Re: [CODE4LIB] Question re: ranking and FRBR

2006-04-11 Thread Alexander Johannesen
On 4/12/06, Jonathan Rochkind [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 If you are instead using a formula where an increased
 number of records for a given work increases your ranking, all other
 things being equal---I'm skeptical.

Ditto; I think the answer to this is that there needs to be some
serious pre-processing and analysis to come up with some really smarts
in terms of these searches. I don't think there is an easy way out
once you've gone past the ooh, shiny stage of whatever context you
bring the user; good or bad context?


Alex
--
Ultimately, all things are known because you want to believe you know.
 - Frank Herbert
__ http://shelter.nu/ __


Re: [CODE4LIB] Question re: ranking and FRBR

2006-04-11 Thread Ross Singer
Although, at the same time, I think Google has taught us that our result set
order doesn't have to be perfect.  It just has to be 'relatively accurate'
and present enough information to let the user determine its relevance.

I think a dependence on technology to 'solve this problem' is more
complicated than necessary.  Humans tend to be adaptable and (within reason)
fault tolerant.

-Ross.

On 4/11/06, Alexander Johannesen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 On 4/12/06, Jonathan Rochkind [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  If you are instead using a formula where an increased
  number of records for a given work increases your ranking, all other
  things being equal---I'm skeptical.

 Ditto; I think the answer to this is that there needs to be some
 serious pre-processing and analysis to come up with some really smarts
 in terms of these searches. I don't think there is an easy way out
 once you've gone past the ooh, shiny stage of whatever context you
 bring the user; good or bad context?


 Alex
 --
 Ultimately, all things are known because you want to believe you know.
  - Frank Herbert
 __ http://shelter.nu/ __




Re: [CODE4LIB] Question re: ranking and FRBR

2006-04-11 Thread K.G. Schneider
 Although, at the same time, I think Google has taught us that our result
 set
 order doesn't have to be perfect.  It just has to be 'relatively accurate'
 and present enough information to let the user determine its relevance.

Do users actually determine relevance or do they have faith in Google to
provide the best results on the first results page?

Karen G. Schneider
[EMAIL PROTECTED]