On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 4:56 PM, Brian Greene <[email protected]> wrote: > Does relevancy ranking currently take publication date into account? I think > this could be especially helpful with topical searches when, all other > things being equal, I'd probably consider the newer item to be more > relevant.
It is. The Date1 fixed field is used as a first tie-breaker after the primary (user-chosen) sort axis. --miker > Similarly, I could see home library (in cases where that can > be determined) being considered and used when there are two otherwise > equally relevant items. Note that in both cases I don't want them to become > de facto limiters, but rather act more like tie-breakers after the other > factors have been weighed. > > I also support taking into account some sort of popularity measure. > > Thanks, > Brian > > > Brian Greene, Library Director > Columbia Gorge Community College > The Dalles, Oregon 97058 > (541) 506-6080 | www.cgcc.cc.or.us >>>> Mike Rylander <[email protected]> 3/8/2012 10:55 AM >>> > On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 12:10 PM, Elizabeth Longwell <[email protected]> > wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Is it necessary to re-index after changing weights for relevancy? > > Not at all. The only gotcha is that cached searches won't show the > changed weighting (of course). So, say you searched for "rowling" > (sans quotes) and wanted to test an author-weighting change made after > the search (but before the cache expired), search again for "rowling > -asdlfkaf" (again, sans quotes). That negated random string at the > end kills the cache without materially changing the query. > > -- > 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 > > >> >> Beth Longwell >> Sage Library System >> >> On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 5:29 PM, Mike Rylander <[email protected]> wrote: >>> 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 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>> > -- 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
