David I think it can be done, but a score has no real *meaning* to your domain other than the one you engineer into it. There's no 1-100 scale that guarantees at 100 that your users will love the results.
Solr isn't really a turn key solution. It requires you to understand more deeply what relevance means in your domain and how to use the features of the engine to achieve the right use experience. What's a relevant result? What does Relevant mean for your users? What user experience are you creating? Is this a news search where you need to filter out old articles? Or ones that aren't trustworthy? Or articles where the body doesn't match enough user keywords? Or restaurants outside a certain radius as not usable? I've been in similar situation and usually getting rid of "low quality" results involves creative uses of filters to remove obvious low-value cases. You can create an fq for example that limits the results to only include articles where at least 2 keywords match the body field. Or express some minimum proximity, popularity, or recency requirement. I think you're going to meet frustration until you can pin down your users and/or your stakeholders on what they want. This is always the hard prob btw;) On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 11:45 AM David Kramer <david.kra...@shoebuy.com> wrote: > The idea is to not return poorly matching results, not to limit the number > of results returned. One query may have hundreds of excellent matches and > another query may have 7. So cutting off by the number of results is > trivial but not useful. > > Again, we are not doing this for performance reasons. We’re doing this > because we don’t want to show products that are not very relevant to the > search terms specified by the user for UX reasons. > > I had hoped that the responses would have been more focused on “it’ can’t > be done” or “here’s how to do it” than “you don’t want to do it”. I’m > still left not knowing if it’s even possible. The one concrete answer of > using frange doesn’t help as referencing score in either the q or the fq > produces an “undefined field” error. > > Thanks. > > On 4/11/17, 8:59 AM, "Dorian Hoxha" <dorian.ho...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Can't the filter be used in cases when you're paginating in > sharded-scenario ? > So if you do limit=10, offset=10, each shard will return 20 docs ? > While if you do limit=10, _score<=last_page.min_score, then each shard > will > return 10 docs ? (they will still score all docs, but merging will be > faster) > > Makes sense ? > > On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 12:49 PM, alessandro.benedetti < > a.benede...@sease.io > > wrote: > > > Can i ask what is the final requirement here ? > > What are you trying to do ? > > - just display less results ? > > you can easily do at search client time, cutting after a certain > amount > > - make search faster returning less results ? > > This is not going to work, as you need to score all of them as Erick > > explained. > > > > Function query ( as Mikhail specified) will run on a per document > basis ( > > if > > I am correct), so if your idea was to speed up the things, this is > not > > going > > to work. > > > > It makes much more sense to refine your system to improve relevancy > if your > > concern is to have more relevant docs. > > If your concern is just to not show that many pages, you can limit > that > > client side. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- > > --------------- > > Alessandro Benedetti > > Search Consultant, R&D Software Engineer, Director > > Sease Ltd. - www.sease.io > > -- > > View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3. > > nabble.com/Filtering-results-by-minimum-relevancy-score- > > tp4329180p4329295.html > > Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > > > >
