On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 2:57 PM, Kathy Lussier <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Mike, > >>>To be clear, weighting hits that come from different index definitions >>>has always been possible. 2.2 will have a staff client interface to >>>make it easier, but the capability has been there all along. > > Is this staff client interface already available in master? If so, can you > give me a little more information on how this is done?
It is. Go to Admin -> Server Administration -> MARC Search/Facet Fields and see the Weight field. The higher the number, the more "important" the field. -- Mike Rylander | Director of Research and Development | Equinox Software, Inc. / Your Library's Guide to Open Source | phone: 1-877-OPEN-ILS (673-6457) | email: [email protected] | web: http://www.esilibrary.com > > Thanks! > Kathy > > > >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: [email protected] [mailto:open- >>>[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mike >>>Rylander >>>Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 10:11 AM >>>To: Evergreen Discussion Group >>>Subject: Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Improving relevance ranking in >>>Evergreen >>> >>>On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 8:35 AM, Hardy, Elaine >>><[email protected]> wrote: >>>> Kathy, >>>> >>>> While the relevance display is much improved in 2.x, it would be good >>>to >>>> have greater relevance given, in a keyword search, to title >>>(specifically >>>> the 245)and then subject fields. I also see where having a popularity >>>> ranking might be beneficial. >>>> >>>> I just had to explain to a board member of one of our libraries why >>>his >>>> search for John Sandford turned up children's titles first. So having >>>MARC >>>> field 100s ranked higher than 700 in author searches would be >>>beneficial >>>> as well. >>>> >>> >>>To be clear, weighting hits that come from different index definitions >>>has always been possible. 2.2 will have a staff client interface to >>>make it easier, but the capability has been there all along. >>> >>>Weighting different parts of one indexed term -- say, weighting the >>>title embedded in the keyword blob higher than the subjects embedded >>>in the same blob -- would require the above-mentioned "make use of >>>tsearch class weighting". But one can approximate that today by >>>duplicating the index definitions from, say, title, author and subject >>>classes within the keyword class. >>> >>>-- >>>Mike Rylander >>> | Director of Research and Development >>> | Equinox Software, Inc. / Your Library's Guide to Open Source >>> | phone: 1-877-OPEN-ILS (673-6457) >>> | email: [email protected] >>> | web: http://www.esilibrary.com >>> >>> >>>> I can't comment on any of the coding possibilities other than to say >>>which >>>> every way doesn't negatively impact search return time is preferable. >>>> >>>> Elaine >>>> >>>> >>>> J. Elaine Hardy >>>> PINES Bibliographic Projects and Metadata Manager >>>> Georgia Public Library Service, >>>> A Unit of the University System of Georgia >>>> 1800 Century Place, Suite 150 >>>> Atlanta, Ga. 30345-4304 >>>> 404.235-7128 >>>> 404.235-7201, fax >>>> >>>> [email protected] >>>> www.georgialibraries.org >>>> http://www.georgialibraries.org/pines/ >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: [email protected] >>>> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf >>>Of >>>> Kathy Lussier >>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2012 4:43 PM >>>> To: 'Evergreen Discussion Group' >>>> Subject: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Improving relevance ranking in Evergreen >>>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> I mentioned this during an e-mail discussion on the list last month, >>>but I >>>> just wanted to hear from others in the Evergreen community about >>>whether >>>> there is a desire to improve the relevance ranking for search results >>>in >>>> Evergreen. Currently, we can tweak relevancy in the opensrf.xml, and >>>it >>>> can look at things like the document length, word proximity, and >>>unique >>>> word count. We've found that we had to remove the modifiers for >>>document >>>> length and unique word count to prevent a problem where brief bib >>>records >>>> were ranked way too high in our search results. >>>> >>>> In our local discussions, we've thought the following enhancements >>>could >>>> improve the ranking of search results: >>>> >>>> * Giving greater weight to a record if the search terms appear in the >>>> title or subject (ideally, we would like these field to be >>>configurable.) >>>> This is something that is tweakable in search.relevance_ranking, but >>>my >>>> understanding is that the use of these tweaks results in a major >>>reduction >>>> in search performance. >>>> >>>> * Using some type of popularity metric to boost relevancy for popular >>>> titles. I'm not sure what this metric should be (number of copies >>>attached >>>> to record? Total circs in last x months? Total current circs?), but >>>we >>>> believe some type of popularity measure would be particularly helpful >>>in a >>>> public library where searches will often be for titles that are >>>popular. >>>> For example, a search for "twilight" will most likely be for the >>>Stephanie >>>> Meyers novel and not this >>>> http://books.google.com/books/about/Twilight.html?id=zEhkpXCyGzIC. >>>Mike >>>> Rylander had indicated in a previous e-mail >>>> (http://markmail.org/message/h6u5r3sy4nr36wsl) that we might be able >>>to >>>> handle this through an overnight cron job without a negative impact >>>on >>>> search speeds. >>>> >>>> Do others think these two enhancements would improve the search >>>results in >>>> Evergreen? Do you think there are other things we could do to improve >>>> relevancy? My main concern would be that any changes might slow down >>>> search speeds, and I would want to make sure that we could do >>>something to >>>> retrieve better search results without a slowdown. >>>> >>>> Also, I was wondering if this type of project might be a good >>>candidate >>>> for a Google Summer of Code project. >>>> >>>> I look forward to hearing your feedback! >>>> >>>> Kathy >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> Kathy Lussier >>>> Project Coordinator >>>> Massachusetts Library Network Cooperative >>>> (508) 756-0172 >>>> (508) 755-3721 (fax) >>>> [email protected] >>>> IM: kmlussier (AOL & Yahoo) >>>> Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/kmlussier >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >
