On 4/12/06, K.G. Schneider [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do users actually determine relevance or do they have faith in Google to
provide the best results on the first results page?
I'd say people use a click and try n times, before refine search
until relevance is fulfilled technique. But again,
On Apr 11, 2006, at 4:11 PM, Colleen Whitney wrote:
Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
not the right approach. And yet...I wish I could explain why it
seems as
though the clustering can tell us something.
Well, what is it you think the clustering can tell you something
_about_? This is an
Right. The observation had more to do with how to order the items within
a workset. The visitor was suggesting that a combination of popularity
and currency ought to be considered for determining display. So between
titles, you could show those titles that were more widely held first.
Then
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
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
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
@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: [CODE4LIB] Question re: ranking and FRBR
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
Whitney
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 1:06 PM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: [CODE4LIB] Question re: ranking and FRBR
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
@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Question re: ranking and FRBR
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
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
To: CODE4LIB@listserv.nd.edu
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Question re: ranking and FRBR
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
:06 PM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Question re: ranking and FRBR
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
12 matches
Mail list logo
