I just tried several searches again on google. I think they've refined the ads placements so that certain kind of searches return no ads, the kinds that I've been doing relative to programming being one of them.
If OTOH I do some product related search, THEN lots of ads show up, but fairly accurate ones. They've immproved the ads placement a LOT! Dennis Gearon Signature Warning ---------------- EARTH has a Right To Life, otherwise we all die. Read 'Hot, Flat, and Crowded' Laugh at http://www.yert.com/film.php --- On Mon, 9/13/10, Satish Kumar <satish.kumar.just.d...@gmail.com> wrote: > From: Satish Kumar <satish.kumar.just.d...@gmail.com> > Subject: Re: mm=0? > To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org > Date: Monday, September 13, 2010, 7:41 AM > Hi Erik, > > I completely agree with you that showing a random document > for user's query > would be very poor experience. I have raised this in our > product review > meetings before. I was told that because of contractual > agreement some > sponsored content needs to be returned even if it meant no > match. And the > sponsored content drives the ads displayed on the page-- so > it is more for > showing some ad on the page when there is no matching > result from sponsored > content for user's query. > > Note that some other content in addition to sponsored > content is displayed > on the page, so user is not seeing just one random result > when there is not > a good match. > > It looks like I have to do another search to get a random > result when there > are no results. In this case I will use RandomSortField to > generate random > result (so that a different ad is displayed from set of > sponsored ads) for > each no result case. > > Thanks for the comments! > > > Satish > > > > On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 10:25 AM, Erick Erickson > <erickerick...@gmail.com>wrote: > > > Could you explain the use-case a bit? Because the > very > > first response I would have is "why in the world did > > product management make this a requirement" and try > > to get the requirement changed.... > > > > As a user, I'm having a hard time imagining being > well > > served by getting a document in response to a search > that > > had no relation to my search, it was just a random > doc > > selected from the corpus. > > > > All that said, I don't think a single query would do > the trick. > > You could include a "very special" document with a > field > > that no other document had with very special text in > it. Say > > field name "bogusmatch", filled with the text > "bogustext" > > then, at least the second query would match one and > only > > one document and would take minimal time. Or you > could > > tack on to each and every query "OR > bogusmatch:bogustext^0.0000001" > > (which would really be inexpensive) and filter it out > if there > > was more than one response. By boosting it really low, > it should > > always appear at the end of the list which wouldn't be > a bad thing. > > > > DisMax might help you here... > > > > But do ask if it is really a requirement or just > something nobody's > > objected to before bothering IMO... > > > > Best > > Erick > > > > On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 1:10 PM, Satish Kumar < > > satish.kumar.just.d...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > We have a requirement to show at least one result > every time -- i.e., > > even > > > if user entered term is not found in any of the > documents. I was hoping > > > setting mm to 0 will return results in all cases, > but it is not. > > > > > > For example, if user entered term "alpha" and it > is *not* in any of the > > > documents in the index, any document in the index > can be returned. If > > term > > > "alpha" is in the document set, documents having > the term "alpha" only > > must > > > be returned. > > > > > > My idea so far is to perform a search using user > entered term. If there > > are > > > any results, return them. If there are no > results, perform another search > > > without the query term-- this means doing two > searches. Any suggestions > > on > > > implementing this requirement using only one > search? > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Satish > > > > > >
