Great inputthanks for the discussion. A few notes on what we're
seeing on our end:
a) We've just finished testing a content-based relevance ranking method
with users; it works well for academic users, and will probably work
better with some tweaking of field weights.I'll have more speci
Actually we've been experimenting with 'audience level'
(http://www.oclc.org/research/projects/audience/) which attempts to
address that, based on what type of libraries hold the items. It should
help, but again, this is new and we don't have much more than anecdotal
evidence so far, and how to wo
The only tricky thing about this with WorldCat, though, is that you have
such a large mix of libraries.
In my own searching on WorldCat, I've noticed that a fair amount of
fiction and non-scholarly works appear near the top of results because
the public libraries are skewing the holdings of those
> I'd agree with this.
>
> Actually, though, 'relevancy' ranking based on where terms occur in the
> record and how many times they occur is of minor help compared to some
> sort of popularity score. WorldCat holdings work fairly well for that,
> as should circulation data. The primary example of
I'd agree with this.
Actually, though, 'relevancy' ranking based on where terms occur in the
record and how many times they occur is of minor help compared to some
sort of popularity score. WorldCat holdings work fairly well for that,
as should circulation data. The primary example of this sort
When you are ranking on number of holdings like OCLC is, a straight
sum makes sense to me---the sum of all libraries holding copies of
any manifestation of the FRBR work is indeed the sum of the holdings
for all the records in the FRBR work set. Of course.
If you're doing relavancy rankings inste
We're doing straight sums of the holdings of all the manifestations in
the work. It's hard for me to see the need to discount holdings in
multiple manifestations. It does mean that 'bible' tends to come to the
top for many searches, but that's about the only work-set I see coming
up unexpectedly
> Here at OCLC we're ranking based on the holdings of all the records in
> the retrieved work set. Seems to work pretty well.
Ok, truly intended as genuine curiosity--not intending to be
provocative--but how do you know it's working well?
Karen G. Schneider
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> --Th
>
> -O
Thanks...is it just a straight sum, Thom?
--C
Hickey,Thom wrote:
Here at OCLC we're ranking based on the holdings of all the records in
the retrieved work set. Seems to work pretty well.
--Th
-Original Message-
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Colleen
Here at OCLC we're ranking based on the holdings of all the records in
the retrieved work set. Seems to work pretty well.
--Th
-Original Message-
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Colleen Whitney
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 1:06 PM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.
Hello all,
Here's a question for anyone who has been thinking about or working with
FRBR for creating record groupings for display. (Perhaps others have
already discussed or addressed this...in which case I'd be happy to have
a pointer to resources that are already out there.)
In a retrieval en
11 matches
Mail list logo
