You are correct, that is why Evergreen would return the record. It is returning involv* in a "contains" keyword search.
Elaine J. Elaine Hardy PINES Bibliographic Projects & Metadata Manager Georgia Public Library Service 1800 Century Place, Ste 150 Atlanta, Ga. 30345-4304 404.235-7128 404.235-7201, fax [email protected] www.georgialibraries.org www.georgialibraries.org/pines From: "Gordana Vitez" <[email protected]> To: "Evergreen Discussion Group" <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2010 3:26:17 PM Subject: Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] keyword searching question Hi everyone, We've gone back through all of the searches that were odd...and I was able to determine that there is some truncating going on. For example: keyword search, all formats on student involvement retrieves the following record: http://evergreen.niagaracollege.ca/opac/en-CA/skin/nc/xml/rdetail.xml?r=47687&ol=2&t=student%20involvement&tp=keyword&l=2&d=1&hc=5&rt=keyword I figure it's coming up because of the words: students and involving. Am I correct in my assumptions? I guess this isn't a case of anything being wrong, just something we need to get used to? Thanks! Gordana Gordana Vitez Library Services & Systems Coordinator Niagara College Libraries Welland Campus 300 Woodlawn Rd Welland Ontario L3C 7L3 Phone: (905) 735 2211 ext 7404 Fax: (905) 736 6021 [email protected] >>> "Hardy, Elaine" <[email protected]> 14/09/2010 2:16 pm >>> My thought exactly -- several eyes might be able to catch something. Elaine J. Elaine Hardy PINES Bibliographic Projects & Metadata Manager Georgia Public Library Service 1800 Century Place, Ste 150 Atlanta, Ga. 30345-4304 404.235-7128 404.235-7201, fax [email protected] www.georgialibraries.org www.georgialibraries.org/pines From: "Dan Scott" <[email protected]> To: "Evergreen Discussion Group" <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2010 11:11:18 AM Subject: Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] keyword searching question Hi Gordana: On 14 September 2010 11:05, Gordana Vitez <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks to all for the technical and non-technical explanations. We had > thought all fields were searched but we've been getting some odd search > results that aren't explained by any of the explanations. I have a feeling > we'll need to track the oddities to find out if they are just odd or an > actual pattern. It would help a lot if you can describe the odd search results, copy the search URL (yay Evergreen for having persistent URLs) into the email, and describe what you were expecting to see. Then we can probably provide an explanation that would explain your search results, assuming an out-of-the-box set of indexes. Dan
