Thanks for the reply Your thoughts are what I initially was thinking. But, given some more consideration, I imagined a system that would take all the docs that would be returned for a given facet, and get an average score based on their scores from the original search that produced the facets. This would be the facet values rank. So, a higher ranked facet value would be more likely to return higher ranked results.
The idea is that if you want a broad loose search over a large dataset, and you order the results based on rank, so you get the most relevant results at the top, e.g. the first page in a search engine website. You might have pages and pages of results, but it's the first few pages of results that are highly ranked that most users generally see. As the relevance tapers off, then generally do another search. However, if you compute facet values on these results, you have no way of knowing if one facet value for a field is more or less likely to return higher scored, relevant records for the user. You end up getting facet values that match records that is often totally irrelevant. We can sort by Index order, or Count of docs returned. Would I would like is a sort based on Score, such that it would be sum(scores)/Count. I would assume that most users would be interested in the higher ranked ones more often. So, a more efficient UI could be built to show just the high ranked facets on this score, and provide a control to show all the facets (not just the high ranked ones.) Does this clear up my post at all? Perhaps this wouldn't be too hard for me to implement. I have lots of Java experience, but no experience with Lucene or Solr code. thoughts? thanks gene On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 10:56 AM, Shalin Shekhar Mangar <shalinman...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 12:25 PM, ristretto.rb <ristretto...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> Is it possible to order the facet results on some ranking score? >> I've had a look at the facet.sort param, >> ( >> http://wiki.apache.org/solr/SimpleFacetParameters#head-569f93fb24ec41b061e37c702203c99d8853d5f1 >> ) >> but that seems to order the facet either by count or by index value >> (in my case alphabetical.) >> > > Facets are not ranked because there is no criteria for determining relevancy > for them. They are just the count of documents for each term in a given > field computed for the current result set. > > >> >> We are facing a big number of facet results for multiple termed >> queries that are OR'ed together. We want to keep the OR nature of our >> queries, >> but, we want to know which facet values are likely to give you higher >> ranked results. We could AND together the terms, to get the facet >> list to be >> more manageable, but we would be filtering out too many results. We >> prefer to OR terms and let the ranking bring the good stuff to the >> top. >> >> For example, suppose we have a index of all known animals and >> each doc has a field AO for animal-origin. >> >> Suppose we search for: wolf grey forest Europe >> And generate facets AO. We might get the following >> facet results: >> >> For the AO field, lots of countries of the world probably have grey or >> forest or wolf or Europe in their indexing data, so I'm asserting we'd >> get a big list here. >> But, only some of the countries will have all 4 terms, and those are >> the facets that will be the most interesting to drill down on. Is >> there >> a way to figure out which facet is the most highly ranked like this? >> > > Suppose 10 documents match the query you described. If you facet on AO, then > it would just go through all the terms in AO and give you the number of > documents which have that term. There's no question of relevance at all > here. The returned documents themselves are of course ranked according to > the relevancy score. > > Perhaps I've misunderstood the query? > > -- > Regards, > Shalin Shekhar Mangar. >
