Hi Ted
I can't tell who you're responding to (thinking me as I worded things
ambiguously). I was restating my original thoughts on how it was to be set
up that you had earlier confirmed (I think) but what i wrote could be read
in two ways.
I think pat's last post with corrected example jives with my understanding
where the only 1s in that row are the ones corresponding to items/actions
that survived the (root?)llr cut. One extra field for each possible
crossaction in addition to the "similar" one.
On Jul 31, 2013 3:05 PM, "Ted Dunning"
<ted.dunn...@gmail.com<javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'ted.dunn...@gmail.com');>>
wrote:
> The fields actually point the other direction. They contain items which,
> if they appear in a history, indicate that the current document is a good
> recommendation.
>
> This reversal of roles is what makes search work.
>
> Going the other way works for a single doc, but that only gives a list of
> id's which then have to be retrieved. Better to have the tags for the
> single doc on all the related docs so that a single retrieval will pull
> them all in with their details.
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 11:51 AM, Pat Ferrel
> <pat.fer...@gmail.com<javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'pat.fer...@gmail.com');>>
> wrote:
>
> > OK and yes. The docs will look like:
> >
> > <add>
> > <doc>
> > <field name='item_id'>ipad</field>
> > <field name='similar_items'>iphone</field>
> > <field name='cross_action_similar_items'>iphone nexus</field>
> > </doc>
> > <doc>
> > <field name='item_id'>iphone</field>
> > <field name='similar_items'>ipad</field>
> > <field name='cross_action_similar_items'>ipad galaxy</field>
> > </doc>
> > </add>
> >
> >
> > On Jul 31, 2013, at 11:42 AM, B Lyon <bradfl...@gmail.com<javascript:_e({},
> > 'cvml', 'bradfl...@gmail.com');>>
> wrote:
> >
> > I'm interested in helping as well.
> > Btw I thought that what was stored in the solr fields were the
> llr-filtered
> > items (ids I guess) for the could-be-recommended things.
> >
>
--
BF Lyon
http://www.nowherenearithaca.com
