Hi, Is it necessary to re-index after changing weights for relevancy?
Beth Longwell Sage Library System On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 5:29 PM, Mike Rylander <mrylan...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 2:57 PM, Kathy Lussier <kluss...@masslnc.org> wrote: >> Hi Mike, >> >>>>To be clear, weighting hits that come from different index definitions >>>>has always been possible. 2.2 will have a staff client interface to >>>>make it easier, but the capability has been there all along. >> >> Is this staff client interface already available in master? If so, can you >> give me a little more information on how this is done? > > It is. Go to Admin -> Server Administration -> MARC Search/Facet > Fields and see the Weight field. The higher the number, the more > "important" the field. > > -- > Mike Rylander > | Director of Research and Development > | Equinox Software, Inc. / Your Library's Guide to Open Source > | phone: 1-877-OPEN-ILS (673-6457) > | email: mi...@esilibrary.com > | web: http://www.esilibrary.com > > >> >> Thanks! >> Kathy >> >> >> >>>>-----Original Message----- >>>>From: open-ils-general-boun...@list.georgialibraries.org [mailto:open- >>>>ils-general-boun...@list.georgialibraries.org] On Behalf Of Mike >>>>Rylander >>>>Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 10:11 AM >>>>To: Evergreen Discussion Group >>>>Subject: Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Improving relevance ranking in >>>>Evergreen >>>> >>>>On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 8:35 AM, Hardy, Elaine >>>><eha...@georgialibraries.org> wrote: >>>>> Kathy, >>>>> >>>>> While the relevance display is much improved in 2.x, it would be good >>>>to >>>>> have greater relevance given, in a keyword search, to title >>>>(specifically >>>>> the 245)and then subject fields. I also see where having a popularity >>>>> ranking might be beneficial. >>>>> >>>>> I just had to explain to a board member of one of our libraries why >>>>his >>>>> search for John Sandford turned up children's titles first. So having >>>>MARC >>>>> field 100s ranked higher than 700 in author searches would be >>>>beneficial >>>>> as well. >>>>> >>>> >>>>To be clear, weighting hits that come from different index definitions >>>>has always been possible. 2.2 will have a staff client interface to >>>>make it easier, but the capability has been there all along. >>>> >>>>Weighting different parts of one indexed term -- say, weighting the >>>>title embedded in the keyword blob higher than the subjects embedded >>>>in the same blob -- would require the above-mentioned "make use of >>>>tsearch class weighting". But one can approximate that today by >>>>duplicating the index definitions from, say, title, author and subject >>>>classes within the keyword class. >>>> >>>>-- >>>>Mike Rylander >>>> | Director of Research and Development >>>> | Equinox Software, Inc. / Your Library's Guide to Open Source >>>> | phone: 1-877-OPEN-ILS (673-6457) >>>> | email: mi...@esilibrary.com >>>> | web: http://www.esilibrary.com >>>> >>>> >>>>> I can't comment on any of the coding possibilities other than to say >>>>which >>>>> every way doesn't negatively impact search return time is preferable. >>>>> >>>>> Elaine >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> J. Elaine Hardy >>>>> PINES Bibliographic Projects and Metadata Manager >>>>> Georgia Public Library Service, >>>>> A Unit of the University System of Georgia >>>>> 1800 Century Place, Suite 150 >>>>> Atlanta, Ga. 30345-4304 >>>>> 404.235-7128 >>>>> 404.235-7201, fax >>>>> >>>>> eha...@georgialibraries.org >>>>> www.georgialibraries.org >>>>> http://www.georgialibraries.org/pines/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: open-ils-general-boun...@list.georgialibraries.org >>>>> [mailto:open-ils-general-boun...@list.georgialibraries.org] On Behalf >>>>Of >>>>> Kathy Lussier >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2012 4:43 PM >>>>> To: 'Evergreen Discussion Group' >>>>> Subject: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Improving relevance ranking in Evergreen >>>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> I mentioned this during an e-mail discussion on the list last month, >>>>but I >>>>> just wanted to hear from others in the Evergreen community about >>>>whether >>>>> there is a desire to improve the relevance ranking for search results >>>>in >>>>> Evergreen. Currently, we can tweak relevancy in the opensrf.xml, and >>>>it >>>>> can look at things like the document length, word proximity, and >>>>unique >>>>> word count. We've found that we had to remove the modifiers for >>>>document >>>>> length and unique word count to prevent a problem where brief bib >>>>records >>>>> were ranked way too high in our search results. >>>>> >>>>> In our local discussions, we've thought the following enhancements >>>>could >>>>> improve the ranking of search results: >>>>> >>>>> * Giving greater weight to a record if the search terms appear in the >>>>> title or subject (ideally, we would like these field to be >>>>configurable.) >>>>> This is something that is tweakable in search.relevance_ranking, but >>>>my >>>>> understanding is that the use of these tweaks results in a major >>>>reduction >>>>> in search performance. >>>>> >>>>> * Using some type of popularity metric to boost relevancy for popular >>>>> titles. I'm not sure what this metric should be (number of copies >>>>attached >>>>> to record? Total circs in last x months? Total current circs?), but >>>>we >>>>> believe some type of popularity measure would be particularly helpful >>>>in a >>>>> public library where searches will often be for titles that are >>>>popular. >>>>> For example, a search for "twilight" will most likely be for the >>>>Stephanie >>>>> Meyers novel and not this >>>>> http://books.google.com/books/about/Twilight.html?id=zEhkpXCyGzIC. >>>>Mike >>>>> Rylander had indicated in a previous e-mail >>>>> (http://markmail.org/message/h6u5r3sy4nr36wsl) that we might be able >>>>to >>>>> handle this through an overnight cron job without a negative impact >>>>on >>>>> search speeds. >>>>> >>>>> Do others think these two enhancements would improve the search >>>>results in >>>>> Evergreen? Do you think there are other things we could do to improve >>>>> relevancy? My main concern would be that any changes might slow down >>>>> search speeds, and I would want to make sure that we could do >>>>something to >>>>> retrieve better search results without a slowdown. >>>>> >>>>> Also, I was wondering if this type of project might be a good >>>>candidate >>>>> for a Google Summer of Code project. >>>>> >>>>> I look forward to hearing your feedback! >>>>> >>>>> Kathy >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> Kathy Lussier >>>>> Project Coordinator >>>>> Massachusetts Library Network Cooperative >>>>> (508) 756-0172 >>>>> (508) 755-3721 (fax) >>>>> kluss...@masslnc.org >>>>> IM: kmlussier (AOL & Yahoo) >>>>> Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/kmlussier >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>