On Thu, 12 Jul 2001, Gilles Detillieux wrote:
+ The proof is in the pudding. As I haven't heard back from you about this,
+ I'd guess that nothing went wrong. Did you notice an improvement in
+ rankings, though?
I'm afraid I don't have any systematic checks to hand! I'm taking the
lazy approach and waiting to see if anyone who has previously queried me
about our search rankings notices the change (for better or worse 8-)
+ Sounds reasonable, but we don't currently have "number list" handling
+ for attributes, so maybe this would be too much bother to implement.
+ I could always use StringList and then atoi() the numbers, I guess.
+ However, I think all we're really concerned about is controlling or
+ disabling the tapering off, so the initial value of 1000 can remaing
+ fixed. The overall scores for words are still regulated by text_factor,
+ so maybe all we need is a last_word_factor or something like that.
Yes, a straight last_word_factor would be fine, default 1 and set to 1000
for level weighting.
+ However, as there are still a lot of scoring problems in 3.1 that are
+ handled better in 3.2, I don't know how much effort I want to put into
+ kludging this up for a maintenance release. I'm open to suggestions
+ from anyone, though.
If in doubt, put the effort into 3.2!
regards,
Malcolm.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://users.ox.ac.uk/~malcolm/
_______________________________________________
htdig-general mailing list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To unsubscribe, send a message to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> with a
subject of unsubscribe
FAQ: http://htdig.sourceforge.net/FAQ.html
