At 9:44 PM -0500 1/4/00, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
>(BTW, would this relate to stuff in the "PageRank" paper?)
Not quite. The folks at Google propose a PageRank essentially as
measure of "influence" essentially, you're more important if
important pages link to you.
>I believe score adjustments such as this, generally should best
>be done at the time of the *search* not at the time of indexing
Yes, a big change with the new word database is that *all* the
scoring is done on the fly for searches. This should allow us to find
some good defaults too. ;-)
>I believe using this type of formula is a lot better than
>e.g. having the attribute value as a triple with two numeric
Hmm. I hadn't thought of it. I think I was going along simply as a
factor, not an added (or subtracted) constant.
>I'm not sure how the list of pairs should be applied; either the
>formulas for all matching items should be cascaded, or just the
>first matching item picked. I guess that using only the first
>specified url pattern that matches makes most sense and will
>give the least surprises.
Hmm. That could be a bit tricky, but you're right that it would seem
the Right Thing To DoTM.
>I plan to provide patches and check them in for the htdig-3-1-x
>branch (in particular, 3.1.4) in addition to installing it on the
>main trunk.
We're trying to leave 3-1-x to very minor changes and significant bug
fixes. The 3-2-x branch is firming up for a 3.2.0b1 release and while
it's up to the list for a vote for that release, I'm going to begin
cracking the whip on that release, so I'd give it a -1 simply so we
can get the thing out the door.
It sounds good and it's certainly the most concrete proposal on this
yet. I won't mention how people have also asked for adding URL pieces
to the database. (You know, a search for FAQ returns /FAQ...)
Cheers,
-Geoff
------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the htdig3-dev mailing list, send a message to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
You will receive a message to confirm this.
