right. Thanks for the nice description of the issue.

I think the OP is arguing that if the scoring algorithm was modified in
the way they suggested, then you would be able to make statements x & y.

And I am not convinced that, with the changes Chuck describes, one can be any more confident of x and y.


Doug

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to