thanks guys. it doesn't depend on absolute scores, but it is leaning on the score as a confident metric of sorts. we've found some good standard deviation info when plotting out the accuracy of the top result and the relative score with the analyzers currently in production and hope to strengthen that confidence when it's right and lower it when it's wrong with the latest fine-tuning. so far so good, too.
regarding the new question itself, i'd replied to this thread w more info but had the system kick it back to me for some reason. maybe i replied too much too soon? anyway, it ended up being a result of my query still being in the primary query box instead of moving it to the q.alt box. i'd thought the "alt" was indicative of it being an *alternate* query strictly speaking. changed it to house the query and voila! thanks- -- *John Blythe* Product Manager & Lead Developer 251.605.3071 | j...@curvolabs.com www.curvolabs.com 58 Adams Ave Evansville, IN 47713 On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 4:23 PM, Walter Underwood <wun...@wunderwood.org> wrote: > I was going to post the same advice. If your approach depends on absolute > scores, you need to change your approach. > > wunder > Walter Underwood > wun...@wunderwood.org > http://observer.wunderwood.org/ (my blog) > > > On May 20, 2015, at 2:09 PM, Shawn Heisey <apa...@elyograg.org> wrote: > > > On 5/20/2015 2:54 PM, John Blythe wrote: > >> new question re edismax: when i turn it on (in solr admin) my score goes > >> wayyyyyy down. from 772 to 4.9. > >> > >> what in the edismax query parser would account for that huge nosedive? > > > > Scores are 100% relative, and the number only has meaning in the context > > of that specific query. You cannot compare scores from one query to > > scores from another query done with different parameters, especially if > > it's using a different query parser, and expect those numbers to mean > > anything. > > > > The actual number is doesn't matter ... what matters is how the > > documents score compared to *each other* -- what order the documents > > have within a single result. > > > > Thanks, > > Shawn > > > >
