On May 21, 2008, at 10:23 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
On May 21, 2008, at 8:26 AM, Stephen Green wrote:
Grant Ingersoll wrote:
Cool, hadn't seen that.
Hi folks. Long time lurker (in RSS), first time mailer. I just
wanted to say that (obviously) I think this is a great idea and we
sh
Also, for some historical perspective on the discussions had w/ TREC,
etc. see: http://lucene.markmail.org/message/2sfvirsn7jc3a3zo?q=TREC
On May 21, 2008, at 10:23 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
On May 21, 2008, at 8:26 AM, Stephen Green wrote:
Grant Ingersoll wrote:
Cool, hadn't seen that
On May 21, 2008, at 8:26 AM, Stephen Green wrote:
Grant Ingersoll wrote:
Cool, hadn't seen that.
Hi folks. Long time lurker (in RSS), first time mailer. I just
wanted to say that (obviously) I think this is a great idea and we
should try to push it a little further along. I posted a
Grant Ingersoll wrote:
Cool, hadn't seen that.
Hi folks. Long time lurker (in RSS), first time mailer. I just
wanted to say that (obviously) I think this is a great idea and we
should try to push it a little further along. I posted a bit more
about it in my blog this morning:
http:/
Cool, hadn't seen that.
-Grant
On May 20, 2008, at 1:01 PM, Steven A Rowe wrote:
On 05/19/2008 at 3:58 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
I think it is time the open source search community (and
I don’t mean just Lucene) develop and publish a set of
TREC-style relevance judgments for freely available
On 05/19/2008 at 3:58 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
> I think it is time the open source search community (and
> I don’t mean just Lucene) develop and publish a set of
> TREC-style relevance judgments for freely available data
> that is easily obtained from the Internet.
Stephen Green, Minion develop
